Adam Marcus

More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.

Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?

Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.

We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.

But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
 

Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?

A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.

However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
 

Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?

A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.

Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?

A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.

For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.

I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
 

Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?

A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
 

Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?

 A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *  

Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?

A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.

The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.

There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
 

Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?

A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
 

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?

A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.

There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.

My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.

*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
 

More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.

Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?

Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.

We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.

But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
 

Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?

A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.

However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
 

Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?

A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.

Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?

A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.

For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.

I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
 

Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?

A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
 

Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?

 A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *  

Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?

A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.

The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.

There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
 

Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?

A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
 

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?

A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.

There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.

My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.

*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
 

More than 1 in 10 Americans over age 60 years will be diagnosed with cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute, making screening for the disease in older patients imperative. Much of the burden of cancer screening falls on primary care physicians. This news organization spoke recently with William L. Dahut, MD, chief scientific officer of the American Cancer Society, about the particular challenges of screening in older patients.

Question: How much does cancer screening change with age? What are the considerations for clinicians – what risks and comorbidities are important to consider in older populations?

Answer: We at the American Cancer Society are giving a lot of thought to how to help primary care practices keep up with screening, particularly with respect to guidelines, but also best practices where judgment is required, such as cancer screening in their older patients.

We’ve had a lot of conversations recently about cancer risk in the young, largely because data show rates are going up for colorectal and breast cancer in this population. But it’s not one size fits all. Screening for young women who have a BRCA gene, if they have dense breasts, or if they have a strong family history of breast cancer should be different from those who are at average risk of the disease.

But statistically, there are about 15 per 100,000 breast cancer diagnoses in women under the age of 40 while over the age of 65 it’s 443 per 100,000. So, the risk significantly increases with age but we should not have an arbitrary cut-off. The life expectancy of a woman at age 75 is about 13.5 years. If you’re over the age of 70 or 75, then it’s going to be comorbidities that you look at, as well as individual patient decisions. Patients may say, “I don’t want to ever go through a mammogram again, because I don’t want to have a biopsy again, and I’m not going to get treated.” Or they may say, “My mom died of metastatic breast cancer when she was 82 and I want to know.”
 

Q: How should primary care physicians interpret conflicting guidance from the major medical groups? For example, the American College of Gastroenterology and your own organization recommend colorectal cancer screening start at age 45 now. But the American College of Physicians recently came out and said 50. What is a well-meaning primary care physician supposed to do?

A: We make more of guideline differences than we should. Sometimes guideline differences aren’t a reflection of different judgments, but rather what data were available when the most recent update took place. For colorectal cancer screening, the ACS dropped the age to begin screening to 45 in 2018 based on a very careful consideration of disease burden data and within several years most other guideline developers reached the same conclusion.

However, I think it’s good for family practice and internal medicine doctors to know that significant GI symptoms in a young patient could be colorectal cancer. It’s not as if nobody sees a 34-year-old or 27-year-old with colorectal cancer. They should be aware that if something goes away in a day or two, that’s fine, but persistent GI symptoms need a cancer workup – colonoscopy or referral to a gastroenterologist. So that’s why I think age 45 is the time when folks should begin screening.
 

Q: What are the medical-legal issues for a physician who is trying to follow guideline-based care when there are different guidelines?

A: Any physician can say, “We follow the guidelines of this particular organization.” I don’t think anyone can say that an organization’s guidelines are malpractice. For individual physicians, following a set of office-based guidelines will hopefully keep them out of legal difficulty.

Q: What are the risks of overscreening, especially in breast cancer where false positives may result in invasive testing?

A: What people think of as overscreening takes a number of different forms. What one guideline would imply is overscreening is recommended screening by another guideline. I think we would all agree that in an average-risk population, beginning screening before it is recommended would be overscreening, and continuing screening when a patient has life-limiting comorbidities would constitute overscreening. Screening too frequently can constitute overscreening.

For example, many women report that their doctors still are advising a baseline mammogram at age 35. Most guideline-developing organizations would regard this as overscreening in an average-risk population.

I think we are also getting better, certainly in prostate cancer, about knowing who needs to be treated and not treated. There are a lot of cancers that would have been treated 20-30 years ago but now are being safely followed with PSA and MRI. We may be able to get to that point with breast cancer over time, too.
 

Q: Are you saying that there may be breast cancers for which active surveillance is appropriate? Is that already the case?

A: We’re not there yet. I think some of the DCIS breast cancers are part of the discussion on whether hormonal treatment or surgeries are done. I think people do have those discussions in the context of morbidity and life expectancy. Over time, we’re likely to have more cancers for which we won’t need surgical treatments.
 

Q: Why did the American Cancer Society change the upper limit for lung cancer screening from 75 to 80 years of age?

 A: For an individual older than 65, screening will now continue until the patient is 80, assuming the patient is in good health. According to the previous guideline, if a patient was 65 and more than 15 years beyond smoking cessation, then screening would end. This is exactly the time when we see lung cancers increase in the population and so a curable lung cancer would not previously have been detected by a screening CT scan. *  

Q: What role do the multicancer blood and DNA tests play in screening now?

A: As you know, the Exact Sciences Cologuard test is already included in major guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and covered by insurance. Our philosophy on multicancer early detection tests is that we’re supportive of Medicare reimbursement when two things occur: 1. When we know there’s clinical benefit, and 2. When the test has been approved by the FDA.

The multicancer early detection tests in development and undergoing prospective research would not now replace screening for the cancers with established screening programs, but if they are shown to have clinical utility for the cancers in their panel, we would be able to reduce deaths from cancers that mostly are diagnosed at late stages and have poor prognoses.

There’s going to be a need for expertise in primary care practices to help interpret the tests. These are new questions, which are well beyond what even the typical oncologist is trained in, much less primary care physicians. We and other organizations are working on providing those answers.
 

Q: While we’re on the subject of the future, how do you envision AI helping or hindering cancer screening specifically in primary care?

A: I think AI is going to help things for a couple of reasons. The ability of AI is to get through data quickly and get you information that’s personalized and useful. If AI tools could let a patient know their individual risk of a cancer in the near and long term, that would help the primary care doctor screen in an individualized way. I think AI is going to be able to improve both diagnostic radiology and pathology, and could make a very big difference in settings outside of large cancer centers that operate at high volume every day. The data look very promising for AI to contribute to risk estimation by operating like a second reader in imaging and pathology.
 

Q: Anything else you’d like to say on this subject that clinicians should know?

A: The questions about whether or not patients should be screened is being pushed on family practice doctors and internists and these questions require a relationship with the patient. A hard stopping point at age 70 when lots of people will live 20 years or more doesn’t make sense.

There’s very little data from randomized clinical trials of screening people over the age of 70. We know that cancer risk does obviously increase with age, particularly prostate and breast cancer. And these are the cancers that are going to be the most common in your practices. If someone has a known mutation, I think you’re going to look differently at screening them. And first-degree family members, particularly for the more aggressive cancers, should be considered for screening.

