Perspectives

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

On today’s edition of Beyond BMI, I’ll be discussing weight plateaus. This is something that our patients are very familiar with. Sometimes, they’re happy with their weight when they plateau; sometimes, they’re not. A weight plateau is simply a state of equilibrium.

There’s a common adage that the last 5 pounds are the hardest. When people decrease their calorie intake and increase their activity — as we instruct our patients to do to lose weight — the body starts to fight back because it believes this is a famine state. Our bodies feel that we are running around the jungle looking for food to help us survive a perceived famine state.

The body does a few things to help us keep weight on, and this is what leads to the frustration of not being able to lose those last 5 pounds. The first thing that happens in this process, which is called metabolic adaptation, is that when someone loses weight, the body naturally increases appetite signals from the brain, so the person becomes hungrier. Satiety signals from the stomach also decrease, so they feel more hungry and less full. And finally, stable fat cells form to allow the person to seek out more food without losing weight. This eventually leads the patient to regain weight, or they may plateau at a weight they’re not happy with.

I’m sure you’ve seen many studies looking at weight plateaus and the amount of weight loss people are able to achieve with diet, exercise, and behavior change alone vs the same lifestyle modifications plus medication. Studies show that patients who are taking anti-obesity medications achieve far more weight loss than do those who are not taking medications. The reason is related to the different mechanisms of action of the anti-obesity medications. Patients taking these medications are able to tolerate a lower caloric intake for a longer period of time, thus they’re able to burn more fat cells and lose more weight. Some medications perform this by decreasing appetite signals, so patients can continue to eat a small number of calories. Some medications affect the stability of fat cells. Some medications also increase satiety signals, so patients can move beyond that degree of metabolic adaptation and get beyond their previous plateau.

What can we do for patients who are frustrated with their weight plateau? I recommend taking a dive into their daily routine. Find out how many calories they are eating. Find out how much exercise they are doing and see whether there’s any room to reorganize the day or change their meals to create a caloric deficit. Are they eating things that are not filling enough, so they can’t get to the next meal without having a snack in between? We are looking at the quality of the meals as well and making sure there’s an adequate amount of protein and fiber in their meals to help with those increased appetite signals. We should also make sure these patients are getting adequate fluid intake.

These are all strategies that can help our patients try to get beyond their weight plateaus.

If the patient meets criteria for anti-obesity medication, which means a body mass index (BMI) of 27-29 with a weight-related comorbidity or BMI ≥ 30 with or without a comorbidity, you may want to consider anti-obesity medication to help that patient get beyond the plateau.

Plateaus will occur as a natural process because of the appetite signaling and hormonal changes that occur when patients lose weight from any modality. It’s important that we work with our patients to determine whether their weight plateau is due to metabolic adaptation. If they aren’t meeting their goals and they have weight-related comorbidities, we can use other available modalities to help those patients continue to lose weight. Of course, whenever we are prescribing a medication, we need to make sure that it is safe for the patient and the patient is on board with the potential side effects and risks. And we should always make sure our patients know we are their advocates in their weight journey.

Holly Lofton, clinical associate professor of surgery and medicine, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

As more and more of us begin to feel (or believe we are feeling) the symptoms of aging, our language has begun to incorporate new words and phrases such as “aging in place” or “healthy aging.” In fact, some scientists have created a diagnostic criteria to define “healthy aging.” If you have reached your 70th birthday without mental health issues, memory issues, physical impairments, or chronic disease, according to some researchers at T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, you should receive a gold star for healthy aging.

I am now nearly a decade past that milestone and can’t remember where I’ve put my gold star, or even if I had ever received one. But, I get up each morning looking forward to another day of activity and feeling “pretty good.”

Healthy aging is not something you start doing when you turn 65. Aging is something that goes on from the moment you are born. For the first couple decades we call it “maturing.” If you have lived well, the odds are you will age well. And, for that reason we should take note of some recent work by Boston-based researchers.

Looking at recent data from 45,000 participants in the well-known Nurses Health Study, the investigators found that for every 2-hour increase in daily sedentary behavior, the participants cut their chances of healthy aging by 12%. On the other hand, for every 2 hours of light physical activity, they increased their odds of healthy aging by 6 %.

There are two important messages sitting just below the surface of these two observations. First, we continue to overemphasize the importance of “exercise” in our attempt to help our patients achieve wellness. The word “exercise” carries with it whole carousel full of baggage including “fitness programs,” gym memberships, pulse rate monitors, pain, sweat, and spandex, to name just a few. Exercise can conjure up bad memories of suiting up for phys ed class, group showers, and being picked last when teams were being chosen.

