Cristina Ferrario

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

MILAN – The European Respiratory Society Congress 2023 dedicated an entire session to the multifaceted challenges and ongoing debates surrounding progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF). Renowned medical professionals and experts congregated in Milan to explore the current landscape and future prospects of diagnosing PPF, with a particular focus on expediting the diagnostic process.

Anna Podolanczuk, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, dissected the diagnostic intricacies of PPF, addressing not only the existing challenges but also the opportunities to streamline diagnosis.

As the session’s cochair, Michael Kreuter, MD, director of the Lung Center at University Hospital, Mainz, Germany, emphasized the importance of patients’ voices in understanding and addressing diseases. Joining him as a cochair was Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, a pulmonary physician and the head of the Interstitial Lung Disease Centre at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The session commenced with a powerful testament from Elisabeth Robertson, a PPF patient representative from the United Kingdom. Diagnosed with PPF in 2011, her journey to diagnosis was far from straightforward, and she spoke in a video about the frustrations she encountered due to the lack of accessible information. Ms. Robertson called for a clearer diagnostic pathway.
 

Timely diagnosis: Key to better outcomes

Despite advancements in PPF diagnosis, considerable challenges persist in the diagnostic odyssey of this recently defined phenotype. Dr. Podolanczuk underscored the significance of early diagnosis, citing Ms. Robertson’s personal experience as a poignant example. An early diagnosis not only alleviates patients’ uncertainties and anxieties about their future but also enables the utilization of available treatments, such as antifibrotic therapies, which can slow the decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients with progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

Data gleaned from the INBUILD trial was presented, revealing that patients in the placebo group experienced a nearly 200 mL decline in lung function over 52 weeks. Dr. Podolanczuk stressed that initiating antifibrotic therapies sooner could lead to better outcomes, as baseline conditions are likely to worsen over time.

“General practitioners can have a role in diagnosing and managing PPF. They are the frontline. We need to increase awareness, because they are generally not aware of this disease, and they usually think about COPD, asthma, or cardiovascular diseases whenever a patient presents with such symptoms,” Dr. Podolanczuk told this news organization.
 

Defining the challenge

The foundation of any diagnosis lies in a clear definition and established diagnostic criteria. During the session, it became apparent that different criteria could be employed for PPF diagnosis, leading to the identification of distinct patient populations.

In 2022, the Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline provided the first comprehensive definition of the PPF phenotype. According to this guideline, PPF is defined by the presence of at least two of three criteria: worsening symptoms, radiological progression, or physiologic progression defined as a ≥ 5% absolute decline in FVC or ≥ 10% absolute decline in diffusion lung CO (DLCO) within the past year in a patient with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and lung scarring other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), with no alternative explanation.

“Definitions from the guidelines were based on the available trials at that moment. Registry data suggest that using different criteria will probably lead to the identification of different, but always progressive, populations,” Dr. Wijsenbeek commented to this news organization. “I think we should not worry too much about the details of the criteria and it is good that we have a multimodality assessment: We ask the patient, we look at the pictures, and we measure the lung function. Combining those data, you can have a robust indication of progression.”
 

The current landscape

Currently, PPF diagnosis hinges on a combination of CT scans, patient narratives, and, in some cases, histological examination. Dr. Wijsenbeek stressed the need to transition to novel diagnostic modalities, including tools that can be readily employed by GPs in their practices.

“GPs have to care about a lot of different diseases, and it makes it more complicated to be aware of conditions like PPF: Symptoms are in fact extremely unspecific” Dr. Kreuter told this news organization. “My suggestion to GPs is to pay attention to the so-called inspiratory crackles because they represent a very early and specific sign of lung fibrosis. This sound does not resemble any other sound that you can hear with your stethoscope: It is like the sound you make walking on fresh snow,” he added, recommending a referral to the pulmonologist in case of identification of inspiratory crackles.

Additionally, several biomarkers can contribute to early PPF diagnosis, including the identification of the usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern through biopsy or imaging. “We know that this pattern predicts poor outcomes regardless of ILD type,” Dr. Podolanczuk explained, underlining the possibility of using a molecular classifier to identify a UIP pattern on transbronchial lung biopsy. “This is an already existing technology used to identify a gene expression pattern that is strongly predictive of a UIP pattern,” she said.

Furthermore, blood biomarkers, such as high peripheral blood monocyte count and telomere length, hold promise for early PPF detection and prognosis assessment.
 

The road ahead

The diagnostic landscape for PPF is evolving rapidly, with various emerging biomarkers and tools showing promise. Proteomics, alongside home spirometry as a digital biomarker for frequent FVC monitoring, have demonstrated potential for identifying patients who may benefit from early treatment. A 2022 study defined a 12-proteomic biomarkers signature of progressive fibrosing ILD that can identify patients who may benefit from early treatment and is predictive of outcomes regardless of the underlying CT pattern.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the interpretation of CT and x-ray images represents another avenue of advancement in PPF diagnosis. Dr. Podolanczuk highlighted the role of AI and quantitative CTs in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. She also mentioned innovative imaging methods, such as hyperpolarized gas MRI and endobronchial optical coherence tomography (EB-OCT), which offer new insights into disease progression and treatment response.

Beyond imaging and AI, various research tools are entering the diagnostic arena, including real-time breath analysis for distinguishing between different respiratory conditions. These tools collectively promise to shorten the time from symptom presentation to PPF diagnosis, a vital step in improving patient outcomes. In the words of Dr. Podolanczuk, “How early is too early to identify these patients? Let me say that there’s no such thing as ‘too early’ in the diagnosis of PPF!”

Dr. Podolanczuk disclosed grant funding from NHLBI, ALA, and Three Lakes Foundation; consulting fees from Regeneron, Roche, Imvaria, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, United Therapeutics, and Eisai; and honoraria from NACE and EBSCO/DynaMed. Ms. Robertson disclosed having no conflict.

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

MILAN – The European Respiratory Society Congress 2023 dedicated an entire session to the multifaceted challenges and ongoing debates surrounding progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF). Renowned medical professionals and experts congregated in Milan to explore the current landscape and future prospects of diagnosing PPF, with a particular focus on expediting the diagnostic process.

Anna Podolanczuk, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, dissected the diagnostic intricacies of PPF, addressing not only the existing challenges but also the opportunities to streamline diagnosis.

As the session’s cochair, Michael Kreuter, MD, director of the Lung Center at University Hospital, Mainz, Germany, emphasized the importance of patients’ voices in understanding and addressing diseases. Joining him as a cochair was Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, a pulmonary physician and the head of the Interstitial Lung Disease Centre at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The session commenced with a powerful testament from Elisabeth Robertson, a PPF patient representative from the United Kingdom. Diagnosed with PPF in 2011, her journey to diagnosis was far from straightforward, and she spoke in a video about the frustrations she encountered due to the lack of accessible information. Ms. Robertson called for a clearer diagnostic pathway.
 

Timely diagnosis: Key to better outcomes

Despite advancements in PPF diagnosis, considerable challenges persist in the diagnostic odyssey of this recently defined phenotype. Dr. Podolanczuk underscored the significance of early diagnosis, citing Ms. Robertson’s personal experience as a poignant example. An early diagnosis not only alleviates patients’ uncertainties and anxieties about their future but also enables the utilization of available treatments, such as antifibrotic therapies, which can slow the decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients with progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

Data gleaned from the INBUILD trial was presented, revealing that patients in the placebo group experienced a nearly 200 mL decline in lung function over 52 weeks. Dr. Podolanczuk stressed that initiating antifibrotic therapies sooner could lead to better outcomes, as baseline conditions are likely to worsen over time.

“General practitioners can have a role in diagnosing and managing PPF. They are the frontline. We need to increase awareness, because they are generally not aware of this disease, and they usually think about COPD, asthma, or cardiovascular diseases whenever a patient presents with such symptoms,” Dr. Podolanczuk told this news organization.
 

Defining the challenge

The foundation of any diagnosis lies in a clear definition and established diagnostic criteria. During the session, it became apparent that different criteria could be employed for PPF diagnosis, leading to the identification of distinct patient populations.

In 2022, the Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline provided the first comprehensive definition of the PPF phenotype. According to this guideline, PPF is defined by the presence of at least two of three criteria: worsening symptoms, radiological progression, or physiologic progression defined as a ≥ 5% absolute decline in FVC or ≥ 10% absolute decline in diffusion lung CO (DLCO) within the past year in a patient with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and lung scarring other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), with no alternative explanation.

“Definitions from the guidelines were based on the available trials at that moment. Registry data suggest that using different criteria will probably lead to the identification of different, but always progressive, populations,” Dr. Wijsenbeek commented to this news organization. “I think we should not worry too much about the details of the criteria and it is good that we have a multimodality assessment: We ask the patient, we look at the pictures, and we measure the lung function. Combining those data, you can have a robust indication of progression.”
 

The current landscape

Currently, PPF diagnosis hinges on a combination of CT scans, patient narratives, and, in some cases, histological examination. Dr. Wijsenbeek stressed the need to transition to novel diagnostic modalities, including tools that can be readily employed by GPs in their practices.

“GPs have to care about a lot of different diseases, and it makes it more complicated to be aware of conditions like PPF: Symptoms are in fact extremely unspecific” Dr. Kreuter told this news organization. “My suggestion to GPs is to pay attention to the so-called inspiratory crackles because they represent a very early and specific sign of lung fibrosis. This sound does not resemble any other sound that you can hear with your stethoscope: It is like the sound you make walking on fresh snow,” he added, recommending a referral to the pulmonologist in case of identification of inspiratory crackles.

Additionally, several biomarkers can contribute to early PPF diagnosis, including the identification of the usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern through biopsy or imaging. “We know that this pattern predicts poor outcomes regardless of ILD type,” Dr. Podolanczuk explained, underlining the possibility of using a molecular classifier to identify a UIP pattern on transbronchial lung biopsy. “This is an already existing technology used to identify a gene expression pattern that is strongly predictive of a UIP pattern,” she said.