My philosophy on cancer screening in the elderly is that I think the guidelines are guidelines. If patients have very limited life expectancy, then they shouldn’t be screened. There are calculators that estimate life expectancy in the context of current age and current health status, and these can be useful for decision making and counseling. Patients never think their life expectancy is shorter than 10 years. If their life expectancy is longer than 10 years, then I think, all things being equal, they should continue screening, but the question of ongoing screening needs to be periodically revisited.

*This story was updated on Nov. 1, 2023.
 

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral agent specifically for postpartum depression, a condition that affects an estimated one in seven mothers in the United States.

The pill, zuranolone (Zurzuvae), is a neuroactive steroid that acts on GABAA receptors in the brain responsible for regulating mood, arousal, behavior, and cognition, according to Biogen, which, along with Sage Therapeutics, developed the product. The recommended dose for Zurzuvae is 50 mg taken once daily for 14 days, in the evening with a fatty meal, according to the FDA.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Postpartum depression often goes undiagnosed and untreated. Many mothers are hesitant to reveal their symptoms to family and clinicians, fearing they’ll be judged on their parenting. A 2017 study found that suicide accounted for roughly 5% of perinatal deaths among women in Canada, with most of those deaths occurring in the first 3 months in the year after giving birth.

“Postpartum depression is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition in which women experience sadness, guilt, worthlessness – even, in severe cases, thoughts of harming themselves or their child. And, because postpartum depression can disrupt the maternal-infant bond, it can also have consequences for the child’s physical and emotional development,” Tiffany R. Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement about the approval. “Having access to an oral medication will be a beneficial option for many of these women coping with extreme, and sometimes life-threatening, feelings.”

The other approved therapy for postpartum depression is the intravenous agent brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage). But the product requires prolonged infusions in hospital settings and costs $34,000.

FDA approval of Zurzuvae was based in part on data reported in a 2023 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which showed that the drug led to significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group. Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in related symptoms compared with the patients who received a placebo.

The most common adverse events reported in the trial were somnolence and headaches. Weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, and increased suicidal ideation or behavior were not observed.

The packaging for Zurzuvae will include a boxed warning noting that the drug can affect a user’s ability to drive and perform other potentially hazardous activities, possibly without their knowledge of the impairment, the FDA said. As a result, people who use Zurzuvae should not drive or operate heavy machinery for at least 12 hours after taking the pill.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral agent specifically for postpartum depression, a condition that affects an estimated one in seven mothers in the United States.

The pill, zuranolone (Zurzuvae), is a neuroactive steroid that acts on GABAA receptors in the brain responsible for regulating mood, arousal, behavior, and cognition, according to Biogen, which, along with Sage Therapeutics, developed the product. The recommended dose for Zurzuvae is 50 mg taken once daily for 14 days, in the evening with a fatty meal, according to the FDA.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Postpartum depression often goes undiagnosed and untreated. Many mothers are hesitant to reveal their symptoms to family and clinicians, fearing they’ll be judged on their parenting. A 2017 study found that suicide accounted for roughly 5% of perinatal deaths among women in Canada, with most of those deaths occurring in the first 3 months in the year after giving birth.

“Postpartum depression is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition in which women experience sadness, guilt, worthlessness – even, in severe cases, thoughts of harming themselves or their child. And, because postpartum depression can disrupt the maternal-infant bond, it can also have consequences for the child’s physical and emotional development,” Tiffany R. Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement about the approval. “Having access to an oral medication will be a beneficial option for many of these women coping with extreme, and sometimes life-threatening, feelings.”

The other approved therapy for postpartum depression is the intravenous agent brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage). But the product requires prolonged infusions in hospital settings and costs $34,000.

FDA approval of Zurzuvae was based in part on data reported in a 2023 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which showed that the drug led to significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group. Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in related symptoms compared with the patients who received a placebo.

The most common adverse events reported in the trial were somnolence and headaches. Weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, and increased suicidal ideation or behavior were not observed.

The packaging for Zurzuvae will include a boxed warning noting that the drug can affect a user’s ability to drive and perform other potentially hazardous activities, possibly without their knowledge of the impairment, the FDA said. As a result, people who use Zurzuvae should not drive or operate heavy machinery for at least 12 hours after taking the pill.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral agent specifically for postpartum depression, a condition that affects an estimated one in seven mothers in the United States.

The pill, zuranolone (Zurzuvae), is a neuroactive steroid that acts on GABAA receptors in the brain responsible for regulating mood, arousal, behavior, and cognition, according to Biogen, which, along with Sage Therapeutics, developed the product. The recommended dose for Zurzuvae is 50 mg taken once daily for 14 days, in the evening with a fatty meal, according to the FDA.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Postpartum depression often goes undiagnosed and untreated. Many mothers are hesitant to reveal their symptoms to family and clinicians, fearing they’ll be judged on their parenting. A 2017 study found that suicide accounted for roughly 5% of perinatal deaths among women in Canada, with most of those deaths occurring in the first 3 months in the year after giving birth.

“Postpartum depression is a serious and potentially life-threatening condition in which women experience sadness, guilt, worthlessness – even, in severe cases, thoughts of harming themselves or their child. And, because postpartum depression can disrupt the maternal-infant bond, it can also have consequences for the child’s physical and emotional development,” Tiffany R. Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement about the approval. “Having access to an oral medication will be a beneficial option for many of these women coping with extreme, and sometimes life-threatening, feelings.”

The other approved therapy for postpartum depression is the intravenous agent brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage). But the product requires prolonged infusions in hospital settings and costs $34,000.

FDA approval of Zurzuvae was based in part on data reported in a 2023 study in the American Journal of Psychiatry, which showed that the drug led to significantly greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 15 days compared with the placebo group. Improvements were observed on day 3, the earliest assessment, and were sustained at all subsequent visits during the treatment and follow-up period (through day 42).

Patients with anxiety who received the active drug experienced improvement in related symptoms compared with the patients who received a placebo.

The most common adverse events reported in the trial were somnolence and headaches. Weight gain, sexual dysfunction, withdrawal symptoms, and increased suicidal ideation or behavior were not observed.

The packaging for Zurzuvae will include a boxed warning noting that the drug can affect a user’s ability to drive and perform other potentially hazardous activities, possibly without their knowledge of the impairment, the FDA said. As a result, people who use Zurzuvae should not drive or operate heavy machinery for at least 12 hours after taking the pill.

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

Myopia affects roughly one-third of the population worldwide - a figure that is projected to reach 50% by 2050. Low-dose atropine, which helps curb the condition, currently is available in the United States only through compounding pharmacies. The products contain preservatives – raising questions about potential toxicities to the eye – and may not be of pharmaceutical grade. In a new study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, a preservative-free eyedrop containing 0.01% atropine led to significant improvements in several markers of myopia in children who received the experimental therapy.