It turns out the we should simply be promoting activity, and light activity at that — vacuuming the living room, walking around the block, rearranging the books on your bedroom book shelf, making a pot of soup, doing the laundry. Just getting up off one’s behind and doing something instead of being a passive spectator.

This somewhat counterintuitive notion of the benefit of light activity is beginning to get more attention. Earlier this year, I reported on a study by Andre O. Abaje MD, MPH, in which he showed that light physical activity in children was superior to more vigorous activity in lowering lipids.

The more important message embedded in this paper based on the Nurses Health Study is that the researchers used television watching time as their proxy for sedentary behavior. The investigators chose TV viewing because it is ubiquitous and includes prolonged sitting. Being semi-reclined on the couch or in a lounger requires very little muscle activity, which is in turn linked to disruption of glucose metabolism, increased inflammation, and altered blood flow to the brain, to name just a few of its collateral damages. I would add that TV viewing often prompts viewers to stay up well beyond their healthy bedtime. And, we know sleep deprivation is not compatible with health aging.

A traditional warning issued to new retirees was once “Don’t let the old rocking chair get ya.” In fact, I wonder how many folks watching television even have or use wood rocking chairs anymore, which, if rocked, might qualify as a light exercise if the viewer made the effort to rock. Instead I suspect most television viewing is done cocooned in soft recliners or curled up on a couch.

I will admit that this recent paper merely supports a suspicion I have harbored for decades. Like many of you, I have wondered how our society got to the point where obesity is frequent enough to be labeled a disease, attention deficit diagnoses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and our life expectancy is shrinking. There are dozens of factors, but if I had to pick one, I would paraphrase James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the television, stupid.”

Television viewing needs to be near the top of our list when we’re doing a wellness evaluation ... at any age. At least a couple of notches above “Are you wearing your seatbelt?” It can start with a nonjudgmental question such as “What are your favorite television shows?” And then deftly move toward compiling a tally of how many hours the patient watches each day.

How you manage the situation from there is up to you and can be based on the patient’s complaints and problem list. You might suggest he or she start by eliminating 2 hours of viewing a day. Then ask if he or she thinks that new schedule is achievable. If they ask for alternatives, be ready with a list of light activities that they might be surprised are healthier than their current behavior. Follow up with another visit or a call to see how they are doing. It’s that important, and your call will underscore your concern.

Sedentism is a serious health problem in this country and our emphasis on encouraging vigorous exercise isn’t working. Selling a television diet will be a tough sell, but it needs to be done.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As more and more of us begin to feel (or believe we are feeling) the symptoms of aging, our language has begun to incorporate new words and phrases such as “aging in place” or “healthy aging.” In fact, some scientists have created a diagnostic criteria to define “healthy aging.” If you have reached your 70th birthday without mental health issues, memory issues, physical impairments, or chronic disease, according to some researchers at T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, you should receive a gold star for healthy aging.

I am now nearly a decade past that milestone and can’t remember where I’ve put my gold star, or even if I had ever received one. But, I get up each morning looking forward to another day of activity and feeling “pretty good.”

Healthy aging is not something you start doing when you turn 65. Aging is something that goes on from the moment you are born. For the first couple decades we call it “maturing.” If you have lived well, the odds are you will age well. And, for that reason we should take note of some recent work by Boston-based researchers.

Looking at recent data from 45,000 participants in the well-known Nurses Health Study, the investigators found that for every 2-hour increase in daily sedentary behavior, the participants cut their chances of healthy aging by 12%. On the other hand, for every 2 hours of light physical activity, they increased their odds of healthy aging by 6 %.

There are two important messages sitting just below the surface of these two observations. First, we continue to overemphasize the importance of “exercise” in our attempt to help our patients achieve wellness. The word “exercise” carries with it whole carousel full of baggage including “fitness programs,” gym memberships, pulse rate monitors, pain, sweat, and spandex, to name just a few. Exercise can conjure up bad memories of suiting up for phys ed class, group showers, and being picked last when teams were being chosen.

It turns out the we should simply be promoting activity, and light activity at that — vacuuming the living room, walking around the block, rearranging the books on your bedroom book shelf, making a pot of soup, doing the laundry. Just getting up off one’s behind and doing something instead of being a passive spectator.

This somewhat counterintuitive notion of the benefit of light activity is beginning to get more attention. Earlier this year, I reported on a study by Andre O. Abaje MD, MPH, in which he showed that light physical activity in children was superior to more vigorous activity in lowering lipids.