Furthermore, blood biomarkers, such as high peripheral blood monocyte count and telomere length, hold promise for early PPF detection and prognosis assessment.
 

The road ahead

The diagnostic landscape for PPF is evolving rapidly, with various emerging biomarkers and tools showing promise. Proteomics, alongside home spirometry as a digital biomarker for frequent FVC monitoring, have demonstrated potential for identifying patients who may benefit from early treatment. A 2022 study defined a 12-proteomic biomarkers signature of progressive fibrosing ILD that can identify patients who may benefit from early treatment and is predictive of outcomes regardless of the underlying CT pattern.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the interpretation of CT and x-ray images represents another avenue of advancement in PPF diagnosis. Dr. Podolanczuk highlighted the role of AI and quantitative CTs in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. She also mentioned innovative imaging methods, such as hyperpolarized gas MRI and endobronchial optical coherence tomography (EB-OCT), which offer new insights into disease progression and treatment response.

Beyond imaging and AI, various research tools are entering the diagnostic arena, including real-time breath analysis for distinguishing between different respiratory conditions. These tools collectively promise to shorten the time from symptom presentation to PPF diagnosis, a vital step in improving patient outcomes. In the words of Dr. Podolanczuk, “How early is too early to identify these patients? Let me say that there’s no such thing as ‘too early’ in the diagnosis of PPF!”

Dr. Podolanczuk disclosed grant funding from NHLBI, ALA, and Three Lakes Foundation; consulting fees from Regeneron, Roche, Imvaria, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, United Therapeutics, and Eisai; and honoraria from NACE and EBSCO/DynaMed. Ms. Robertson disclosed having no conflict.

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

MILAN – The European Respiratory Society Congress 2023 dedicated an entire session to the multifaceted challenges and ongoing debates surrounding progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF). Renowned medical professionals and experts congregated in Milan to explore the current landscape and future prospects of diagnosing PPF, with a particular focus on expediting the diagnostic process.

Anna Podolanczuk, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, dissected the diagnostic intricacies of PPF, addressing not only the existing challenges but also the opportunities to streamline diagnosis.

As the session’s cochair, Michael Kreuter, MD, director of the Lung Center at University Hospital, Mainz, Germany, emphasized the importance of patients’ voices in understanding and addressing diseases. Joining him as a cochair was Marlies S. Wijsenbeek, a pulmonary physician and the head of the Interstitial Lung Disease Centre at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

The session commenced with a powerful testament from Elisabeth Robertson, a PPF patient representative from the United Kingdom. Diagnosed with PPF in 2011, her journey to diagnosis was far from straightforward, and she spoke in a video about the frustrations she encountered due to the lack of accessible information. Ms. Robertson called for a clearer diagnostic pathway.
 

Timely diagnosis: Key to better outcomes

Despite advancements in PPF diagnosis, considerable challenges persist in the diagnostic odyssey of this recently defined phenotype. Dr. Podolanczuk underscored the significance of early diagnosis, citing Ms. Robertson’s personal experience as a poignant example. An early diagnosis not only alleviates patients’ uncertainties and anxieties about their future but also enables the utilization of available treatments, such as antifibrotic therapies, which can slow the decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients with progressive fibrotic interstitial lung diseases.

Data gleaned from the INBUILD trial was presented, revealing that patients in the placebo group experienced a nearly 200 mL decline in lung function over 52 weeks. Dr. Podolanczuk stressed that initiating antifibrotic therapies sooner could lead to better outcomes, as baseline conditions are likely to worsen over time.

“General practitioners can have a role in diagnosing and managing PPF. They are the frontline. We need to increase awareness, because they are generally not aware of this disease, and they usually think about COPD, asthma, or cardiovascular diseases whenever a patient presents with such symptoms,” Dr. Podolanczuk told this news organization.
 

Defining the challenge

The foundation of any diagnosis lies in a clear definition and established diagnostic criteria. During the session, it became apparent that different criteria could be employed for PPF diagnosis, leading to the identification of distinct patient populations.

In 2022, the Official ATS/ERS/JRS/ALAT Clinical Practice Guideline provided the first comprehensive definition of the PPF phenotype. According to this guideline, PPF is defined by the presence of at least two of three criteria: worsening symptoms, radiological progression, or physiologic progression defined as a ≥ 5% absolute decline in FVC or ≥ 10% absolute decline in diffusion lung CO (DLCO) within the past year in a patient with interstitial lung disease (ILD) and lung scarring other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), with no alternative explanation.

“Definitions from the guidelines were based on the available trials at that moment. Registry data suggest that using different criteria will probably lead to the identification of different, but always progressive, populations,” Dr. Wijsenbeek commented to this news organization. “I think we should not worry too much about the details of the criteria and it is good that we have a multimodality assessment: We ask the patient, we look at the pictures, and we measure the lung function. Combining those data, you can have a robust indication of progression.”
 

The current landscape

Currently, PPF diagnosis hinges on a combination of CT scans, patient narratives, and, in some cases, histological examination. Dr. Wijsenbeek stressed the need to transition to novel diagnostic modalities, including tools that can be readily employed by GPs in their practices.

“GPs have to care about a lot of different diseases, and it makes it more complicated to be aware of conditions like PPF: Symptoms are in fact extremely unspecific” Dr. Kreuter told this news organization. “My suggestion to GPs is to pay attention to the so-called inspiratory crackles because they represent a very early and specific sign of lung fibrosis. This sound does not resemble any other sound that you can hear with your stethoscope: It is like the sound you make walking on fresh snow,” he added, recommending a referral to the pulmonologist in case of identification of inspiratory crackles.

Additionally, several biomarkers can contribute to early PPF diagnosis, including the identification of the usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern through biopsy or imaging. “We know that this pattern predicts poor outcomes regardless of ILD type,” Dr. Podolanczuk explained, underlining the possibility of using a molecular classifier to identify a UIP pattern on transbronchial lung biopsy. “This is an already existing technology used to identify a gene expression pattern that is strongly predictive of a UIP pattern,” she said.

Furthermore, blood biomarkers, such as high peripheral blood monocyte count and telomere length, hold promise for early PPF detection and prognosis assessment.
 

The road ahead

The diagnostic landscape for PPF is evolving rapidly, with various emerging biomarkers and tools showing promise. Proteomics, alongside home spirometry as a digital biomarker for frequent FVC monitoring, have demonstrated potential for identifying patients who may benefit from early treatment. A 2022 study defined a 12-proteomic biomarkers signature of progressive fibrosing ILD that can identify patients who may benefit from early treatment and is predictive of outcomes regardless of the underlying CT pattern.

The integration of artificial intelligence into the interpretation of CT and x-ray images represents another avenue of advancement in PPF diagnosis. Dr. Podolanczuk highlighted the role of AI and quantitative CTs in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. She also mentioned innovative imaging methods, such as hyperpolarized gas MRI and endobronchial optical coherence tomography (EB-OCT), which offer new insights into disease progression and treatment response.

Beyond imaging and AI, various research tools are entering the diagnostic arena, including real-time breath analysis for distinguishing between different respiratory conditions. These tools collectively promise to shorten the time from symptom presentation to PPF diagnosis, a vital step in improving patient outcomes. In the words of Dr. Podolanczuk, “How early is too early to identify these patients? Let me say that there’s no such thing as ‘too early’ in the diagnosis of PPF!”

Dr. Podolanczuk disclosed grant funding from NHLBI, ALA, and Three Lakes Foundation; consulting fees from Regeneron, Roche, Imvaria, Boehringer Ingelheim, Veracyte, United Therapeutics, and Eisai; and honoraria from NACE and EBSCO/DynaMed. Ms. Robertson disclosed having no conflict.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Milan – Clinical trial and registry data comparisons between patients with rheumatoid arthritis who take Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) such as tofacitinib (Xeljanz) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) continue to contribute to a better understanding of their efficacy and cardiovascular safety profile, based on presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Tofacitinib vs. TNFi efficacy with or without history of atherosclerotic CVD

The efficacy of tofacitinib appears to be at least as good as TNFi, regardless of the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and baseline cardiovascular risk, according to a post hoc analysis of the ORAL Surveillance study presented by Maya Buch, MD, PhD, of NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and University of Manchester, England. ORAL Surveillance was a randomized, open-label, postmarketing safety study sponsored by Pfizer. The study enrolled patients aged 50 or older, with one or more additional CV risk factors, and with active disease despite methotrexate treatment. The cohort included patients treated with the tofacitinib at two different doses (5 mg or 10 mg daily) or TNFi.

Given that a prior “post hoc analysis showed differences in the risk of major adverse CV events (MACE) with tofacitinib versus TNFi, depending on the personal history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Buch and coauthors aimed to further characterize the benefit/risk profile of tofacitinib by evaluating its efficacy, compared with TNFi, in patients with a history of ASCVD and baseline CV risk. Out of the 4,362 patients, 640 (14.7%) had a positive history of ASCVD, while 3,722 (85.3%) did not. For the latter group, the 10-year risk of ASCVD was calculated at baseline, which was high (≥ 20%) in 22.5% and intermediate (≥ 7.5% to < 20%) in 39.4%.

The analysis demonstrated that in patients without a history of ASCVD, the odds of achieving either remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index [CDAI] ≤ 2.8) or low disease activity (CDAI ≤ 10) were greater with tofacitinib vs. TNFi. With a history of ASCVD, the likelihood of achieving remission or low disease activity (LDA) was not statistically different between tofacitinib and TNFi. Patients with high or intermediate CV risk scores tended to be more likely to reach remission or LDA with tofacitinib vs. TNFi.

Dr. Buch emphasized that selecting the right therapy for each patient requires careful consideration of potential benefits and risks by the rheumatologist, taking into account individual patient history. “Stratification by baseline risk of CV events may help ensure appropriate and effective use of tofacitinib in patients with RA,” she concluded.

Kim Lauper, MD, of the division of rheumatology at Geneva University Hospitals, who was not involved in the study, commented on the importance of this data: “These findings are important because we currently lack information on how the presence of CV comorbidities can impact the efficacy of RA drugs.”
 