Methodology

• The CHAMP study was a double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted between Nov. 20, 2017, and Aug. 22, 2022, that involved children at 26 sites in North America and 5 centers in Europe.
• Children received either 0.01% or 0.02% atropine drops once per day.
• Patients were aged 3-16 years. They demonstrated a spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) of −0.50 diopter (D) to −6.00 D astigmatism no worse than −1.50 D.
• Of these patients, 573 were included in a safety analysis, and 489 were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

Takeaways

• After 36 months, the 0.01% dose of atropine was associated with a significantly lower responder proportion (odds ratio, 4.54) and slower progression of SER and axial elongation.
• The effect of the 0.02% dose on responder proportion and SER progression was not statistically significant, but the treatment was associated with slower axial elongation.
• The researchers observed no serious ocular adverse events and few serious nonocular events, none of which was determined to be associated with the treatment.

In practice: According to the researchers, “from a risk/benefit perspective, the efficacy and safety observed suggests that low-dose atropine may provide a treatment option for children aged 3-17 years with myopia progression, which may lead to less frequent or delayed change in glasses, progression to less severe correction, and potentially reduce long-term sequelae, which could lead to vision loss later in life, such as myopic maculopathy.”

Study details: The CHAMP study was led by Karla Zadnik, OD, PhD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and was funded by Vylulma.

Limitations: The researchers said the trial was potentially limited by the fact that patients switched from the study drug to confounding treatments. In addition, patients at the low and high age ranges were not well represented.

Disclosures: Dr. Zadnik received consultant fees from Vyluma during the study.

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

Myopia affects roughly one-third of the population worldwide - a figure that is projected to reach 50% by 2050. Low-dose atropine, which helps curb the condition, currently is available in the United States only through compounding pharmacies. The products contain preservatives – raising questions about potential toxicities to the eye – and may not be of pharmaceutical grade. In a new study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, a preservative-free eyedrop containing 0.01% atropine led to significant improvements in several markers of myopia in children who received the experimental therapy.

Methodology

• The CHAMP study was a double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted between Nov. 20, 2017, and Aug. 22, 2022, that involved children at 26 sites in North America and 5 centers in Europe.
• Children received either 0.01% or 0.02% atropine drops once per day.
• Patients were aged 3-16 years. They demonstrated a spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) of −0.50 diopter (D) to −6.00 D astigmatism no worse than −1.50 D.
• Of these patients, 573 were included in a safety analysis, and 489 were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

Takeaways

• After 36 months, the 0.01% dose of atropine was associated with a significantly lower responder proportion (odds ratio, 4.54) and slower progression of SER and axial elongation.
• The effect of the 0.02% dose on responder proportion and SER progression was not statistically significant, but the treatment was associated with slower axial elongation.
• The researchers observed no serious ocular adverse events and few serious nonocular events, none of which was determined to be associated with the treatment.

In practice: According to the researchers, “from a risk/benefit perspective, the efficacy and safety observed suggests that low-dose atropine may provide a treatment option for children aged 3-17 years with myopia progression, which may lead to less frequent or delayed change in glasses, progression to less severe correction, and potentially reduce long-term sequelae, which could lead to vision loss later in life, such as myopic maculopathy.”

Study details: The CHAMP study was led by Karla Zadnik, OD, PhD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and was funded by Vylulma.

Limitations: The researchers said the trial was potentially limited by the fact that patients switched from the study drug to confounding treatments. In addition, patients at the low and high age ranges were not well represented.

Disclosures: Dr. Zadnik received consultant fees from Vyluma during the study.

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

Myopia affects roughly one-third of the population worldwide - a figure that is projected to reach 50% by 2050. Low-dose atropine, which helps curb the condition, currently is available in the United States only through compounding pharmacies. The products contain preservatives – raising questions about potential toxicities to the eye – and may not be of pharmaceutical grade. In a new study published in JAMA Ophthalmology, a preservative-free eyedrop containing 0.01% atropine led to significant improvements in several markers of myopia in children who received the experimental therapy.

Methodology

• The CHAMP study was a double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial conducted between Nov. 20, 2017, and Aug. 22, 2022, that involved children at 26 sites in North America and 5 centers in Europe.
• Children received either 0.01% or 0.02% atropine drops once per day.
• Patients were aged 3-16 years. They demonstrated a spherical equivalent refractive error (SER) of −0.50 diopter (D) to −6.00 D astigmatism no worse than −1.50 D.
• Of these patients, 573 were included in a safety analysis, and 489 were included in a modified intention-to-treat analysis.

Takeaways

• After 36 months, the 0.01% dose of atropine was associated with a significantly lower responder proportion (odds ratio, 4.54) and slower progression of SER and axial elongation.
• The effect of the 0.02% dose on responder proportion and SER progression was not statistically significant, but the treatment was associated with slower axial elongation.
• The researchers observed no serious ocular adverse events and few serious nonocular events, none of which was determined to be associated with the treatment.

In practice: According to the researchers, “from a risk/benefit perspective, the efficacy and safety observed suggests that low-dose atropine may provide a treatment option for children aged 3-17 years with myopia progression, which may lead to less frequent or delayed change in glasses, progression to less severe correction, and potentially reduce long-term sequelae, which could lead to vision loss later in life, such as myopic maculopathy.”

Study details: The CHAMP study was led by Karla Zadnik, OD, PhD, of Ohio State University, Columbus, and was funded by Vylulma.

Limitations: The researchers said the trial was potentially limited by the fact that patients switched from the study drug to confounding treatments. In addition, patients at the low and high age ranges were not well represented.

Disclosures: Dr. Zadnik received consultant fees from Vyluma during the study.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

I want to tell you a story about forgetfulness and haste, and how the combination of the two can lead to frightening consequences. A few years ago, I was lying in bed about to turn out the light when I realized I’d forgotten to take “my pill.”

Like some 161 million other American adults, I was then a consumer of a prescription medication. Being conscientious, I got up, retrieved said pill, and tossed it back. Being lazy, I didn’t bother to grab a glass of water to help the thing go down. Instead, I promptly returned to bed, threw a pillow over my head, and prepared for sleep.

Within seconds, I began to feel a burning sensation in my chest. After about a minute, that burn became a crippling pain. Not wanting to alarm my wife, I went into the living room, where I spent the next 30 minutes doubled over in agony. Was I having a heart attack? I phoned my sister, a hospitalist in Texas. She advised me to take myself to the ED to get checked out.

If only I’d known then about “Duke.” He could have told me how critical body posture is when people swallow pills.
 

Who’s Duke?

Duke is a computer representation of a 34-year-old, anatomically normal human male created by computer scientists at the IT’IS Foundation, a nonprofit group based in Switzerland that works on a variety of projects in health care technology. Using Duke, Rajat Mittal, PhD, a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, created a computer model called “StomachSim” to explore the process of digestion.

Their research, published in the journal Physics of Fluids, turned up several surprising findings about the dynamics of swallowing pills – the most common way medication is used worldwide.

Dr. Mittal said he chose to study the stomach because the functions of most other organ systems, from the heart to the brain, have already attracted plenty of attention from scientists.