The more important message embedded in this paper based on the Nurses Health Study is that the researchers used television watching time as their proxy for sedentary behavior. The investigators chose TV viewing because it is ubiquitous and includes prolonged sitting. Being semi-reclined on the couch or in a lounger requires very little muscle activity, which is in turn linked to disruption of glucose metabolism, increased inflammation, and altered blood flow to the brain, to name just a few of its collateral damages. I would add that TV viewing often prompts viewers to stay up well beyond their healthy bedtime. And, we know sleep deprivation is not compatible with health aging.

A traditional warning issued to new retirees was once “Don’t let the old rocking chair get ya.” In fact, I wonder how many folks watching television even have or use wood rocking chairs anymore, which, if rocked, might qualify as a light exercise if the viewer made the effort to rock. Instead I suspect most television viewing is done cocooned in soft recliners or curled up on a couch.

I will admit that this recent paper merely supports a suspicion I have harbored for decades. Like many of you, I have wondered how our society got to the point where obesity is frequent enough to be labeled a disease, attention deficit diagnoses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and our life expectancy is shrinking. There are dozens of factors, but if I had to pick one, I would paraphrase James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the television, stupid.”

Television viewing needs to be near the top of our list when we’re doing a wellness evaluation ... at any age. At least a couple of notches above “Are you wearing your seatbelt?” It can start with a nonjudgmental question such as “What are your favorite television shows?” And then deftly move toward compiling a tally of how many hours the patient watches each day.

How you manage the situation from there is up to you and can be based on the patient’s complaints and problem list. You might suggest he or she start by eliminating 2 hours of viewing a day. Then ask if he or she thinks that new schedule is achievable. If they ask for alternatives, be ready with a list of light activities that they might be surprised are healthier than their current behavior. Follow up with another visit or a call to see how they are doing. It’s that important, and your call will underscore your concern.

Sedentism is a serious health problem in this country and our emphasis on encouraging vigorous exercise isn’t working. Selling a television diet will be a tough sell, but it needs to be done.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

As more and more of us begin to feel (or believe we are feeling) the symptoms of aging, our language has begun to incorporate new words and phrases such as “aging in place” or “healthy aging.” In fact, some scientists have created a diagnostic criteria to define “healthy aging.” If you have reached your 70th birthday without mental health issues, memory issues, physical impairments, or chronic disease, according to some researchers at T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, you should receive a gold star for healthy aging.

I am now nearly a decade past that milestone and can’t remember where I’ve put my gold star, or even if I had ever received one. But, I get up each morning looking forward to another day of activity and feeling “pretty good.”

Healthy aging is not something you start doing when you turn 65. Aging is something that goes on from the moment you are born. For the first couple decades we call it “maturing.” If you have lived well, the odds are you will age well. And, for that reason we should take note of some recent work by Boston-based researchers.

Looking at recent data from 45,000 participants in the well-known Nurses Health Study, the investigators found that for every 2-hour increase in daily sedentary behavior, the participants cut their chances of healthy aging by 12%. On the other hand, for every 2 hours of light physical activity, they increased their odds of healthy aging by 6 %.

There are two important messages sitting just below the surface of these two observations. First, we continue to overemphasize the importance of “exercise” in our attempt to help our patients achieve wellness. The word “exercise” carries with it whole carousel full of baggage including “fitness programs,” gym memberships, pulse rate monitors, pain, sweat, and spandex, to name just a few. Exercise can conjure up bad memories of suiting up for phys ed class, group showers, and being picked last when teams were being chosen.

It turns out the we should simply be promoting activity, and light activity at that — vacuuming the living room, walking around the block, rearranging the books on your bedroom book shelf, making a pot of soup, doing the laundry. Just getting up off one’s behind and doing something instead of being a passive spectator.

This somewhat counterintuitive notion of the benefit of light activity is beginning to get more attention. Earlier this year, I reported on a study by Andre O. Abaje MD, MPH, in which he showed that light physical activity in children was superior to more vigorous activity in lowering lipids.

The more important message embedded in this paper based on the Nurses Health Study is that the researchers used television watching time as their proxy for sedentary behavior. The investigators chose TV viewing because it is ubiquitous and includes prolonged sitting. Being semi-reclined on the couch or in a lounger requires very little muscle activity, which is in turn linked to disruption of glucose metabolism, increased inflammation, and altered blood flow to the brain, to name just a few of its collateral damages. I would add that TV viewing often prompts viewers to stay up well beyond their healthy bedtime. And, we know sleep deprivation is not compatible with health aging.