A real-world perspective

MACE occurred at similar rates between JAKi and TNFi, as well as for biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) with other modes of action (OMA) vs. TNFi, in the JAK-Pot study, an international collaboration of RA registries, reported Romain Aymon, of Geneva University Hospitals. But a subanalysis of JAK-Pot in patients resembling the population in the ORAL Surveillance trial found that the incidence of MACE was higher in each treatment group, compared with the overall population. However, no significant difference was found between JAKi vs. TNFi and OMA vs. TNFi.

Mr. Aymon said that the analysis is still ongoing, with additional registries being included.

Dr. Lauper, who is the principal investigator of the study presented by Mr. Aymon, noted that “the absence of a difference in MACE risk in the population resembling the ORAL Surveillance study is in contrast with the results from the ORAL Surveillance itself. This may be due to differences in the populations, with the ORAL Surveillance study having a more selected set of patients.”
 

The Dutch perspective

In line with the findings from the JAK-Pot study, a retrospective inception cohort study conducted on a Dutch RA population also revealed no difference in the incidence of cardiovascular events between JAKi starters and bDMARD starters, according to Merel Opdam, MSc, of Sint Maartenskliniek in Ubbergen, the Netherlands, who reported the findings at the meeting. Two subanalyses of the cohort study, funded by Pfizer, also did not show any difference between tofacitinib and baricitinib (Olumiant), compared with DMARDs, or in patients above 65 years of age. The analysis was conducted on 15,191 patients with RA who were initiating treatment with a JAKi or a new bDMARD, selected from IQVIA’s Dutch Real-World Data Longitudinal Prescription database, which covers approximately 63% of outpatient prescriptions in the Netherlands.

“Not all DMARDs have similar effects on cardiovascular outcomes, and observational studies can contribute to understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with JAKi,” Ms. Opdam said.

“Real-world data holds significant importance as it provides insights into a broader spectrum of patients and reflects the actual clinical practice where treatment decisions are tailored to individual patient needs,” commented Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Center Berlin, and Charité University Medicine Berlin. She said that registries have a pivotal role in this regard.

Dr. Buch reports serving on a speakers bureau for AbbVie; serving as a consultant to AbbVie, CESAS Medical, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer; and receiving grant/research support from Gilead, Pfizer, and UCB. Mr. Aymon and Ms. Opdam report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN – Most people with recent-onset chronic back pain who are referred to a rheumatologist and then diagnosed with definite axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) maintain that diagnosis over the next 2 years, but for those with residual diagnostic uncertainty for axSpA, particular characteristics may help to identify those who will or will not go on to receive a definite diagnosis, according to presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although a rheumatologist’s early axSpA diagnosis is reliable, new research also presented at the meeting reveals that the axSpA clinical phenotype presentation has great heterogeneity around the world, adding to the challenge.

These findings also dovetail with the consensus of an expert panel from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) that determined early axSpA should be defined by a duration of axial symptoms of less than 2 years, a move that should make research studies of early disease more consistent.
 

Diagnosis at first sight

To help in overcoming the long diagnostic delay typically encountered by patients with axSpA, researchers involved in the longitudinal Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort have sought to measure the prevalence of axSpA and the reliability of an early diagnosis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). SPACE researcher Mary Lucy Marques, MD, a rheumatologist at Coimbra (Portugal) Hospital and University Center, and PhD student at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, presented the main results of the study, which included patients younger than 45 years with CBP of unknown origin lasting 3 months to 2 years.

Patients referred to rheumatologists were judged at each visit for the presence or absence of axSpA, and the baseline judgment was reviewed after 2 years to assess its reliability. Baseline diagnostic judgments remained rather stable, and definite axSpA was present in one-third of the patients referred to the rheumatologist (175 out of 555 patients; 32%). After 2 years, the number of patients with definite axSpA diagnosis changed to 165, due to 5% of the definite diagnoses being refuted and 8% gaining a definite axSpA diagnosis. Among the features related to axSpA, the presence (or absence) of imaging-detected sacroiliitis at baseline was the best discriminator for a definite diagnosis at 2 years.

In commenting on these findings, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, assistant professor of rheumatology, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the study, said: “These data show that the key is likely the referral of the ‘right patients’ to tertiary care centers. The [ASAS] has developed referral criteria that can be used for this purpose. According to these, patients with chronic low back pain starting before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one additional SpA feature is present.

“It should be acknowledged that axSpA is not a disease of males only. In fact, there is a 1:1 ratio between males and females in the full spectrum of the disease. Also, although imaging findings are important, not all patients will have these. Similarly, not all patients with imaging abnormalities will have the disease, and their sole presence without other SpA features does not suffice for diagnosis.”
 

Repeated assessment: Is it worth it?

Despite the positive findings described above, residual diagnostic uncertainty remained for 15% of patients, representing an obstacle to initiating an appropriate treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how the repeated assessment of axSpA features is of value for a definite diagnosis.

This last question was addressed in a second abstract also presented by Dr. Marques that focused on the yield of repeated assessment in CBP patients with suspected axSpA from the SPACE cohort. The main outcome of the study was the clinical diagnosis of definite axSpA at 2 years. Compared with baseline, at the 2-year evaluation 32 patients changed their diagnosis and were classified as definite axSpA: Sixteen were previously described as uncertain axSpA at baseline, 11 as uncertain no axSpA, and 5 as definite no axSpA.

On average, three axSpA features were present at baseline with one or two adjunctive features found throughout the study that led to the final diagnosis of definite axSpA. These adjunctive features were most commonly response to NSAIDs and sacroiliitis on MRI. Dr. Marques and colleagues concluded that the yield of repeated assessment in this setting was modest for a new diagnosis of definite axSpA. “Usefulness of repeating MRI in terms of diagnostic yield is low but can be considered in HLA-B27+ patients, especially if male,” Dr. Marques said, commenting on the analysis of SpA features in patients who changed their diagnosis to definite axSpA at 2 years.

“The early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis remains a challenge,” Dr. Sepriano said in commenting on the second SPACE study. “Probably one of the main reasons is the yet suboptimal awareness of the [full spectrum] of the disease in a primary care setting, in which most patients will first show up to get medical care. It is now well-known that patients do not always have changes in pelvic radiographs and that waiting for these to make a diagnosis of [radiographic] axSpA results in further delay and in missing many patients who will never develop these changes.

“Still, recognizing the clinical picture of early axSpA and differentiating it from other more common causes of chronic back pain (e.g., degenerative spinal disease) can sometimes be difficult. Continuous efforts in raising awareness and in education will likely result in further reducing the diagnostic delay gap and, as such, improve the prognosis of this often-debilitating rheumatic inflammatory disease.”

One epidemiologic size does not fit all

According to data from the International Map of Axial Spondyloarthritis (IMAS), axSpA clinical phenotype presentation shows great heterogeneity around the world. Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville in Spain, presented the results of an analysis of an IMAS online survey (2017-2022).

The study, supported by Novartis, aimed at exploring differences in axSpA clinical phenotype presentation in a large sample of unselected patients: a total of 5,557 individuals from 27 countries across five regions. The results showed statistically significant differences among countries in almost all the analyzed characteristics, from age at onset of symptoms (the highest in Latin America) to HLA-B27 positivity frequency (lowest in Latin America and highest in Asia).

Differences also emerged in the presence of a positive family history of the disease (most common in Europe) and of physical and mental comorbidities (common in Africa). The authors also reported treatment data showing that most of the patients had used NSAIDs, and almost half of the patients had ever taken biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Data also showed a mean delay in diagnosis of 7 years, with the longest values observed in South Africa and the lowest in Asia.
 

A consensus definition of early AxSpA

Early axSpA for the first time has been defined based on ASAS expert consensus, and the definition was presented at the meeting by Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid. An international working group came to a definition based on the symptom duration and taking solely axial symptoms into account. At the end of a five-step process, the group successfully developed the first consensus definition of early axSpA: “patients with diagnosis of axSpA with axial symptoms duration of ≤ 2 years.” Also to be noted are axial symptoms as assessed by a rheumatologist, which should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness.

As reported by the authors, this ASAS definition is based on expert consensus, with the limitation of a lack of scientific evidence to support it, especially with regard to the specific duration of symptoms from the time of disease onset. Nonetheless, ASAS recommends the use of this definition in studies referring to early axSpA.

Dr. Marques reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Navarro-Compán reports serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera reports receiving grant or research support from Novartis.
 

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

MILAN – Most people with recent-onset chronic back pain who are referred to a rheumatologist and then diagnosed with definite axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) maintain that diagnosis over the next 2 years, but for those with residual diagnostic uncertainty for axSpA, particular characteristics may help to identify those who will or will not go on to receive a definite diagnosis, according to presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although a rheumatologist’s early axSpA diagnosis is reliable, new research also presented at the meeting reveals that the axSpA clinical phenotype presentation has great heterogeneity around the world, adding to the challenge.

These findings also dovetail with the consensus of an expert panel from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) that determined early axSpA should be defined by a duration of axial symptoms of less than 2 years, a move that should make research studies of early disease more consistent.
 

Diagnosis at first sight

To help in overcoming the long diagnostic delay typically encountered by patients with axSpA, researchers involved in the longitudinal Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort have sought to measure the prevalence of axSpA and the reliability of an early diagnosis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). SPACE researcher Mary Lucy Marques, MD, a rheumatologist at Coimbra (Portugal) Hospital and University Center, and PhD student at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, presented the main results of the study, which included patients younger than 45 years with CBP of unknown origin lasting 3 months to 2 years.

Patients referred to rheumatologists were judged at each visit for the presence or absence of axSpA, and the baseline judgment was reviewed after 2 years to assess its reliability. Baseline diagnostic judgments remained rather stable, and definite axSpA was present in one-third of the patients referred to the rheumatologist (175 out of 555 patients; 32%). After 2 years, the number of patients with definite axSpA diagnosis changed to 165, due to 5% of the definite diagnoses being refuted and 8% gaining a definite axSpA diagnosis. Among the features related to axSpA, the presence (or absence) of imaging-detected sacroiliitis at baseline was the best discriminator for a definite diagnosis at 2 years.