“As I was looking to initiate research in some new directions, the implications of stomach biomechanics on important conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and gastroparesis became apparent to me,” he said. “It was clear that bioengineering research in this arena lags other more ‘sexy’ areas such as cardiovascular flows by at least 20 years, and there seemed to be a great opportunity to do impactful work.”
 

Your posture may help a pill work better

Several well-known things affect a pill’s ability to disperse its contents into the gut and be used by the body, such as the stomach’s contents (a heavy breakfast, a mix of liquids like juice, milk, and coffee) and the motion of the organ’s walls. But Dr. Mittal’s group learned that Duke’s posture also played a major role.

The researchers ran Duke through computer simulations in varying postures: upright, leaning right, leaning left, and leaning back, while keeping all the other parts of their analyses (like the things mentioned above) the same.

They found that posture determined as much as 83% of how quickly a pill disperses into the intestines. The most efficient position was leaning right. The least was leaning left, which prevented the pill from reaching the antrum, or bottom section of the stomach, and thus kept all but traces of the dissolved drug from entering the duodenum, where the stomach joins the small intestine. (Interestingly, Jews who observe Passover are advised to recline to the left during the meal as a symbol of freedom and leisure.)

That makes sense if you think about the stomach’s shape, which looks kind of like a bean, curving from the left to the right side of the body. Because of gravity, your position will change where the pill lands.

In the end, the researchers found that posture can be as significant a factor in how a pill dissolves as gastroparesis, a condition in which the stomach loses the ability to empty properly.
 

How this could help people

Among the groups most likely to benefit from such studies, Dr. Mittal said, are the elderly – who both take a lot of pills and are more prone to trouble swallowing because of age-related changes in their esophagus – and the bedridden, who can’t easily shift their posture. The findings may also lead to improvements in the ability to treat people with gastroparesis, a particular problem for people with diabetes.

Future studies with Duke and similar simulations will look at how the GI system digests proteins, carbohydrates, and fatty meals, Dr. Mittal said.

In the meantime, Dr. Mittal offered the following advice: “Standing or sitting upright after taking a pill is fine. If you have to take a pill lying down, stay on your back or on your right side. Avoid lying on your left side after taking a pill.”

As for what happened to me, any gastroenterologist reading this has figured out that my condition was not heart-related. Instead, I likely was having a bout of pill esophagitis, irritation that can result from medications that aggravate the mucosa of the food tube. Although painful, esophagitis isn’t life-threatening. After about an hour, the pain began to subside, and by the next morning I was fine, with only a faint ache in my chest to remind me of my earlier torment. (Researchers noted an increase in the condition early in the COVID-19 pandemic, linked to the antibiotic doxycycline.)

And, in the interest of accuracy, my pill problem began above the stomach. Nothing in the Hopkins research suggests that the alignment of the esophagus plays a role in how drugs disperse in the gut – unless, of course, it prevents those pills from reaching the stomach in the first place.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Storks everywhere, rejoice. A new study shows that the ability to stand on one leg for at least 10 seconds is strongly linked to the risk of death over the next 7 years.

According to the findings, people in middle age and older who couldn’t perform the 10-second standing test were nearly four times as likely to die of any cause – heart attacks, strokes, cancer, and more – in the coming years than those who could, well, stand the test of time.

Claudio Gil Araújo, MD, PhD, research director of the Exercise Medicine Clinic-CLINIMEX in Rio de Janeiro, who led the study, called the results “awesome!”

“As a physician who has worked with cardiac patients for over 4 decades, I was very impressed in finding out that, for those between 51 and 75 years of age, it is riskier for survival to not complete the 10-second one-leg standing test than to have been diagnosed as having coronary artery disease or in being hypertensive” or having abnormal cholesterol, Dr. Araújo said in an interview.

The findings appeared in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.

Researchers have known for at least a half century that balance and mortality are connected. One reason is falls: Worldwide, nearly 700,000 people each year die as a result of a fall, according to the World Health Organization, and more than 37 million falls annually require medical attention. But as the new study indicates, falls aren’t the only problem.

Dr. Araújo and colleagues have been working on ways to improve balance and strength as people age. In addition to the one-legged standing test, they have previously shown that the ability to rise from a sitting position on the floor is also a strong predictor of longevity.

For the new study, the researchers assessed 1,702 people in Brazil (68% men) aged 51-75 years who had been participating in an ongoing exercise study that began there in 1994.
 

Three tries to succeed

Starting in 2008, the team introduced the standing test, which involves balancing on one leg and placing the other foot at the back weight-bearing limb for support. People get three tries to maintain that posture for at least 10 seconds.

Not surprisingly, the ability to perform the test dropped with age. Although 20% of people in the study overall were unable to stand on one leg for 10 seconds, that figure rose to about 70% for those aged 76-80 years, and nearly 90% for those aged 81-85, according to the researchers. Of the two dozen 85-year-olds in the study, only two were able to complete the standing test, Dr. Araújo told this news organization.

At roughly age 70, half of people could not complete the 10-second test.

Over an average of 7 years of follow-up, 17.5% of people who could not manage the 10-second stand had died, compared with 4.5% of those who could last that long, the study found.

After accounting for age and many other risk factors, such as diabetes, body mass index, and a history of heart disease, people who were unable to complete the standing test were 84% more likely to die from any cause over the study period than their peers with better one-legged static balance (95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.78; P < .001).

The researchers said their study was limited by its lack of diversity – all the participants were relatively affluent Brazilians – and the inability to control for a history of falls and physical activity. But they said the size of the cohort, the long follow-up period, and their use of sophistical statistical methods helped mitigate the shortcomings.

Although low aerobic fitness is a marker of poor health, much less attention has been paid to nonaerobic fitness – things like balance, flexibility, and muscle strength and power, Dr. Araújo said.

“We are accumulating evidence that these three components of nonaerobic physical fitness are potentially relevant for good health and even more relevant for survival in older subjects,” Dr. Araújo said. Poor nonaerobic fitness, which is normally but not always associated with a sedentary lifestyle, “is the background of most cases of frailty, and being frail is strongly associated with a poor quality of life, less physical activity and exercise, and so on. It’s a bad circle.”

Dr. Araújo’s group has been using the standing test in their clinic for more than a dozen years and have seen gains in their patients. “Patients are often unaware that they are unable to sustain 10 seconds standing one legged. After this simple evaluation, they are much more prone to engage in balance training,” he said.

For now, the researchers don’t have data to show that improving static balance or performance on the standing test can affect survival, a “quite attractive” possibility, he added. But balance can be substantially improved through training.

“After only a few sessions, an improvement can be perceived, and this influences quality of life,” Dr. Araújo said. “And this is exactly what we do with the patients that we evaluated and for those that are attending our medically supervised exercise program.”

George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, FRCP, professor and Travelers Chair in Geriatrics and Gerontology at the University of Connecticut, Farmington, called the research “well done” and said the results “make perfect sense, since we have known for a long time that muscle strength is an important determinant of health, independence, and survival.”

Identifying frail patients quickly, simply, and reliably in the clinical setting is a pressing need, Dr. Kuchel, director of the UConn Center on Aging, said in an interview. The 10-second test “has considerable appeal” for this purpose.