A traditional warning issued to new retirees was once “Don’t let the old rocking chair get ya.” In fact, I wonder how many folks watching television even have or use wood rocking chairs anymore, which, if rocked, might qualify as a light exercise if the viewer made the effort to rock. Instead I suspect most television viewing is done cocooned in soft recliners or curled up on a couch.

I will admit that this recent paper merely supports a suspicion I have harbored for decades. Like many of you, I have wondered how our society got to the point where obesity is frequent enough to be labeled a disease, attention deficit diagnoses are becoming increasingly prevalent, and our life expectancy is shrinking. There are dozens of factors, but if I had to pick one, I would paraphrase James Carville’s advice to Bill Clinton: “It’s the television, stupid.”

Television viewing needs to be near the top of our list when we’re doing a wellness evaluation ... at any age. At least a couple of notches above “Are you wearing your seatbelt?” It can start with a nonjudgmental question such as “What are your favorite television shows?” And then deftly move toward compiling a tally of how many hours the patient watches each day.

How you manage the situation from there is up to you and can be based on the patient’s complaints and problem list. You might suggest he or she start by eliminating 2 hours of viewing a day. Then ask if he or she thinks that new schedule is achievable. If they ask for alternatives, be ready with a list of light activities that they might be surprised are healthier than their current behavior. Follow up with another visit or a call to see how they are doing. It’s that important, and your call will underscore your concern.

Sedentism is a serious health problem in this country and our emphasis on encouraging vigorous exercise isn’t working. Selling a television diet will be a tough sell, but it needs to be done.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.

Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.

She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.

“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.” 

Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.

Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.

“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.

Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened. 

“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”

I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.

Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.

Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.

Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis. 

A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. 

Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.

Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds. 

Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado. 

“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.

Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com. 

Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.

Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked. 

A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.

Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.

Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.” 

Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice. Eggs and ground beef are less expensive low-carb meal options, and meat, unlike fruits and vegetables, is easy to freeze and doesn’t spoil quickly. These advantages can add up.

A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.

It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.

Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.

When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said. 

Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients. 

This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged. 

OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.) 

Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine. 
 

Tools and Tips for Clinicians: 

• Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
• Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
• Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
• Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
• Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and 

Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.

Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.

She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.

“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.” 

Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.

Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.

“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.

Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened. 

“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”

I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.

Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.

Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.

Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis. 

A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. 

Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.

Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds. 

Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado. 

“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.

Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com. 

Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.

Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked. 

A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.

Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.

Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.” 

Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice. Eggs and ground beef are less expensive low-carb meal options, and meat, unlike fruits and vegetables, is easy to freeze and doesn’t spoil quickly. These advantages can add up.

A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.

It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.

Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.

When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said. 

Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients. 

This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged. 

OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.) 

Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine. 
 

Tools and Tips for Clinicians: 

• Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
• Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
• Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
• Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
• Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and 

Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For 3 years, Ajala Efem’s type 2 diabetes was so poorly controlled that her blood sugar often soared northward of 500 mg/dL despite insulin shots three to five times a day. She would experience dizziness, vomiting, severe headaches, and the neuropathy in her feet made walking painful. She was also — literally — frothing at the mouth. The 47-year-old single mother of two adult children with mental disabilities feared that she would die.

Ms. Efem lives in the South Bronx, which is among the poorest areas of New York City, where the combined rate of prediabetes and diabetes is close to 30%, the highest rate of any borough in the city.

She had to wait 8 months for an appointment with an endocrinologist, but that visit proved to be life-changing. She lost 28 pounds and got off 15 medications in a single month. She did not join a gym or count calories; she simply changed the food she ate and adopted a low-carb diet.

“I went from being sick to feeling so great,” she told her endocrinologist recently: “My feet aren’t hurting; I’m not in pain; I’m eating as much as I want, and I really enjoy my food so much.” 

Ms. Efem’s life-changing visit was with Mariela Glandt, MD, at the offices of Essen Health Care. One month earlier, Dr. Glandt’s company, OwnaHealth, was contracted by Essen to conduct a 100-person pilot program for endocrinology patients. Essen is the largest Medicaid provider in New York City, and “they were desperate for an endocrinologist,” said Dr. Glandt, who trained at Columbia University in New York. So she came — all the way from Madrid, Spain. She commutes monthly, staying for a week each visit.

Dr. Glandt keeps up this punishing schedule because, as she explains, “it’s such a high for me to see these incredible transformations.” Her mostly Black and Hispanic patients are poor and lack resources, yet they lose significant amounts of weight, and their health issues resolve.

“Food is medicine” is an idea very much in vogue. The concept was central to the landmark White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health in 2022 and is now the focus of a number of a wide range of government programs. Recently, the Senate held a hearing aimed at further expanding food as medicine programs.