In commenting on these findings, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, assistant professor of rheumatology, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the study, said: “These data show that the key is likely the referral of the ‘right patients’ to tertiary care centers. The [ASAS] has developed referral criteria that can be used for this purpose. According to these, patients with chronic low back pain starting before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one additional SpA feature is present.

“It should be acknowledged that axSpA is not a disease of males only. In fact, there is a 1:1 ratio between males and females in the full spectrum of the disease. Also, although imaging findings are important, not all patients will have these. Similarly, not all patients with imaging abnormalities will have the disease, and their sole presence without other SpA features does not suffice for diagnosis.”
 

Repeated assessment: Is it worth it?

Despite the positive findings described above, residual diagnostic uncertainty remained for 15% of patients, representing an obstacle to initiating an appropriate treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how the repeated assessment of axSpA features is of value for a definite diagnosis.

This last question was addressed in a second abstract also presented by Dr. Marques that focused on the yield of repeated assessment in CBP patients with suspected axSpA from the SPACE cohort. The main outcome of the study was the clinical diagnosis of definite axSpA at 2 years. Compared with baseline, at the 2-year evaluation 32 patients changed their diagnosis and were classified as definite axSpA: Sixteen were previously described as uncertain axSpA at baseline, 11 as uncertain no axSpA, and 5 as definite no axSpA.

On average, three axSpA features were present at baseline with one or two adjunctive features found throughout the study that led to the final diagnosis of definite axSpA. These adjunctive features were most commonly response to NSAIDs and sacroiliitis on MRI. Dr. Marques and colleagues concluded that the yield of repeated assessment in this setting was modest for a new diagnosis of definite axSpA. “Usefulness of repeating MRI in terms of diagnostic yield is low but can be considered in HLA-B27+ patients, especially if male,” Dr. Marques said, commenting on the analysis of SpA features in patients who changed their diagnosis to definite axSpA at 2 years.

“The early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis remains a challenge,” Dr. Sepriano said in commenting on the second SPACE study. “Probably one of the main reasons is the yet suboptimal awareness of the [full spectrum] of the disease in a primary care setting, in which most patients will first show up to get medical care. It is now well-known that patients do not always have changes in pelvic radiographs and that waiting for these to make a diagnosis of [radiographic] axSpA results in further delay and in missing many patients who will never develop these changes.

“Still, recognizing the clinical picture of early axSpA and differentiating it from other more common causes of chronic back pain (e.g., degenerative spinal disease) can sometimes be difficult. Continuous efforts in raising awareness and in education will likely result in further reducing the diagnostic delay gap and, as such, improve the prognosis of this often-debilitating rheumatic inflammatory disease.”

One epidemiologic size does not fit all

According to data from the International Map of Axial Spondyloarthritis (IMAS), axSpA clinical phenotype presentation shows great heterogeneity around the world. Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville in Spain, presented the results of an analysis of an IMAS online survey (2017-2022).

The study, supported by Novartis, aimed at exploring differences in axSpA clinical phenotype presentation in a large sample of unselected patients: a total of 5,557 individuals from 27 countries across five regions. The results showed statistically significant differences among countries in almost all the analyzed characteristics, from age at onset of symptoms (the highest in Latin America) to HLA-B27 positivity frequency (lowest in Latin America and highest in Asia).

Differences also emerged in the presence of a positive family history of the disease (most common in Europe) and of physical and mental comorbidities (common in Africa). The authors also reported treatment data showing that most of the patients had used NSAIDs, and almost half of the patients had ever taken biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Data also showed a mean delay in diagnosis of 7 years, with the longest values observed in South Africa and the lowest in Asia.
 

A consensus definition of early AxSpA

Early axSpA for the first time has been defined based on ASAS expert consensus, and the definition was presented at the meeting by Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid. An international working group came to a definition based on the symptom duration and taking solely axial symptoms into account. At the end of a five-step process, the group successfully developed the first consensus definition of early axSpA: “patients with diagnosis of axSpA with axial symptoms duration of ≤ 2 years.” Also to be noted are axial symptoms as assessed by a rheumatologist, which should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness.

As reported by the authors, this ASAS definition is based on expert consensus, with the limitation of a lack of scientific evidence to support it, especially with regard to the specific duration of symptoms from the time of disease onset. Nonetheless, ASAS recommends the use of this definition in studies referring to early axSpA.

Dr. Marques reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Navarro-Compán reports serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera reports receiving grant or research support from Novartis.
 

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

MILAN – Most people with recent-onset chronic back pain who are referred to a rheumatologist and then diagnosed with definite axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) maintain that diagnosis over the next 2 years, but for those with residual diagnostic uncertainty for axSpA, particular characteristics may help to identify those who will or will not go on to receive a definite diagnosis, according to presentations given at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Although a rheumatologist’s early axSpA diagnosis is reliable, new research also presented at the meeting reveals that the axSpA clinical phenotype presentation has great heterogeneity around the world, adding to the challenge.

These findings also dovetail with the consensus of an expert panel from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) that determined early axSpA should be defined by a duration of axial symptoms of less than 2 years, a move that should make research studies of early disease more consistent.
 

Diagnosis at first sight

To help in overcoming the long diagnostic delay typically encountered by patients with axSpA, researchers involved in the longitudinal Spondyloarthritis Caught Early (SPACE) cohort have sought to measure the prevalence of axSpA and the reliability of an early diagnosis in patients with chronic back pain (CBP). SPACE researcher Mary Lucy Marques, MD, a rheumatologist at Coimbra (Portugal) Hospital and University Center, and PhD student at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center, presented the main results of the study, which included patients younger than 45 years with CBP of unknown origin lasting 3 months to 2 years.

Patients referred to rheumatologists were judged at each visit for the presence or absence of axSpA, and the baseline judgment was reviewed after 2 years to assess its reliability. Baseline diagnostic judgments remained rather stable, and definite axSpA was present in one-third of the patients referred to the rheumatologist (175 out of 555 patients; 32%). After 2 years, the number of patients with definite axSpA diagnosis changed to 165, due to 5% of the definite diagnoses being refuted and 8% gaining a definite axSpA diagnosis. Among the features related to axSpA, the presence (or absence) of imaging-detected sacroiliitis at baseline was the best discriminator for a definite diagnosis at 2 years.

In commenting on these findings, Alexandre Sepriano, MD, PhD, assistant professor of rheumatology, NOVA Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal, who was not involved in the study, said: “These data show that the key is likely the referral of the ‘right patients’ to tertiary care centers. The [ASAS] has developed referral criteria that can be used for this purpose. According to these, patients with chronic low back pain starting before 45 years of age should be referred to a rheumatologist if at least one additional SpA feature is present.

“It should be acknowledged that axSpA is not a disease of males only. In fact, there is a 1:1 ratio between males and females in the full spectrum of the disease. Also, although imaging findings are important, not all patients will have these. Similarly, not all patients with imaging abnormalities will have the disease, and their sole presence without other SpA features does not suffice for diagnosis.”
 

Repeated assessment: Is it worth it?

Despite the positive findings described above, residual diagnostic uncertainty remained for 15% of patients, representing an obstacle to initiating an appropriate treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand whether and how the repeated assessment of axSpA features is of value for a definite diagnosis.

This last question was addressed in a second abstract also presented by Dr. Marques that focused on the yield of repeated assessment in CBP patients with suspected axSpA from the SPACE cohort. The main outcome of the study was the clinical diagnosis of definite axSpA at 2 years. Compared with baseline, at the 2-year evaluation 32 patients changed their diagnosis and were classified as definite axSpA: Sixteen were previously described as uncertain axSpA at baseline, 11 as uncertain no axSpA, and 5 as definite no axSpA.

On average, three axSpA features were present at baseline with one or two adjunctive features found throughout the study that led to the final diagnosis of definite axSpA. These adjunctive features were most commonly response to NSAIDs and sacroiliitis on MRI. Dr. Marques and colleagues concluded that the yield of repeated assessment in this setting was modest for a new diagnosis of definite axSpA. “Usefulness of repeating MRI in terms of diagnostic yield is low but can be considered in HLA-B27+ patients, especially if male,” Dr. Marques said, commenting on the analysis of SpA features in patients who changed their diagnosis to definite axSpA at 2 years.

“The early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis remains a challenge,” Dr. Sepriano said in commenting on the second SPACE study. “Probably one of the main reasons is the yet suboptimal awareness of the [full spectrum] of the disease in a primary care setting, in which most patients will first show up to get medical care. It is now well-known that patients do not always have changes in pelvic radiographs and that waiting for these to make a diagnosis of [radiographic] axSpA results in further delay and in missing many patients who will never develop these changes.

“Still, recognizing the clinical picture of early axSpA and differentiating it from other more common causes of chronic back pain (e.g., degenerative spinal disease) can sometimes be difficult. Continuous efforts in raising awareness and in education will likely result in further reducing the diagnostic delay gap and, as such, improve the prognosis of this often-debilitating rheumatic inflammatory disease.”

One epidemiologic size does not fit all

According to data from the International Map of Axial Spondyloarthritis (IMAS), axSpA clinical phenotype presentation shows great heterogeneity around the world. Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville in Spain, presented the results of an analysis of an IMAS online survey (2017-2022).

The study, supported by Novartis, aimed at exploring differences in axSpA clinical phenotype presentation in a large sample of unselected patients: a total of 5,557 individuals from 27 countries across five regions. The results showed statistically significant differences among countries in almost all the analyzed characteristics, from age at onset of symptoms (the highest in Latin America) to HLA-B27 positivity frequency (lowest in Latin America and highest in Asia).

Differences also emerged in the presence of a positive family history of the disease (most common in Europe) and of physical and mental comorbidities (common in Africa). The authors also reported treatment data showing that most of the patients had used NSAIDs, and almost half of the patients had ever taken biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. Data also showed a mean delay in diagnosis of 7 years, with the longest values observed in South Africa and the lowest in Asia.
 