“This could be, or rather should be, of great interest to all busy clinicians who see older adults in primary care or consultative capacities,” Dr. Kuchel added. “I hate to be nihilistic as regards what is possible in the context of really busy clinical practices, but even the minute or so that this takes to do may very well be too much for busy clinicians to do.”

Dr. Araújo and Dr. Kuchel reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved oteseconazole capsules (Vivjoa), an azole antifungal agent, for the prevention of recurrent yeast infections in women who are not of reproductive potential.

Oteseconazole inhibits CYP51, an enzyme fungi require to preserve the integrity of their cell walls and to grow properly, according to Mycovia, the drug’s manufacturer. It is the first FDA-approved product for the treatment of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC).

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, or chronic yeast infection, affects an estimated 138 million women worldwide annually. The condition is defined as three or more symptomatic acute episodes of yeast infection within a 12-month period. The primary symptoms of RVVC include vaginal itching, burning, irritation, and inflammation. Some patients may also experience abnormal vaginal discharge and pain during sex or urination.

“A medicine with Vivjoa’s sustained efficacy combined with the clinical safety profile has been long needed, as until now, physicians and their patients have had no FDA-approved medications for RVVC,” Stephen Brand, PhD, chief development officer of Mycovia, said in a statement. “We are excited to be the first to offer a medication designed specifically for RVVC, a challenging and chronic condition that is expected to increase in prevalence over the next decade.”

Approval for oteseconazole was based on results of three phase 3 trials involving 875 patients at 232 sites across 11 countries. In the U.S.-only ultraVIOLET trial, 89.7% of women with RVVC who received oteseconazole cleared their initial yeast infection and did not experience a recurrence during the 50-week maintenance period, compared with 57.1% of those who received fluconazole (Diflucan) followed by placebo (P < .001), according to Mycovia.

The most common side effects reported in phase 3 clinical studies were headache (7.4%) and nausea (3.6%), the company said. Patients with a hypersensitivity to oteseconazole should not take the drug, nor should those who are of reproductive potential, pregnant, or lactating.

Mycovia said it plans to launch the drug in the second quarter of 2022.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved oteseconazole capsules (Vivjoa), an azole antifungal agent, for the prevention of recurrent yeast infections in women who are not of reproductive potential.

Oteseconazole inhibits CYP51, an enzyme fungi require to preserve the integrity of their cell walls and to grow properly, according to Mycovia, the drug’s manufacturer. It is the first FDA-approved product for the treatment of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC).

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, or chronic yeast infection, affects an estimated 138 million women worldwide annually. The condition is defined as three or more symptomatic acute episodes of yeast infection within a 12-month period. The primary symptoms of RVVC include vaginal itching, burning, irritation, and inflammation. Some patients may also experience abnormal vaginal discharge and pain during sex or urination.

“A medicine with Vivjoa’s sustained efficacy combined with the clinical safety profile has been long needed, as until now, physicians and their patients have had no FDA-approved medications for RVVC,” Stephen Brand, PhD, chief development officer of Mycovia, said in a statement. “We are excited to be the first to offer a medication designed specifically for RVVC, a challenging and chronic condition that is expected to increase in prevalence over the next decade.”

Approval for oteseconazole was based on results of three phase 3 trials involving 875 patients at 232 sites across 11 countries. In the U.S.-only ultraVIOLET trial, 89.7% of women with RVVC who received oteseconazole cleared their initial yeast infection and did not experience a recurrence during the 50-week maintenance period, compared with 57.1% of those who received fluconazole (Diflucan) followed by placebo (P < .001), according to Mycovia.

The most common side effects reported in phase 3 clinical studies were headache (7.4%) and nausea (3.6%), the company said. Patients with a hypersensitivity to oteseconazole should not take the drug, nor should those who are of reproductive potential, pregnant, or lactating.

Mycovia said it plans to launch the drug in the second quarter of 2022.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved oteseconazole capsules (Vivjoa), an azole antifungal agent, for the prevention of recurrent yeast infections in women who are not of reproductive potential.

Oteseconazole inhibits CYP51, an enzyme fungi require to preserve the integrity of their cell walls and to grow properly, according to Mycovia, the drug’s manufacturer. It is the first FDA-approved product for the treatment of recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (RVVC).

Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis, or chronic yeast infection, affects an estimated 138 million women worldwide annually. The condition is defined as three or more symptomatic acute episodes of yeast infection within a 12-month period. The primary symptoms of RVVC include vaginal itching, burning, irritation, and inflammation. Some patients may also experience abnormal vaginal discharge and pain during sex or urination.

“A medicine with Vivjoa’s sustained efficacy combined with the clinical safety profile has been long needed, as until now, physicians and their patients have had no FDA-approved medications for RVVC,” Stephen Brand, PhD, chief development officer of Mycovia, said in a statement. “We are excited to be the first to offer a medication designed specifically for RVVC, a challenging and chronic condition that is expected to increase in prevalence over the next decade.”

Approval for oteseconazole was based on results of three phase 3 trials involving 875 patients at 232 sites across 11 countries. In the U.S.-only ultraVIOLET trial, 89.7% of women with RVVC who received oteseconazole cleared their initial yeast infection and did not experience a recurrence during the 50-week maintenance period, compared with 57.1% of those who received fluconazole (Diflucan) followed by placebo (P < .001), according to Mycovia.

The most common side effects reported in phase 3 clinical studies were headache (7.4%) and nausea (3.6%), the company said. Patients with a hypersensitivity to oteseconazole should not take the drug, nor should those who are of reproductive potential, pregnant, or lactating.

Mycovia said it plans to launch the drug in the second quarter of 2022.

Full prescribing information is available online.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

The vast majority of U.S. physicians regularly treat patients with socioeconomic challenges – from financial instability and a lack of transportation to eviction threats and domestic problems – but are deeply frustrated by their inability to adequately address these issues, a new survey has found.

The survey, conducted in February by The Physicians Foundation, queried 1,502 doctors (500 primary care physicians and 1,002 specialists) about their experience with social drivers – also known as determinants – of health (SDOH). Among the key findings: More than 60% of respondents said they had little or no time to effectively address the SDOH needs of their patients, yet nearly 9 in 10 (87%) said they would like to be able to do so in the future.

Most (63%) said they feel burned out when they try to help patients with their SDOH needs; and nearly 7 in 10 (68%) said managing SDOH for their patients has a “major impact” on their mental health and well-being.

This news organization spoke with Gary Price, MD, president of The Physicians Foundation, about the findings.

Q: These issues aren’t new. Why did you undertake this survey now?

The Physicians Foundation has surveyed America’s physicians for a decade on their practice and the broader health care environment, which included questions on SDOH. However, this is the first one we’ve done that concentrated entirely on SDOH. We think it’s particularly timely now.