Still, only a single randomized controlled clinical trial has been conducted on this nutritional approach, with unexpectedly disappointing results. In the mid-Atlantic region, 456 food-insecure adults with type 2 diabetes were randomly assigned to usual care or the provision of weekly groceries for their entire families for about 1 year. Provisions for a Mediterranean-style diet included whole grains, fruits and vegetables, lean protein, low-fat dairy products, cereal, brown rice, and bread. In addition, participants received dietary consultations. Yet, those who got free food and coaching did not see improvements in their average blood sugar (the study’s primary outcome), and their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels appeared to have worsened. 

“To be honest, I was surprised,” the study’s lead author, Joseph Doyle, PhD, professor at the Sloan School of Management at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told me. “I was hoping we would show improved outcomes, but the way to make progress is to do well-randomized trials to find out what works.”

I was not surprised by these results because a recent rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis in The BMJ did not show a Mediterranean-style diet to be the most effective for glycemic control. And Ms. Efem was not in fact following a Mediterranean-style diet.

Ms. Efem’s low-carb success story is anecdotal, but Dr. Glandt has an established track record from her 9 years’ experience as the medical director of the eponymous diabetes center she founded in Tel Aviv. A recent audit of 344 patients from the center found that after 6 months of following a very low–carbohydrate diet, 96.3% of those with diabetes saw their A1c fall from a median 7.6% to 6.3%. Weight loss was significant, with a median drop of 6.5 kg (14 pounds) for patients with diabetes and 5.7 kg for those with prediabetes. The diet comprises 5%-10% of calories from carbs, but Dr. Glandt does not use numeric targets with her patients.

Blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver enzymes also improved. And though LDL cholesterol went up by 8%, this result may have been offset by an accompanying 13% rise in HDL cholesterol. Of the 78 patients initially on insulin, 62 were able to stop this medication entirely.

Although these results aren’t from a clinical trial, they’re still highly meaningful because the current dietary standard of care for type 2 diabetes can only slow the progression of the disease, not cause remission. Indeed, the idea that type 2 diabetes could be put into remission was not seriously considered by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) until 2009. By 2019, an ADA report concluded that “[r]educing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia.” In other words, the best way to improve the key factor in diabetes is to reduce total carbohydrates. Yet, the ADA still advocates filling one quarter of one’s plate with carbohydrate-based foods, an amount that will prevent remission. Given that the ADA’s vision statement is “a life free of diabetes,” it seems negligent not to tell people with a deadly condition that they can reverse this diagnosis. 

A 2023 meta-analysis of 42 controlled clinical trials on 4809 patients showed that a very low–carbohydrate ketogenic diet (keto) was “superior” to alternatives for glycemic control. A more recent review of 11 clinical trials found that this diet was equal but not superior to other nutritional approaches in terms of blood sugar control, but this review also concluded that keto led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and lower triglycerides. 

Dr. Glandt’s patients in the Bronx might not seem like obvious low-carb candidates. The diet is considered expensive and difficult to sustain. My interviews with a half dozen patients revealed some of these difficulties, but even for a woman living in a homeless shelter, the obstacles are not insurmountable.

Jerrilyn, who preferred that I use only her first name, lives in a shelter in Queens. While we strolled through a nearby park, she told me about her desire to lose weight and recover from polycystic ovary syndrome, which terrified her because it had caused dramatic hair loss. When she landed in Dr. Glandt’s office at age 28, she weighed 180 pounds. 

Less than 5 months later, Jerrilyn had lost 25 pounds, and her period had returned with some regularity. She said she used “food stamps,” known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), to buy most of her food at local delis because the meals served at the shelter were too heavy in starches. She starts her day with eggs, turkey bacon, and avocado. 

“It was hard to give up carbohydrates because in my culture [Latina], we have nothing but carbs: rice, potatoes, yuca,” Jerrilyn shared. She noticed that carbs make her hungrier, but after 3 days of going low-carb, her cravings diminished. “It was like getting over an addiction,” she said.

Jerrilyn told me she’d seen many doctors but none as involved as Dr. Glandt. “It feels awesome to know that I have a lot of really useful information coming from her all the time.” The OwnaHealth app tracks weight, blood pressure, blood sugar, ketones, meals, mood, and cravings. Patients wear continuous glucose monitors and enter other information manually. Ketone bodies are used to measure dietary adherence and are obtained through finger pricks and test strips provided by OwnaHealth. Dr. Glandt gives patients her own food plan, along with free visual guides to low-carbohydrate foods by dietdoctor.com. 