A consensus definition of early AxSpA

Early axSpA for the first time has been defined based on ASAS expert consensus, and the definition was presented at the meeting by Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid. An international working group came to a definition based on the symptom duration and taking solely axial symptoms into account. At the end of a five-step process, the group successfully developed the first consensus definition of early axSpA: “patients with diagnosis of axSpA with axial symptoms duration of ≤ 2 years.” Also to be noted are axial symptoms as assessed by a rheumatologist, which should include spinal/buttock pain or morning stiffness.

As reported by the authors, this ASAS definition is based on expert consensus, with the limitation of a lack of scientific evidence to support it, especially with regard to the specific duration of symptoms from the time of disease onset. Nonetheless, ASAS recommends the use of this definition in studies referring to early axSpA.

Dr. Marques reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Navarro-Compán reports serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; consulting for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, MoonLake, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and receiving grant/research support from AbbVie and Novartis. Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera reports receiving grant or research support from Novartis.
 

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

An Italian study of women diagnosed with breast cancer reported that around 50% experienced body image disturbance and 20% noted a negative impact on their sex life. And while meeting with a specialist in psycho-oncology was universally viewed as an acceptable option, only one out of four patients considered consulting a sexologist. All these women should be encouraged to face and address issues related to sexuality so that they can truly regain a good quality of life, the study suggests.

The study, which was conducted at the breast unit of Santa Maria Goretti Hospital in Latina, Italy, enrolled 141 patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included questions regarding self-image, sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction, and it analyzed these aspects before and after treatment. The participants were then asked whether they felt that they needed to see a sexologist or a specialist in psycho-oncology.

The findings clearly showed a worsening in terms of body image perception. When the women were asked about the relationship they had with their body, femininity, and beauty prior to being diagnosed, 37.4% characterized it as very good and 58.9% as “normal,” with ups and downs but nothing that they would term “conflictual.” After diagnosis, 48.9% noted that the disease had an impact on their body image with a partial conditioning about their femininity and beauty. However, 7.2% had difficulty when it came to recognizing their own body, and their relationship with femininity also became difficult.

On the topic of sexuality, 71.2% of patients were completely satisfied with their sex life before they were diagnosed with breast cancer, 23.7% were partially satisfied, and 5.0% were unsatisfied. As for their sex life after diagnosis and surgery, 20.1% stated that it continued to be fulfilling and 55.4% said that it had gotten worse; 18.8% reported significant sexual dissatisfaction.

The participants were asked whether consulting a professional would be warranted, and whether that would provide useful support for overcoming the difficulties and challenges arising from the disease and the related treatments. In response, 97.1% said they would go to a specialist in psycho-oncology, but only 27.3% would seek help from a sexologist.

“Despite the negative impact on body image and on sexuality, few patients would seek the help of a sexologist; nearly all of the patients, however, would seek the help of a specialist in psycho-oncology. This was very surprising to us,” write the authors. They went on to note that they are carrying out another project to understand the reason for this disparity.

In addition, they advised clinicians to encourage communication about sexuality – a topic that is regularly overlooked and not included in discussions with patients, mostly because of cultural barriers. Often, physicians aren’t comfortable talking about sexuality, as they don’t feel they have the proper training to do so. Patients who are experiencing issues related to sexuality also often have difficulty asking for help. And so, in their conclusion, the authors point out that “collaborating together in the right direction is the basis of change and good communication.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy and appeared on Medscape.com.

An Italian study of women diagnosed with breast cancer reported that around 50% experienced body image disturbance and 20% noted a negative impact on their sex life. And while meeting with a specialist in psycho-oncology was universally viewed as an acceptable option, only one out of four patients considered consulting a sexologist. All these women should be encouraged to face and address issues related to sexuality so that they can truly regain a good quality of life, the study suggests.

The study, which was conducted at the breast unit of Santa Maria Goretti Hospital in Latina, Italy, enrolled 141 patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included questions regarding self-image, sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction, and it analyzed these aspects before and after treatment. The participants were then asked whether they felt that they needed to see a sexologist or a specialist in psycho-oncology.

The findings clearly showed a worsening in terms of body image perception. When the women were asked about the relationship they had with their body, femininity, and beauty prior to being diagnosed, 37.4% characterized it as very good and 58.9% as “normal,” with ups and downs but nothing that they would term “conflictual.” After diagnosis, 48.9% noted that the disease had an impact on their body image with a partial conditioning about their femininity and beauty. However, 7.2% had difficulty when it came to recognizing their own body, and their relationship with femininity also became difficult.

On the topic of sexuality, 71.2% of patients were completely satisfied with their sex life before they were diagnosed with breast cancer, 23.7% were partially satisfied, and 5.0% were unsatisfied. As for their sex life after diagnosis and surgery, 20.1% stated that it continued to be fulfilling and 55.4% said that it had gotten worse; 18.8% reported significant sexual dissatisfaction.

The participants were asked whether consulting a professional would be warranted, and whether that would provide useful support for overcoming the difficulties and challenges arising from the disease and the related treatments. In response, 97.1% said they would go to a specialist in psycho-oncology, but only 27.3% would seek help from a sexologist.

“Despite the negative impact on body image and on sexuality, few patients would seek the help of a sexologist; nearly all of the patients, however, would seek the help of a specialist in psycho-oncology. This was very surprising to us,” write the authors. They went on to note that they are carrying out another project to understand the reason for this disparity.

In addition, they advised clinicians to encourage communication about sexuality – a topic that is regularly overlooked and not included in discussions with patients, mostly because of cultural barriers. Often, physicians aren’t comfortable talking about sexuality, as they don’t feel they have the proper training to do so. Patients who are experiencing issues related to sexuality also often have difficulty asking for help. And so, in their conclusion, the authors point out that “collaborating together in the right direction is the basis of change and good communication.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy and appeared on Medscape.com.

An Italian study of women diagnosed with breast cancer reported that around 50% experienced body image disturbance and 20% noted a negative impact on their sex life. And while meeting with a specialist in psycho-oncology was universally viewed as an acceptable option, only one out of four patients considered consulting a sexologist. All these women should be encouraged to face and address issues related to sexuality so that they can truly regain a good quality of life, the study suggests.

The study, which was conducted at the breast unit of Santa Maria Goretti Hospital in Latina, Italy, enrolled 141 patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that included questions regarding self-image, sexual activity, and sexual satisfaction, and it analyzed these aspects before and after treatment. The participants were then asked whether they felt that they needed to see a sexologist or a specialist in psycho-oncology.

The findings clearly showed a worsening in terms of body image perception. When the women were asked about the relationship they had with their body, femininity, and beauty prior to being diagnosed, 37.4% characterized it as very good and 58.9% as “normal,” with ups and downs but nothing that they would term “conflictual.” After diagnosis, 48.9% noted that the disease had an impact on their body image with a partial conditioning about their femininity and beauty. However, 7.2% had difficulty when it came to recognizing their own body, and their relationship with femininity also became difficult.

On the topic of sexuality, 71.2% of patients were completely satisfied with their sex life before they were diagnosed with breast cancer, 23.7% were partially satisfied, and 5.0% were unsatisfied. As for their sex life after diagnosis and surgery, 20.1% stated that it continued to be fulfilling and 55.4% said that it had gotten worse; 18.8% reported significant sexual dissatisfaction.

The participants were asked whether consulting a professional would be warranted, and whether that would provide useful support for overcoming the difficulties and challenges arising from the disease and the related treatments. In response, 97.1% said they would go to a specialist in psycho-oncology, but only 27.3% would seek help from a sexologist.

“Despite the negative impact on body image and on sexuality, few patients would seek the help of a sexologist; nearly all of the patients, however, would seek the help of a specialist in psycho-oncology. This was very surprising to us,” write the authors. They went on to note that they are carrying out another project to understand the reason for this disparity.

In addition, they advised clinicians to encourage communication about sexuality – a topic that is regularly overlooked and not included in discussions with patients, mostly because of cultural barriers. Often, physicians aren’t comfortable talking about sexuality, as they don’t feel they have the proper training to do so. Patients who are experiencing issues related to sexuality also often have difficulty asking for help. And so, in their conclusion, the authors point out that “collaborating together in the right direction is the basis of change and good communication.”

This article was translated from Univadis Italy and appeared on Medscape.com.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The PREDICT score does not seem to be particularly accurate when it comes to estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. This is the conclusion of an international study published in the journal npj Breast Cancer. The work was supervised by Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, an oncologist at the IRCCS San Martino Polyclinic Hospital in Genoa, Italy.

As the authors explain, “PREDICT is a publicly available online tool that helps to predict the individual prognosis of patients with early breast cancer and to show the impact of adjuvant treatments administered after breast cancer surgery.” The tool uses traditional clinical-pathological factors. The authors also point out that the original version of this tool was validated in several datasets of patients with breast cancer. In 2011, it was updated to include HER2 status.

The investigators noted that, although the use of PREDICT is recommended to aid decision-making in the adjuvant setting, its prognostic role in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer who are treated with modern chemotherapy and anti-HER2 therapies – even trastuzumab-based ones – remains unclear.

Therefore, they decided to analyze PREDICT’s prognostic performance using data extracted from the ALTTO trial, the largest adjuvant study ever conducted in the field of HER2-positive early breast cancer. That trial “represented a unique opportunity to investigate the reliability and prognostic performance of PREDICT in women with HER2-positive disease,” according to the investigators. They went on to specify that ALTTO evaluated adjuvant lapatinib plus trastuzumab vs. trastuzumab alone in 8,381 patients – 2,794 of whom were included in their own analysis.

What the analysis found was that, overall, PREDICT underestimated 5-year OS by 6.7%. The observed 5-year OS was 94.7%, and the predicted 5-year OS was 88.0%.