The COVID-19 pandemic focused a very harsh spotlight on the tremendous impact SDOH can have on patient health, care outcomes, costs, physician burden, and the physician-patient relationship. It’s become increasingly apparent that for our country to achieve health equity and improve our health care system, including physician satisfaction, we must address the impact of SDOH on patients and physicians.

Even before the pandemic, we had an epidemic of physician burnout. That was driven in large part by the huge amount of time being wasted on administrative tasks such as pre-approvals, insurance forms, and working with electronic medical records. Now we’re recognizing that the causes of physician burnout are much larger than that.

Q: The results of the survey show that physicians are seeing the effects of SDOH no matter where they practice – rural (81%), urban (81%), suburban (73%) – how old they are, or their own racial or ethnic heritage. Is that surprising?

I was, in fact, surprised by the pervasiveness. Every physician is seeing the impact of social drivers on their patients every day. For a long time, physicians tried to ignore these problems because they couldn’t deal with them at the practice level; it was too big a task. But if we’re going to decrease the cost of health care and increase the quality of outcomes and decrease the enormous disparities we see, we’re going to have to deal with these SDOH.

I think the problem is grim, but physicians recognize this issue. It’s not one that they traditionally are trained to deal with – and, more importantly, they are not reimbursed on these issues. But despite that, they all want to help.

Q: The survey found that 83% of physicians believed their inability to adequately deal with SDOH moderately (60%) or significantly (23%) contributed to their feelings of burnout. Why do you think physicians find these problems so frustrating and stressful?

The definition of burnout is feeling that you’re being held responsible for things you no longer have any control or authority over. A patient’s inability to find transportation to get to an appointment, or who has financial instability that can lead them to have to make a choice between buying medicine or buying food for their family, isn’t something a physician can change. The overwhelming majority of physicians in our survey not only recognize that their patients have needs in these areas, but they don’t have time to be able to deal with them the way that they’d like to – either the resources aren’t there, or they aren’t effective, or they simply don’t know where to turn.

This phenomenon has been quantified by research. A 2020 study in JAMA, by the Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership at Weill Cornell Medicine, found that physicians who had a larger burden of patients with more social needs received lower quality scores from Medicare and were less likely to receive bonuses for the care they provided. But the lower scores were related to the patients’ socioeconomic environment and had nothing do with the quality of the care they received.

Q: Researchers have looked at the relationship between SDOH and burnout, and what happens when physicians incorporate resources to address social issues into their practice. And it seems that doing so can help ease burnout at least a little.

That makes perfect sense. You’re now giving them the ability to intervene and do something about a health-related issue that’s going to help their patients get better quicker. At the same time, addressing these social issues can reduce health care costs to the system while improving outcomes. For example, when a patient with diabetes who needs insulin has their electricity cut off, they can no longer refrigerate the insulin. So simply having their electricity restored could keep them from being hospitalized for a diabetic coma because they weren’t able to follow their treatment.

The Health Leads Grow and Catalyze project, which we helped fund in 2014-2018, trained college students to make lists of key resources patients might require – like food, electricity, or heat – and work with physicians in the emergency room to get a prescription for that need. We’ve seen a very excellent return on investment and it’s now in health systems all over the country.

Q: The survey does a good job of highlighting the nature and scope of the problem, but what about solutions? What, if anything, can physicians be doing now to reduce the burden of SDOH for their patients?

The most important thing we’re doing now is drawing attention to the problem, not only to the impact it’s having on patients’ health but the health and well-being of our physicians.

The greatest challenge physicians said they faced was not having enough time to address these issues in their practice, and that stems directly from a lot of time that gets wasted on other things – preapprovals, inefficient EHRs, checkboxes. Our doctors reported that even when they know where the resources exist, they are hard to access or unavailable when they want them.

Almost all these things are going to require innovative solutions, and in some cases might vary by the individual. With transportation, for example, maybe we need a system like Meals on Wheels, where part of the solution could be a system of volunteer drivers to take patients to appointments. Or we might need more funding for transportation directly aimed at people who don’t have access to a bus line. But when you think about how much a ride in an ambulance costs versus how much it would cost to get someone to the doctor before they got sick enough to require that ambulance, that kind of expenditure makes a lot of sense for driving down individual and system costs. 

Q: The problem of unconscious bias in medicine has been receiving increasing attention. Do you think this bias is related to the issues of SDOH the new survey reveals?

Discrimination and racism are examples of SDOH. Implicit bias can happen in any aspect of our lives and interactions with others – so for physicians this can happen with our patients. Our survey didn’t specifically dive into how bias plays a role in addressing the impact of SDOH, but as a society we can no longer ignore any factor that hinders a person from accessing high-quality, cost-effective health care, including our own unconscious bias.

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

Nasogastric tubes. Foley catheter kits. Hydrogel anti-burn bandages and transfusion bags. Heparin, atropine, tramadol.

These items are just a few of some two dozen critical medical supplies that physicians in Ukraine desperately need, according to Leo Wolansky, MD, a Ukrainian-American radiologist and president of the Ukrainian Medical Association of North America (UMANA).

Dr. Wolansky founded a teaching program with an organization called Friends of Radiology in Ukraine in 1996 and has been running courses for specialists there ever since. He last visited the country in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, but has remained in contact with his medical colleagues by phone and email. Over the weekend of Feb. 26-27, UMANA held a fundraiser for Ukraine, raising more than $17,000.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Wolansky about the situation for his fellow physicians in the war-torn country.

Question: Where is your family from, and do you have relatives in the country now?

Dr. Wolansky: My family is from two different parts of Ukraine. My mother was from central Ukraine. Her father, Ivan Sharyj, was part of the students’ militia that fought at the famous battle of Kruty in 1918. Four hundred Ukrainian militia fought against 5,000 professional Russian soldiers and were massacred. He later wrote the first eye-witness account. Afterwards, he had the opportunity to flee Ukraine but chose to stay under a pseudonym. Eventually, during Stalin’s purges [1929-1933], the regime found him, arrested him, tortured him, and executed him. My mother was seven when she saw her father arrested, never to return home. My father was from Western Ukraine, which did not have a long history of Russian occupation. His mother’s family was very patriotic; her first cousin, Stepan Vytvytskyi, eventually became the president of Ukraine in exile from 1955-1964.

I have second and more distant cousins in Kyiv. My wife has first cousins in Western Ukraine. They and my doctor colleagues are suffering greatly but are ready to die for their freedom.

Question: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put tremendous stress on the Ukrainian people, including the country’s medical professionals. How do doctors in these kinds of situations handle casualties they can’t prevent? How do they work around that sense that everything is out of their control?

Dr. Wolansky: A lot of infrastructural things are being disrupted; there are limitations that you wouldn’t normally encounter. Ukraine has been developing a lot of sophisticated medical technology, but it still has room to grow. Under these circumstances, when there are bombs going off and transportation is being disrupted, it creates very new and significant obstacles to surmount. It still has not risen to massive casualties, and we can just pray that it does not, but in times of war, a very different kind of medicine is practiced.