Dr. Glandt also sends her patients for regular blood work. She says she does not frequently see a rise in LDL cholesterol, which can sometimes occur on a low-carbohydrate diet. This effect is most common among people who are lean and fit. She says she doesn’t discontinue statins unless cholesterol levels improve significantly.

Samuel Gonzalez, age 56, weighed 275 pounds when he walked into Dr. Glandt’s office this past November. His A1c was 9.2%, but none of his previous doctors had diagnosed him with diabetes. “I was like a walking bag of sugar!” he joked. 

A low-carbohydrate diet seemed absurd to a Puerto Rican like himself: “Having coffee without sugar? That’s like sacrilegious in my culture!” exclaimed Mr. Gonzalez. Still, he managed, with SNAP, to cook eggs and bacon for breakfast and some kind of protein for dinner. He keeps lunch light, “like tuna fish,” and finds checking in with the OwnaHealth app to be very helpful. “Every day, I’m on it,” he said. In the past 7 months, he’s lost 50 pounds, normalized his cholesterol and blood pressure levels, and lowered his A1c to 5.5%.

Mr. Gonzalez gets disability payments due to a back injury, and Ms. Efem receives government payments because her husband died serving in the military. Ms. Efem says her new diet challenges her budget, but Mr. Gonzalez says he manages easily.

Mélissa Cruz, a 28-year-old studying to be a nail technician while also doing back office work at a physical therapy practice, says she’s stretched thin. “I end up sad because I can’t put energy into looking up recipes and cooking for me and my boyfriend,” she told me. She’ll often cook rice and plantains for him and meat for herself, but “it’s frustrating when I’m low on funds and can’t figure out what to eat.” 

Low-carbohydrate diets have a reputation for being expensive because people often start eating pricier foods, like meat and cheese, to replace cheaper starchy foods such as pasta and rice. Eggs and ground beef are less expensive low-carb meal options, and meat, unlike fruits and vegetables, is easy to freeze and doesn’t spoil quickly. These advantages can add up.

A 2019 cost analysis published in Nutrition & Dietetics compared a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern with the New Zealand government’s recommended guidelines (which are almost identical to those in the United States) and found that it cost only an extra $1.27 in US dollars per person per day. One explanation is that protein and fat are more satiating than carbohydrates, so people who mostly consume these macronutrients often cut back on snacks like packaged chips, crackers, and even fruits. Also, those on a ketogenic diet usually cut down on medications, so the additional $1.27 daily is likely offset by reduced spending at the pharmacy.

It’s not just Bronx residents with low socioeconomic status (SES) who adapt well to low-carbohydrate diets. Among Alabama state employees with diabetes enrolled in a low-carbohydrate dietary program provided by a company called Virta, the low SES population had the best outcomes. Virta also published survey data in 2023 showing that participants in a program with the Veteran’s Administration did not find additional costs to be an obstacle to dietary adherence. In fact, some participants saw cost reductions due to decreased spending on processed snacks and fast foods.

Ms. Cruz told me she struggles financially, yet she’s still lost nearly 30 pounds in 5 months, and her A1c went from 7.1% down to 5.9%, putting her diabetes into remission. Equally motivating for her are the improvements she’s seen in other hormonal issues. Since childhood, she’s had acanthosis, a condition that causes the skin to darken in velvety patches, and more recently, she developed severe hirsutism to the point of growing sideburns. “I had tried going vegan and fasting, but these just weren’t sustainable for me, and I was so overwhelmed with counting calories all the time.” Now, on a low-carbohydrate diet, which doesn’t require calorie counting, she’s finally seeing both these conditions improve significantly.

When I last checked in with Ms. Cruz, she said she had “kind of ghosted” Dr. Glandt due to her work and school constraints, but she hadn’t abandoned the diet. She appreciated, too, that Dr. Glandt had not given up on her and kept calling and messaging. “She’s not at all like a typical doctor who would just tell me to lose weight and shake their head at me,” Ms. Cruz said. 

Because Dr. Glandt’s approach is time-intensive and high-touch, it might seem impractical to scale up, but Dr. Glandt’s app uses artificial intelligence to help with communications thus allowing her, with help from part-time health coaches, to care for patients. 

This early success in one of the United States’ poorest and sickest neighborhoods should give us hope that type 2 diabetes need not to be a progressive irreversible disease, even among the disadvantaged. 