“The underestimation was consistent across all subgroups, including those according to the type of anti-HER2 therapy. The highest absolute differences were observed for patients with hormone receptor–negative disease, nodal involvement, and large tumor size (13.0%, 15.8%, and 15.3%, respectively),” they wrote. Furthermore, they reported that “the suboptimal performance of this prognostic tool was observed irrespective of type of anti-HER2 treatment, type of chemotherapy regimen, age of the patients at the time of diagnosis, central hormone receptor status, pathological nodal status, and pathological tumor size.”

To potentially explain the reasons for the underestimation of patients’ OS, the authors questioned whether the population used to validate PREDICT accurately mirrored the real-world population of patients with HER2-positive disease treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies. “Moreover, the current standard of care for early breast cancer is even superior to the treatment received by many patients in the ALTTO study. … As such, the discordance between OS estimated by PREDICT and the current real-world OS is expected to be even higher. Therefore,” the researchers concluded, “our results suggest that the current version of PREDICT should be used with caution for prognostication in HER2-positive early breast cancer patients treated in the modern era with effective chemotherapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapies.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

More than 70% of cancer patients do not know that they are at greater risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than the general population. It is up to their physician to discuss this with them.

This link is explained by the authors of an article in Cancer Treatment and Research Communications that reports results of a survey carried out by the European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC). “The aim of this pan-European patient survey was to assess patient awareness and knowledge about cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), including risk factors, signs and symptoms, and interventions, to better prevent and treat CAT,” write the authors. “The idea was to create a sort of starting point for subsequent communication and information strategies and for comparing the results of any action taken in this area,” they add.

A roundtable discussion that included oncology healthcare professionals, policymakers, and patient advocates was convened to discuss and review the evidence regarding their ongoing concerns of excessive CAT-associated morbidity and mortality, as well as patients’ desire for greater CAT awareness.

“These discussions demonstrated that very little change had occurred over the years and that greater knowledge about CAT was still needed across the spectrum of healthcare practitioners and patients, particularly regarding primary and secondary prevention of thrombosis,” the authors write.

It was from this starting point that the idea for the pan-European survey was born. The ECPC, widely viewed as the “unified voice of cancer patients across Europe,” led the survey. This survey spanned six countries (France, Germany, Greece, Italy, United Kingdom, and Spain) and involved 1,365 patients and caregivers. The ECPC survey result was originally released at World Thrombosis Day in late 2018.

In an interview, Anna Falanga, MD, the main author of the article and professor of hematology at the University of Milan-Bicocca, Italy, reviewed the results and explained how to improve knowledge of CAT among patients with cancer.

“Data support that up to 20% of patients with cancer will experience venous thromboembolism (VTE), which is approximately 4–5 times higher than the general population,” said Dr. Falanga, who is also chief of the department of immunohematology and transfusion medicine and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Center at the Hospital Papa Giovanni XXIII, in Bergamo, Italy.

“We have known about the link between thrombosis and cancer since the 19th century, but it has taken until midway through the last century for our level of understanding and awareness of the problem to reach its current level. Initially, this was limited to fundamental research, with large advances in our understanding of the mechanisms of the link between the two; it has only been more recently that we have had clinical studies that have piqued the interest of healthcare professionals, who were previously uninterested in the topic,” she said.
 

Poor understanding

One piece of data stands out from the European survey: Nearly three quarters of respondents (72%) said that before taking part in the survey, they were not aware that people with cancer have a higher-than-normal risk of developing thrombosis. “We asked participants to rate their overall understanding of CAT on a scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high), with the average (mean) score obtained being 4.1. Only 21% of patients gave a rating of 7 or above (high understanding). The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed,” write the authors. They note that the survey also assessed how much participants had learned about the topic from their physicians.

Approximately 35% of patients were made aware of CAT either immediately before or at the time of their cancer diagnosis. Of particular concern, one quarter (26%) of respondents (the largest proportion) noted that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. The average rating was very similar in the different countries surveyed. “Let us not forget that cancer and cancer treatments themselves cause a number of side effects, some of which can be very serious, so in some ways, a clot might be seen as a minor problem. Yet, in reality, it isn’t. It is a significant cause of death and disease in cancer patients,” said Dr. Falanga.

When discussing prevention, most respondents (87%) said they were aware that taking a walk could reduce their risk. Slightly fewer were aware that stopping smoking could reduce their risk (75%), and even fewer were aware that keeping hydrated (63%) and stretching their legs (55%) could reduce their risk.

Symptoms of CAT appeared to be relatively well known; 73% of survey participants indicated that they were aware that swelling in the foot, ankle, or leg could be a sign of DVT, and 71% indicated that shortness of breath could be a sign of pulmonary embolism (PE). “Other symptoms, however, were less well known, with just over half (57%) of participants being aware that pain, cramping, and tenderness could be a sign of DVT. About one third (33%) knew that irregular heartbeat could be a sign of PE. These results varied between countries,” according to the authors.

The survey highlighted that just over a third of respondents said that they were currently using anticoagulants, although almost all (96%) knew that anticoagulants could be used to effectively treat thrombosis. Only 41% of those using anticoagulants said they had been told about any possible side effects.
 

The Italian situation

The report containing the full results of the European survey goes even further, since, in addition to its overall results, it also gives information about individual countries.

The data from Italy, which are based on 246 persons, show that only 27% of patients and caregivers were aware of the increased risk of thrombosis after a cancer diagnosis. This figure is in line with the overall results of the survey, although the average score of the 10-point scale was lower for the Italy cohort (3.3/10 vs 4.1/10).

The results are more variable in terms of knowledge of risk factors. Most respondents (89%) said that they were aware of the risks related to inactivity. Just over half (52%), however, said that they were aware of the risks related to radiotherapy. Nevertheless, 75% of participants knew about the risks relating to cancer surgery and chemotherapy. “To all intents and purposes, all types of cancer drug can significantly affect the risk of developing a clot. And this is also the case for more modern types of treatment, such as immunotherapy,” said Dr. Falanga.

Most respondents reported that they got information about cancer-associated thrombosis verbally, usually from their hospital doctor (11%). Some respondents (6%) said that they found out about it from their own research, usually online. Almost 1 in 4 patients (24%) in Italy said that they first became aware of CAT when they suffered a blood clot. Answers to questions about knowledge of symptoms show that 58% of Italian patients and caregivers know that swelling of the lower limbs can be a symptom of DVT, and the same percentage knows that shortness of breath might indicate PE.

In terms of preventive action, the picture in Italy is somewhat variable: 74% of participants were aware of the importance of walking, but far fewer knew about the need to stop smoking (57%) and stretch the legs (35%). Of the 41% of Italians who were also taking an anticoagulant drug, 53% said that they knew about the possible side effects of such medication.
 

Which way forward?

“The high rate of CAT suggests that, despite the clinical evidence and clear guideline recommendations for patients with cancer, CAT prevention and recognition remain low among healthcare professionals,” the authors write.

The results of the ECPC survey further confirm those of previous studies, highlighting patients’ lack of knowledge about CAT and the need for more in-depth discussions between physician and patient.

So, what can be done? As highlighted by previous studies, “patients’ experiences are an education in themselves, particularly for the oncology care team,” the authors write. “Once the patient has a thrombosis, the opportunity for thrombosis prevention, which should be the most crucial focus of the care clinics (surgical, oncology, and palliative care), is gone,” they add.

“Oncology professionals, as well as other members of the patient’s care team (eg, internists, surgeons, nurses), need to perform better, at every stage of the patient’s cancer pathway, to ensure patients are aware of CAT and their individual risk to develop a blood clot,” said Dr. Falanga. She explained that in this group, it is the general practitioner who is the first contact. “These professionals are on the front line of the battle; they are among the first healthcare workers given the chance to suspect a clot and should, therefore, be fully aware of the increased risk in oncology patients,” she reiterated.

Experts agree on the fact that a multidisciplinary approach is of utmost importance in this context: the different roles in the team must be clear. “It is also fundamental to establish who does what in terms of educating and informing the patient,” said Dr. Falanga.

The researchers also put forward an example of a successful initiative: the Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in the Ambulatory Cancer Clinic (VTE-PACC) program. The initiative was developed by experts from the University of Vermont and was described in a recent article in JCO Oncology Practice.

Numerous resources are available online to help physicians talk to their patients and explain the risks linked to CAT along the continuum of cancer care. Among them is a resource titled, “Cancer Associated Thrombosis (CAT): Be Clot Conscious,” which can be found on the ECPC’s website.

“We have a collective responsibility using the ECPC patient survey as a baseline to inform patients with cancer on how to identify signs and symptoms of CAT to enable faster diagnosis and treatment,” the authors conclude.

This article was translated from Univadis Italy.

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

The Sedentary Behavior Research Network has published new guidelines “to provide guidance to parents, educators, policy makers, researchers, and health care providers” on means to reduce school-related sedentary behavior.

The recommendations, published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity were written by researchers led by Travis J. Saunders, PhD, associate professor of applied human sciences at the University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown. Based on work carried out by a panel of international experts and informed by the best available evidence and stakeholder consultation, “these recommendations will be useful in supporting the physical and mental health, well-being, and academic success of school-age children and youth,” according to the authors.

The key strength of their work, they wrote, is that it is based on robust scientific data and specifically refers to school-related sedentary behaviors, whether these occur during lessons in the classroom or while completing assignments at home. “Existing sedentary behavior guidelines for children and youth target overall sedentary behavior and recreational screen time, without any specific recommendations regarding school-related sedentary behaviors.” The article also mentions the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lack of movement was already a problem in these age groups; social distancing and distance learning over such an extended period only made things worse.
 

Risks and benefits

Dr. Saunders and colleagues wrote: “The relationships between sedentary behaviors and student health and academic outcomes are complex and likely differ for specific sedentary behaviors.”

While on one hand sedentary behavior may have a significant negative impact on metabolic outcomes, there is evidence that higher durations of homework and reading are associated with better academic achievement among school-aged children.