But remember, Ukraine has been at war since 2014, when Russia took Crimea and invaded the Eastern provinces. The doctors there are not unfamiliar with war injuries. At our conferences in Ukraine, I have seen radiological presentations of injuries sustained in war – gunshots, fractures, and amputations – as well as other kinds of traumatic injuries. You’re going for a kind of more emergent treatment: to transfuse, to maintain peoples’ blood pressure, put bandages on, sterilize and sanitize wounds to prevent infections. I imagine there will be many field hospitals set up between now and the next few weeks to deal with the acute injuries.

Question: Ukraine has struggled with high rates of HIV and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as a lack of resources for treating patients with mental illness. Meanwhile, the country has had more that 5 million cases of COVID-19 and an estimated 112,000 deaths from the disease. Are you concerned about an exacerbation of infection rates, including of COVID, particularly among refugees and those who become homeless?

Dr. Wolansky: Because COVID ran pretty rampant in Ukraine, I think that – at a high cost – there is a level of natural immunity in the population. And the weather is going to be getting warmer soon, and respiratory viruses are cyclic in nature, so I don’t know if that’s going to be a big complicating factor. However, people get sick all the time, and the prognosis for them is going to be much worse than it otherwise might be. If you have a heart attack, your chances were way better when the roads were clear and people weren’t shooting at you.

Right now, it’s very regional where the infrastructure is being destroyed. The West, where I used to go, is in much better shape than the East because it has not been the focus of Russian attacks. But Kyiv could turn into a very big humanitarian crisis very quickly if there’s no electricity, no water. All sorts of medical conditions could be greatly exacerbated, and some new health crises could arise from water contamination, bombs causing buildings to collapse, and other problems. Whatever the illness is, it’s going to be harder to take care of it.

Questions: Doctors Without Borders announced that it was suspending its operations in Ukraine because of the invasion – missions that included HIV care in Severodonetsk, tuberculosis care in Zhytomyr, and improving health care access in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, according to the aid group. What do doctors in Ukraine need most acutely now, other than peace?

Dr. Wolansky: Obviously, money is valuable, and military protection, which would prevent additional damage to their infrastructure. One thing that bears mentioning. There’s been a fair amount of coverage of this, but I’ve witnessed it first-hand: The Ukrainian people are fiercely patriotic, and there’s really no way their spirit can be conquered. The USSR invaded Afghanistan, and after years of thinking they were in command, they left because they could no longer take the guerilla warfare and the constant sniper attacks. Ukraine’s population is many times larger than Afghanistan’s; there’s no way they can be subdued. And remember, the Ukrainian people have been free for 30 years – generations of young people have known no other way of life. They are not going to give that up.

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

Nasogastric tubes. Foley catheter kits. Hydrogel anti-burn bandages and transfusion bags. Heparin, atropine, tramadol.

These items are just a few of some two dozen critical medical supplies that physicians in Ukraine desperately need, according to Leo Wolansky, MD, a Ukrainian-American radiologist and president of the Ukrainian Medical Association of North America (UMANA).

Dr. Wolansky founded a teaching program with an organization called Friends of Radiology in Ukraine in 1996 and has been running courses for specialists there ever since. He last visited the country in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, but has remained in contact with his medical colleagues by phone and email. Over the weekend of Feb. 26-27, UMANA held a fundraiser for Ukraine, raising more than $17,000.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Wolansky about the situation for his fellow physicians in the war-torn country.

Question: Where is your family from, and do you have relatives in the country now?

Dr. Wolansky: My family is from two different parts of Ukraine. My mother was from central Ukraine. Her father, Ivan Sharyj, was part of the students’ militia that fought at the famous battle of Kruty in 1918. Four hundred Ukrainian militia fought against 5,000 professional Russian soldiers and were massacred. He later wrote the first eye-witness account. Afterwards, he had the opportunity to flee Ukraine but chose to stay under a pseudonym. Eventually, during Stalin’s purges [1929-1933], the regime found him, arrested him, tortured him, and executed him. My mother was seven when she saw her father arrested, never to return home. My father was from Western Ukraine, which did not have a long history of Russian occupation. His mother’s family was very patriotic; her first cousin, Stepan Vytvytskyi, eventually became the president of Ukraine in exile from 1955-1964.

I have second and more distant cousins in Kyiv. My wife has first cousins in Western Ukraine. They and my doctor colleagues are suffering greatly but are ready to die for their freedom.

Question: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put tremendous stress on the Ukrainian people, including the country’s medical professionals. How do doctors in these kinds of situations handle casualties they can’t prevent? How do they work around that sense that everything is out of their control?

Dr. Wolansky: A lot of infrastructural things are being disrupted; there are limitations that you wouldn’t normally encounter. Ukraine has been developing a lot of sophisticated medical technology, but it still has room to grow. Under these circumstances, when there are bombs going off and transportation is being disrupted, it creates very new and significant obstacles to surmount. It still has not risen to massive casualties, and we can just pray that it does not, but in times of war, a very different kind of medicine is practiced.

But remember, Ukraine has been at war since 2014, when Russia took Crimea and invaded the Eastern provinces. The doctors there are not unfamiliar with war injuries. At our conferences in Ukraine, I have seen radiological presentations of injuries sustained in war – gunshots, fractures, and amputations – as well as other kinds of traumatic injuries. You’re going for a kind of more emergent treatment: to transfuse, to maintain peoples’ blood pressure, put bandages on, sterilize and sanitize wounds to prevent infections. I imagine there will be many field hospitals set up between now and the next few weeks to deal with the acute injuries.

Question: Ukraine has struggled with high rates of HIV and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as a lack of resources for treating patients with mental illness. Meanwhile, the country has had more that 5 million cases of COVID-19 and an estimated 112,000 deaths from the disease. Are you concerned about an exacerbation of infection rates, including of COVID, particularly among refugees and those who become homeless?

Dr. Wolansky: Because COVID ran pretty rampant in Ukraine, I think that – at a high cost – there is a level of natural immunity in the population. And the weather is going to be getting warmer soon, and respiratory viruses are cyclic in nature, so I don’t know if that’s going to be a big complicating factor. However, people get sick all the time, and the prognosis for them is going to be much worse than it otherwise might be. If you have a heart attack, your chances were way better when the roads were clear and people weren’t shooting at you.

Right now, it’s very regional where the infrastructure is being destroyed. The West, where I used to go, is in much better shape than the East because it has not been the focus of Russian attacks. But Kyiv could turn into a very big humanitarian crisis very quickly if there’s no electricity, no water. All sorts of medical conditions could be greatly exacerbated, and some new health crises could arise from water contamination, bombs causing buildings to collapse, and other problems. Whatever the illness is, it’s going to be harder to take care of it.

Questions: Doctors Without Borders announced that it was suspending its operations in Ukraine because of the invasion – missions that included HIV care in Severodonetsk, tuberculosis care in Zhytomyr, and improving health care access in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, according to the aid group. What do doctors in Ukraine need most acutely now, other than peace?