OwnaHealth’s track record, along with that of Virta and other similar low-carbohydrate medical practices also give hope to the food-is-medicine idea. Diabetes can go into remission, and people can be healed, provided that health practitioners prescribe the right foods. And in truth, it’s not a diet. It’s a way of eating that must be maintained. The sustainability of low-carbohydrate diets has been a point of contention, but the Virta trial, with 38% of patients sustaining remission at 2 years, showed that it’s possible. (OwnaHealth, for its part, offers long-term maintenance plans to help patients stay very low-carb permanently.) 

Given the tremendous costs and health burden of diabetes, this approach should no doubt be the first line of treatment for doctors and the ADA. The past two decades of clinical trial research have demonstrated that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible through diet alone. It turns out that for metabolic diseases, only certain foods are truly medicine. 
 

Tools and Tips for Clinicians: 

• Free two-page keto starter’s guide by OwnaHealth; Dr. Glandt uses this guide with her patients.
• Illustrated low-carb guides by dietdoctor.com
• Free low-carbohydrate starter guide by the Michigan Collaborative for Type 2 Diabetes
• Low-Carb for Any Budget, a free digital booklet by Mark Cucuzzella, MD, and Kristie Sullivan, PhD
• Recipe and meal ideas from Ruled.me, Keto-Mojo.com, and 

Dr. Teicholz is the founder of Nutrition Coalition, an independent nonprofit dedicated to ensuring that US dietary guidelines align with current science. She disclosed receiving book royalties from The Big Fat Surprise, and received honorarium not exceeding $2000 for speeches from various sources.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

My field of electrophysiology is abuzz with excitement over the new technology of pulsed field ablation (PFA). It dominated 2024’s heart rhythm meetings, and it dominates my private electrophysiologist chat groups. My Google alert for “AF ablation” most often includes notices on PFA and the expansion of the atrial fibrillation ablation market. 

Yet, the excitement does not match the empirical data. 

Despite having strong brains, electrophysiologists adopt new things as if we were emotional shoppers. Our neighbor buys a sports car and we think we need the same car. Left atrial appendage occlusion and subcutaneous defibrillators were past examples. 

The most recent example of soft thinking (especially in the United States) is the enthusiasm and early adoption of first-generation PFA systems for the treatment of AF. 

Readers of cardiac news (including some of my patients) might think PFA has solved the AF puzzle. It has not.

A true breakthrough in AF would be to find its cause. PFA is simply another way to destroy (ablate) cardiac myocytes. PFA uses electrical energy (think shocks) to create pores in the cell membranes of myocytes. It’s delivered through various types of catheters. 

The main theoretical advantage of PFA is cardioselectivity, which is possible because myocytes have lower thresholds for irreversible electroporation than surrounding tissues. The dose of electrical energy that ablates cardiac tissue does not affect surrounding tissues. Cardioselectivity decreases the chance of the most feared complication of standard AF ablation, thermal damage to the esophagus, which is often fatal. The esophagus lies immediately behind the posterior wall of the left atrium and can be inadvertently injured during thermal ablation. 

The challenge in assessing this potential advantage is that thermal esophageal damage is, thankfully, exceedingly rare. Its incidence is in the range of 1 in 10,000 AF ablations. But it might be even lower than that in contemporary practice, because knowledge of esophageal injury has led to innovations that probably have reduced its incidence even further. 

Proponents of PFA would rightly point to the fact that not having to worry about esophageal injury allows operators to add posterior wall ablation to the normal pulmonary vein isolation lesion set. This ability, they would argue, is likely to improve AF ablation outcomes. The problem is that the strongest and most recent trial of posterior wall isolation (with radiofrequency ablation) did not show better outcomes. A more recent observational analysis also showed no benefit to posterior wall isolation (using PFA) over pulmonary vein isolation alone. 
 

What About PFA Efficacy?

I’ve long spoken and written about the lack of progress in AF ablation. In 1998, the first report on ablation of AF showed a 62% arrhythmia-free rate. Two decades later, in the carefully chosen labs treating patients in the CABANA trial, arrhythmia-free rates after AF ablation remain unchanged. We have improved our speed and ability to isolate pulmonary veins, but this has not increased our success in eliminating AF. The reason, I believe, is that we have made little to no progress in understanding the pathophysiology of AF. 

The Food and Drug Administration regulatory trial called ADVENT randomly assigned more than 600 patients to thermal ablation or PFA, and the primary endpoint of ablation success was nearly identical. Single-center studies, observational registries, and single-arm studies have all shown similar efficacy of PFA and thermal ablation. 

Proponents of PFA might argue that these early studies used first-generation PFA systems, and iteration will lead to better efficacy. Perhaps, but we’ve had 20 years of iteration of thermal ablation, and its efficacy has not budged. 
 

What About PFA Safety?