Another example of this complexity is that screen-based sedentary behaviors (spending time in front of computer screens, TVs, tablets, smartphones) often demonstrate deleterious associations with a range of health outcomes among school-aged children and youth aged 5-18 years, including body composition, cardiometabolic risk, and self-esteem. Yet screen-based devices may offer opportunities for novel pedagogic approaches and student engagement and may increase access to education for some students, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The researchers noted that “many common sedentary activities ... do not have to be sedentary in nature. These behaviors are only considered to be sedentary when combined with both low energy expenditure and a sitting, reclining, or lying posture.” As an example, they pointed out that “active video gaming, or paper-based work at a standing desk, are both ways that common sedentary behaviors can be made nonsedentary.”

One thing’s for sure: Children and teenagers don’t move around all that much.

Data from the 2019 Eye on Health survey found that one of five children (20.3%) had not engaged in any physical activity the day before the survey, almost half (43.5%) had a TV in their bedroom, and about the same number (44.5%) spent more than 2 hours a day in front of a screen.

As for schools, the survey showed that, while 93% had initiatives to promote physical activity, fewer than 30% of these programs involved parents. It should be kept in mind that these are prepandemic numbers.
 

‘A healthy school day’

The authors recommend the following for reducing school-related sedentary behavior:

• Break up periods of extended sedentary behavior with both scheduled and unscheduled movement breaks: at least once every 30 minutes for ages 5-11 years and at least once every hour for ages 12-18 years. Consider activities that vary in intensity and duration (for example, standing, stretching breaks, moving to another classroom, active lessons, active breaks).
• Incorporate different types of movement into homework whenever possible, and limit sedentary homework to no more than 10 minutes per day per grade level (for example, no more than 10 minutes per day in grade 1, or 60 minutes per day in grade 6).
• Regardless of the location, school-related screen time should be meaningful, mentally or physically active, and serve a specific pedagogic purpose that enhances learning, compared with alternative methods. When school-related screen time is warranted, the following are recommended: limit time on devices, especially for students age 5-11 years; take a device break at least once every 30 minutes; discourage media multitasking in the classroom and while doing homework; and avoid screen-based homework within an hour of bedtime.
• Replace sedentary learning activities with movement-based learning activities (including standing) and replacing screen-based learning activities with non–screen-based learning activities (for example, outdoor lessons) can further support students’ health and well-being.

“Given the important role that schools can play in the promotion of healthy behaviors,” Dr. Saunders and associates wrote, “we encourage national and international public health agencies to consider inclusion of specific recommendations related to the school environment in future sedentary behavior guidelines.”

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

“The story of dying in the 21st century is a story of paradox.” This is the opening line of a report recently published in the Lancet, in which the Lancet Commission experts tackle what is, for many, a very sensitive topic: the end of life. The recommendations they present aim at “bringing death back into life.”

What makes the story a paradox is that, in end-of-life situations, many people are overtreated, and on the other hand, many people are undertreated.

In short, when all is said and done, “people die bad deaths.” A natural event, a natural part of life, has turned into something that people fear or, in some cases, refuse to even acknowledge or talk about.

This was the motivating factor for the Lancet Commission, a group of experts from various disciplines, to come together to try to better understand this complex concept. They called on the general public, health care professionals, and policy makers to change the approach to end-of-life matters so that there can be a balance between death and dying, as well as a balance between life and death.

This sensitive topic was explored by Marina Sozzi, PhD. She is the director of the Association for the Support and Assistance of People With Chronic and Oncological Diseases, a nonprofit organization that for more than 30 years has been dedicated to “providing palliative care and supporting individuals with oncological or other chronic and degenerative diseases.”
 

Call for rebalancing

To give people an idea of a better system in which life and death are in balance, the Lancet Commission experts described a realistic utopia, which they summarized in the following five principles:

• The social determinants of death, dying, and grieving are confronted.
• Dying is understood to be a relational and spiritual process rather than simply a physiological event.
• Networks of care provide support for people who are dying, those caring for them, and those grieving.
• Conversations and stories about everyday death, dying, and grief become common.
• Death is recognized as having value.

Achieving this utopia will not be easy, especially considering the current systems that are in place. “There have been tremendous medical advances over the last hundred years, particularly in increasing life expectancy and curing diseases that were once considered death sentences,” Dr. Sozzi explained. “Indeed, over the course of that time period, medical science acquired an enormous degree of social power, and matters of death – which in previous centuries had been within the purview of religions and houses of worship – were handed over to be handled by doctors and nurses.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical field’s role in matters of death more prominent: every day, people saw footage of dying people in hospital beds being cared for by health care professionals in masks and gowns. These patients were otherwise alone, their only contact with loved ones being over the phone or online. They died the ultimate medicalized deaths, stripped of almost all opportunities to get emotional support from family and friends.
 

New perspective needed

The Lancet Commission experts were certain about one point: The need to move away from the reductionist approach to death in order to integrate a more holistic approach, one that takes into account all of the dimensions of death without limiting itself only to the medical aspects.

“Medicine has its own take on the death phenomenon and on disease, which is a reductionist take,” said Dr. Sozzi, noting that, thanks to processes that make it possible to reduce phenomena to the measurable, medicine has managed to make tremendous progress. The same approach has been applied to the view of death, which has by and large become a biologic event.

“The problem is that, in reality, death is a much more complex phenomenon: cultural, social, involving families and society,” she explained. “Not all of these aspects are taken into consideration by medicine, and therefore, our culture has diminished its view of the death phenomenon.” Dr. Sozzi pointed out that, if looked upon more closely, the very question: “What did the person die of?” presupposes, in a certain sense, that it might have been possible to prevent that death – if only medicine had the right technology. So, death comes to be seen as something that could have been avoided.
 

Power of palliative care

Changing the approach to death requires a profound culture shift and, therefore, a lot of time. The good news is that, although there is still a long way to go, a few steps have been taken in this direction. “Talking about death, and even organizing courses aimed at health care professionals, is definitely easier these days than it was even just 10 years ago,” said Dr. Sozzi, citing, as an example, a project she developed for training nursing home operators in palliative care.

It is in palliative care where the greatest progress has been made in end-of-life matters. “The culture of palliative care allows us to think about death in very different terms and to recognize that moment when we should stop looking at curative care and direct our efforts at ‘comfort care.’ And this care of the dying has to be holistic,” Dr. Sozzi explained. She adds that we are increasingly talking about simultaneous palliative care – care that is not limited to the final days of a person’s life but that rather starts early on, when active treatments are still in place.

Dr. Sozzi mentioned Italy’s Law 38, which took effect in 2010. It regulates access to palliative care and pain management, expanding the right to receive these treatments to patients “in any health care setting, at any stage of life, and for any chronic or progressive condition which has no treatment or has a treatment that is not sufficient to stabilize it.”

A culture shift is also needed in this area; there has already been a movement away from general practitioners to health care professionals who can and must direct a patient to palliative care.

“We need to provide these doctors with more training and make them more aware of what a difference this kind of care can make throughout a patient’s life, not only during the final stages,” said Dr. Sozzi. Concerning training, she mentioned that Italy had recently introduced a specialization in palliative care for medical school graduates. This is another small step and one that adds a sense of dignity to this new approach to life and to death.
 

The experts’ recommendations

In attempting to find a balance between life and death, we must not look at the period prior to the 1900s as some kind of golden age. Dr. Sozzi explained that back then there was almost none of the medical technology now available to treat people at the end of life. “Palliative care has also set forth original technical aspects for eliminating pain. Without having eliminated a patient’s pain, I can hardly begin a discussion with them about spiritual aspects,” she said, emphasizing the importance of always contextualizing approaches to death.

The Lancet Commission experts assessed the approach to death in many different contexts. They recommended that, to best handle end-of-life matters in all their complexity, one should keep in mind the importance of relationships and networks across society.

They recommended that health care and social care professionals improve their skills and their capacity for taking care of dying patients and their families. When the patient has a life-limiting illness, a caring and compassionate approach should be taken when providing clear information about all interventions involved in palliative care, as well as when having conversations about death.

Governments and policy makers are advised to implement actions to allow all citizens to have the same access to necessary palliative care. In addition, all strategies and reports on social care and well-being more broadly should always include consideration of death, dying, and grieving. It’s an uphill climb, but one that must be made if we’re to build a new culture aimed at bringing death back into life. “As we continue stepping toward this new culture, let us each put a stone in place,” Dr. Sozzi concluded.

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

“The story of dying in the 21st century is a story of paradox.” This is the opening line of a report recently published in the Lancet, in which the Lancet Commission experts tackle what is, for many, a very sensitive topic: the end of life. The recommendations they present aim at “bringing death back into life.”

What makes the story a paradox is that, in end-of-life situations, many people are overtreated, and on the other hand, many people are undertreated.

In short, when all is said and done, “people die bad deaths.” A natural event, a natural part of life, has turned into something that people fear or, in some cases, refuse to even acknowledge or talk about.

This was the motivating factor for the Lancet Commission, a group of experts from various disciplines, to come together to try to better understand this complex concept. They called on the general public, health care professionals, and policy makers to change the approach to end-of-life matters so that there can be a balance between death and dying, as well as a balance between life and death.

This sensitive topic was explored by Marina Sozzi, PhD. She is the director of the Association for the Support and Assistance of People With Chronic and Oncological Diseases, a nonprofit organization that for more than 30 years has been dedicated to “providing palliative care and supporting individuals with oncological or other chronic and degenerative diseases.”
 

Call for rebalancing

To give people an idea of a better system in which life and death are in balance, the Lancet Commission experts described a realistic utopia, which they summarized in the following five principles:

• The social determinants of death, dying, and grieving are confronted.
• Dying is understood to be a relational and spiritual process rather than simply a physiological event.
• Networks of care provide support for people who are dying, those caring for them, and those grieving.
• Conversations and stories about everyday death, dying, and grief become common.
• Death is recognized as having value.