Dr. Wolansky: Obviously, money is valuable, and military protection, which would prevent additional damage to their infrastructure. One thing that bears mentioning. There’s been a fair amount of coverage of this, but I’ve witnessed it first-hand: The Ukrainian people are fiercely patriotic, and there’s really no way their spirit can be conquered. The USSR invaded Afghanistan, and after years of thinking they were in command, they left because they could no longer take the guerilla warfare and the constant sniper attacks. Ukraine’s population is many times larger than Afghanistan’s; there’s no way they can be subdued. And remember, the Ukrainian people have been free for 30 years – generations of young people have known no other way of life. They are not going to give that up.

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

Nasogastric tubes. Foley catheter kits. Hydrogel anti-burn bandages and transfusion bags. Heparin, atropine, tramadol.

These items are just a few of some two dozen critical medical supplies that physicians in Ukraine desperately need, according to Leo Wolansky, MD, a Ukrainian-American radiologist and president of the Ukrainian Medical Association of North America (UMANA).

Dr. Wolansky founded a teaching program with an organization called Friends of Radiology in Ukraine in 1996 and has been running courses for specialists there ever since. He last visited the country in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, but has remained in contact with his medical colleagues by phone and email. Over the weekend of Feb. 26-27, UMANA held a fundraiser for Ukraine, raising more than $17,000.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Wolansky about the situation for his fellow physicians in the war-torn country.

Question: Where is your family from, and do you have relatives in the country now?

Dr. Wolansky: My family is from two different parts of Ukraine. My mother was from central Ukraine. Her father, Ivan Sharyj, was part of the students’ militia that fought at the famous battle of Kruty in 1918. Four hundred Ukrainian militia fought against 5,000 professional Russian soldiers and were massacred. He later wrote the first eye-witness account. Afterwards, he had the opportunity to flee Ukraine but chose to stay under a pseudonym. Eventually, during Stalin’s purges [1929-1933], the regime found him, arrested him, tortured him, and executed him. My mother was seven when she saw her father arrested, never to return home. My father was from Western Ukraine, which did not have a long history of Russian occupation. His mother’s family was very patriotic; her first cousin, Stepan Vytvytskyi, eventually became the president of Ukraine in exile from 1955-1964.

I have second and more distant cousins in Kyiv. My wife has first cousins in Western Ukraine. They and my doctor colleagues are suffering greatly but are ready to die for their freedom.

Question: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has put tremendous stress on the Ukrainian people, including the country’s medical professionals. How do doctors in these kinds of situations handle casualties they can’t prevent? How do they work around that sense that everything is out of their control?

Dr. Wolansky: A lot of infrastructural things are being disrupted; there are limitations that you wouldn’t normally encounter. Ukraine has been developing a lot of sophisticated medical technology, but it still has room to grow. Under these circumstances, when there are bombs going off and transportation is being disrupted, it creates very new and significant obstacles to surmount. It still has not risen to massive casualties, and we can just pray that it does not, but in times of war, a very different kind of medicine is practiced.

But remember, Ukraine has been at war since 2014, when Russia took Crimea and invaded the Eastern provinces. The doctors there are not unfamiliar with war injuries. At our conferences in Ukraine, I have seen radiological presentations of injuries sustained in war – gunshots, fractures, and amputations – as well as other kinds of traumatic injuries. You’re going for a kind of more emergent treatment: to transfuse, to maintain peoples’ blood pressure, put bandages on, sterilize and sanitize wounds to prevent infections. I imagine there will be many field hospitals set up between now and the next few weeks to deal with the acute injuries.

Question: Ukraine has struggled with high rates of HIV and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, as well as a lack of resources for treating patients with mental illness. Meanwhile, the country has had more that 5 million cases of COVID-19 and an estimated 112,000 deaths from the disease. Are you concerned about an exacerbation of infection rates, including of COVID, particularly among refugees and those who become homeless?

Dr. Wolansky: Because COVID ran pretty rampant in Ukraine, I think that – at a high cost – there is a level of natural immunity in the population. And the weather is going to be getting warmer soon, and respiratory viruses are cyclic in nature, so I don’t know if that’s going to be a big complicating factor. However, people get sick all the time, and the prognosis for them is going to be much worse than it otherwise might be. If you have a heart attack, your chances were way better when the roads were clear and people weren’t shooting at you.

Right now, it’s very regional where the infrastructure is being destroyed. The West, where I used to go, is in much better shape than the East because it has not been the focus of Russian attacks. But Kyiv could turn into a very big humanitarian crisis very quickly if there’s no electricity, no water. All sorts of medical conditions could be greatly exacerbated, and some new health crises could arise from water contamination, bombs causing buildings to collapse, and other problems. Whatever the illness is, it’s going to be harder to take care of it.

Questions: Doctors Without Borders announced that it was suspending its operations in Ukraine because of the invasion – missions that included HIV care in Severodonetsk, tuberculosis care in Zhytomyr, and improving health care access in Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, according to the aid group. What do doctors in Ukraine need most acutely now, other than peace?

Dr. Wolansky: Obviously, money is valuable, and military protection, which would prevent additional damage to their infrastructure. One thing that bears mentioning. There’s been a fair amount of coverage of this, but I’ve witnessed it first-hand: The Ukrainian people are fiercely patriotic, and there’s really no way their spirit can be conquered. The USSR invaded Afghanistan, and after years of thinking they were in command, they left because they could no longer take the guerilla warfare and the constant sniper attacks. Ukraine’s population is many times larger than Afghanistan’s; there’s no way they can be subdued. And remember, the Ukrainian people have been free for 30 years – generations of young people have known no other way of life. They are not going to give that up.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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

The European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on December 17 recommended approval of linzagolix (Yselty, ObsEva), an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, for the management of moderate to severe symptoms of uterine fibroids (UF) in adult women of reproductive age.

If approved, linzagolix – which is taken once per day – would become the first GnRH receptor antagonist with a nonhormonal option to reach the market. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in November accepted ObsEva’s new drug application for the medication, with a decision expected by September 2022.

“The positive CHMP opinion is an important milestone for millions of women in the EU living with UF to address the diverse medical needs of the women who suffer from this condition,” said Brian O’Callaghan, CEO of ObsEva, in a statement. “We will continue our productive, ongoing dialogue with [the] EMA toward potential marketing authorization in the EU and, in parallel, continue to work with the FDA to advance linzagolix through the U.S. regulatory process.”

The committee’s positive opinion was based on 52-week results from PRIMROSE 1 and PRIMROSE 2 phase 3 trials, involving more than 1,000 patients in the United States and Europe, as well as results from 76-week follow-up studies of patients in those trials. The two phase 3 trials assessed a 200-mg and 100-mg dose of linzagolix, with and without hormone add-back therapy (ABT; 1 mg estradiol and 0.5 mg norethisterone acetate).

According to ObsEVA, both trials met their primary endpoints, with all doses showing statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) compared to placebo. The trials also achieved several secondary endpoints, including reduction in pain, rates of amenorrhea, time to reduced HMB, and amenorrhea and for the high dose without ABT, reductions in uterine and fibroid volume, the company said.

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