Achieving this utopia will not be easy, especially considering the current systems that are in place. “There have been tremendous medical advances over the last hundred years, particularly in increasing life expectancy and curing diseases that were once considered death sentences,” Dr. Sozzi explained. “Indeed, over the course of that time period, medical science acquired an enormous degree of social power, and matters of death – which in previous centuries had been within the purview of religions and houses of worship – were handed over to be handled by doctors and nurses.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical field’s role in matters of death more prominent: every day, people saw footage of dying people in hospital beds being cared for by health care professionals in masks and gowns. These patients were otherwise alone, their only contact with loved ones being over the phone or online. They died the ultimate medicalized deaths, stripped of almost all opportunities to get emotional support from family and friends.
 

New perspective needed

The Lancet Commission experts were certain about one point: The need to move away from the reductionist approach to death in order to integrate a more holistic approach, one that takes into account all of the dimensions of death without limiting itself only to the medical aspects.

“Medicine has its own take on the death phenomenon and on disease, which is a reductionist take,” said Dr. Sozzi, noting that, thanks to processes that make it possible to reduce phenomena to the measurable, medicine has managed to make tremendous progress. The same approach has been applied to the view of death, which has by and large become a biologic event.

“The problem is that, in reality, death is a much more complex phenomenon: cultural, social, involving families and society,” she explained. “Not all of these aspects are taken into consideration by medicine, and therefore, our culture has diminished its view of the death phenomenon.” Dr. Sozzi pointed out that, if looked upon more closely, the very question: “What did the person die of?” presupposes, in a certain sense, that it might have been possible to prevent that death – if only medicine had the right technology. So, death comes to be seen as something that could have been avoided.
 

Power of palliative care

Changing the approach to death requires a profound culture shift and, therefore, a lot of time. The good news is that, although there is still a long way to go, a few steps have been taken in this direction. “Talking about death, and even organizing courses aimed at health care professionals, is definitely easier these days than it was even just 10 years ago,” said Dr. Sozzi, citing, as an example, a project she developed for training nursing home operators in palliative care.

It is in palliative care where the greatest progress has been made in end-of-life matters. “The culture of palliative care allows us to think about death in very different terms and to recognize that moment when we should stop looking at curative care and direct our efforts at ‘comfort care.’ And this care of the dying has to be holistic,” Dr. Sozzi explained. She adds that we are increasingly talking about simultaneous palliative care – care that is not limited to the final days of a person’s life but that rather starts early on, when active treatments are still in place.

Dr. Sozzi mentioned Italy’s Law 38, which took effect in 2010. It regulates access to palliative care and pain management, expanding the right to receive these treatments to patients “in any health care setting, at any stage of life, and for any chronic or progressive condition which has no treatment or has a treatment that is not sufficient to stabilize it.”

A culture shift is also needed in this area; there has already been a movement away from general practitioners to health care professionals who can and must direct a patient to palliative care.

“We need to provide these doctors with more training and make them more aware of what a difference this kind of care can make throughout a patient’s life, not only during the final stages,” said Dr. Sozzi. Concerning training, she mentioned that Italy had recently introduced a specialization in palliative care for medical school graduates. This is another small step and one that adds a sense of dignity to this new approach to life and to death.
 

The experts’ recommendations

In attempting to find a balance between life and death, we must not look at the period prior to the 1900s as some kind of golden age. Dr. Sozzi explained that back then there was almost none of the medical technology now available to treat people at the end of life. “Palliative care has also set forth original technical aspects for eliminating pain. Without having eliminated a patient’s pain, I can hardly begin a discussion with them about spiritual aspects,” she said, emphasizing the importance of always contextualizing approaches to death.

The Lancet Commission experts assessed the approach to death in many different contexts. They recommended that, to best handle end-of-life matters in all their complexity, one should keep in mind the importance of relationships and networks across society.

They recommended that health care and social care professionals improve their skills and their capacity for taking care of dying patients and their families. When the patient has a life-limiting illness, a caring and compassionate approach should be taken when providing clear information about all interventions involved in palliative care, as well as when having conversations about death.

Governments and policy makers are advised to implement actions to allow all citizens to have the same access to necessary palliative care. In addition, all strategies and reports on social care and well-being more broadly should always include consideration of death, dying, and grieving. It’s an uphill climb, but one that must be made if we’re to build a new culture aimed at bringing death back into life. “As we continue stepping toward this new culture, let us each put a stone in place,” Dr. Sozzi concluded.

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

“The story of dying in the 21st century is a story of paradox.” This is the opening line of a report recently published in the Lancet, in which the Lancet Commission experts tackle what is, for many, a very sensitive topic: the end of life. The recommendations they present aim at “bringing death back into life.”

What makes the story a paradox is that, in end-of-life situations, many people are overtreated, and on the other hand, many people are undertreated.

In short, when all is said and done, “people die bad deaths.” A natural event, a natural part of life, has turned into something that people fear or, in some cases, refuse to even acknowledge or talk about.

This was the motivating factor for the Lancet Commission, a group of experts from various disciplines, to come together to try to better understand this complex concept. They called on the general public, health care professionals, and policy makers to change the approach to end-of-life matters so that there can be a balance between death and dying, as well as a balance between life and death.

This sensitive topic was explored by Marina Sozzi, PhD. She is the director of the Association for the Support and Assistance of People With Chronic and Oncological Diseases, a nonprofit organization that for more than 30 years has been dedicated to “providing palliative care and supporting individuals with oncological or other chronic and degenerative diseases.”
 

Call for rebalancing

To give people an idea of a better system in which life and death are in balance, the Lancet Commission experts described a realistic utopia, which they summarized in the following five principles:

• The social determinants of death, dying, and grieving are confronted.
• Dying is understood to be a relational and spiritual process rather than simply a physiological event.
• Networks of care provide support for people who are dying, those caring for them, and those grieving.
• Conversations and stories about everyday death, dying, and grief become common.
• Death is recognized as having value.

Achieving this utopia will not be easy, especially considering the current systems that are in place. “There have been tremendous medical advances over the last hundred years, particularly in increasing life expectancy and curing diseases that were once considered death sentences,” Dr. Sozzi explained. “Indeed, over the course of that time period, medical science acquired an enormous degree of social power, and matters of death – which in previous centuries had been within the purview of religions and houses of worship – were handed over to be handled by doctors and nurses.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has made the medical field’s role in matters of death more prominent: every day, people saw footage of dying people in hospital beds being cared for by health care professionals in masks and gowns. These patients were otherwise alone, their only contact with loved ones being over the phone or online. They died the ultimate medicalized deaths, stripped of almost all opportunities to get emotional support from family and friends.
 

New perspective needed

The Lancet Commission experts were certain about one point: The need to move away from the reductionist approach to death in order to integrate a more holistic approach, one that takes into account all of the dimensions of death without limiting itself only to the medical aspects.

“Medicine has its own take on the death phenomenon and on disease, which is a reductionist take,” said Dr. Sozzi, noting that, thanks to processes that make it possible to reduce phenomena to the measurable, medicine has managed to make tremendous progress. The same approach has been applied to the view of death, which has by and large become a biologic event.

“The problem is that, in reality, death is a much more complex phenomenon: cultural, social, involving families and society,” she explained. “Not all of these aspects are taken into consideration by medicine, and therefore, our culture has diminished its view of the death phenomenon.” Dr. Sozzi pointed out that, if looked upon more closely, the very question: “What did the person die of?” presupposes, in a certain sense, that it might have been possible to prevent that death – if only medicine had the right technology. So, death comes to be seen as something that could have been avoided.
 

Power of palliative care

Changing the approach to death requires a profound culture shift and, therefore, a lot of time. The good news is that, although there is still a long way to go, a few steps have been taken in this direction. “Talking about death, and even organizing courses aimed at health care professionals, is definitely easier these days than it was even just 10 years ago,” said Dr. Sozzi, citing, as an example, a project she developed for training nursing home operators in palliative care.

It is in palliative care where the greatest progress has been made in end-of-life matters. “The culture of palliative care allows us to think about death in very different terms and to recognize that moment when we should stop looking at curative care and direct our efforts at ‘comfort care.’ And this care of the dying has to be holistic,” Dr. Sozzi explained. She adds that we are increasingly talking about simultaneous palliative care – care that is not limited to the final days of a person’s life but that rather starts early on, when active treatments are still in place.

Dr. Sozzi mentioned Italy’s Law 38, which took effect in 2010. It regulates access to palliative care and pain management, expanding the right to receive these treatments to patients “in any health care setting, at any stage of life, and for any chronic or progressive condition which has no treatment or has a treatment that is not sufficient to stabilize it.”

A culture shift is also needed in this area; there has already been a movement away from general practitioners to health care professionals who can and must direct a patient to palliative care.

“We need to provide these doctors with more training and make them more aware of what a difference this kind of care can make throughout a patient’s life, not only during the final stages,” said Dr. Sozzi. Concerning training, she mentioned that Italy had recently introduced a specialization in palliative care for medical school graduates. This is another small step and one that adds a sense of dignity to this new approach to life and to death.
 

The experts’ recommendations

In attempting to find a balance between life and death, we must not look at the period prior to the 1900s as some kind of golden age. Dr. Sozzi explained that back then there was almost none of the medical technology now available to treat people at the end of life. “Palliative care has also set forth original technical aspects for eliminating pain. Without having eliminated a patient’s pain, I can hardly begin a discussion with them about spiritual aspects,” she said, emphasizing the importance of always contextualizing approaches to death.

The Lancet Commission experts assessed the approach to death in many different contexts. They recommended that, to best handle end-of-life matters in all their complexity, one should keep in mind the importance of relationships and networks across society.

They recommended that health care and social care professionals improve their skills and their capacity for taking care of dying patients and their families. When the patient has a life-limiting illness, a caring and compassionate approach should be taken when providing clear information about all interventions involved in palliative care, as well as when having conversations about death.

Governments and policy makers are advised to implement actions to allow all citizens to have the same access to necessary palliative care. In addition, all strategies and reports on social care and well-being more broadly should always include consideration of death, dying, and grieving. It’s an uphill climb, but one that must be made if we’re to build a new culture aimed at bringing death back into life. “As we continue stepping toward this new culture, let us each put a stone in place,” Dr. Sozzi concluded.

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