In the ADVENT randomized trial, safety results were similar, though the one death, caused by cardiac perforation and tamponade, occurred in the PFA arm. In the MANIFEST-17K multinational survey of PFA ablation, safety events were in the range reported with thermal ablation. PFA still involves placing catheters in the heart, and complications such as tamponade, stroke, and vascular damage occur. 

The large MANIFEST-17K survey also exposed two PFA-specific complications: coronary artery spasm, which can occur when PFA is delivered close to coronary arteries; and hemolysis-related kidney failure — severe enough to require dialysis in five patients. Supporters of PFA speculate that hemolysis occurs because electrical energy within the atrium can shred red blood cells. Their solution is to strive for good contact and use hydration. The irony of this latter fix is that one of the best advances in thermal ablation has been catheters that deliver less fluid and less need for diuresis after the procedure. 

No PFA study has shown a decreased incidence of thermal damage to the esophagus with PFA ablation. Of course, this is because it is such a low-incidence event. 

One of my concerns with PFA is brain safety. PFA creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, which can then travel north to the brain. In a small series from ADVENT, three patients had brain lesions after PFA vs none with thermal ablation. PFA proponents wrote that brain safety was important to study, but few patients have been systematically studied with brain MRI scans. Asymptomatic brain lesions have been noted after many arterial procedures. The clinical significance of these is not known. As a new technology, and one that creates substantial microbubbles in the left atrium, I agree with the PFA proponents that brain safety should be thoroughly studied — before widespread adoption. 
 

What About Speed and Cost? 

Observational studies from European labs report fast procedure times. I have seen PFA procedures in Europe; they’re fast — typically under an hour. A standard thermal ablation takes me about 60-70 minutes.

I am not sure that US operators can duplicate European procedural times. In the ADVENT regulatory trial, the mean procedure time was 105 minutes and that was in experienced US centers. While this still represents early experience with PFA, the culture of US AF ablation entails far more mapping and extra catheters than I have seen used in European labs. 

Cost is a major issue. It’s hard to sort out exact costs in the United States, but a PFA catheter costs approximately threefold more than a standard ablation catheter. A recent study from Liverpool, England, found that PFA ablation was faster but more expensive than standard thermal ablation because of higher PFA equipment prices. For better or worse, US patients are not directly affected by the higher procedural costs. But the fact remains that PFA adds more costs to the healthcare system. 
 

What Drives the Enthusiasm for First-Generation PFA? 

So why all the enthusiasm? It’s surely not the empirical data. Evidence thus far shows no obvious advantage in safety or efficacy. European use of PFA does seem to reduce procedure time. But in many electrophysiology labs in the United States, the rate-limiting step for AF ablation is not time in the lab but having enough staff to turn rooms around.

The main factor driving early acceptance of PFA relates to basic human nature. It is the fear of missing out. Marketing works on consumers, and it surely works on doctors. Companies that make PFA systems sponsor key opinion leaders to discuss PFA. These companies have beautiful booths in the expo of our meetings; they host dinners and talks. When a hospital in a city does PFA, the other hospitals feel the urge to keep up. It’s hard to be a Top Person in electrophysiology and not be a PFA user. 

One of my favorite comments came from a key opinion leader. He told me that he advised his administration to buy a PFA system, promote that they have it, and keep it in the closet until better systems are released. 

Iteration in the medical device field is tricky. There are negatives to being too harsh on first-generation systems. Early cardiac resynchronization tools, for instance, were horrible. Now CRT is transformative in selected patients with heart failure. 

It’s possible (but not certain) that electrical ablative therapy will iterate and surpass thermal ablation in the future. Maybe. 

But for now, the enthusiasm for PFA far outstrips its evidence. Until better evidence emerges, I will be a slow adopter. And I hope that our field gathers evidence before widespread adoption makes it impossible to do proper studies. 
 

Dr. Mandrola, clinical electrophysiologist, Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Earlier in 2024 the French government proposed fining patients €5 ($5.36 at the time of writing) for no-show doctor appointments.

The rationale is that there are 27 million missed medical appointments annually in France (just based on population size, I’d guess it’s higher in the United States) and that they not only waste time, but also keep people who need to be seen sooner from getting in.

The penalty wouldn’t be automatic, and it’s up to the physician to decide if a patient’s excuse is valid. As I understand it, the €5 is paid as a fine to the national healthcare service, and not to the physician (I may be wrong on that).

In many ways I agree with this. No-shows are a waste of time and money for every medical practice. Given the patchwork of regulations and insurance rules we face in the United States, it’s almost impossible to penalize patients for missed visits unless you don’t take insurance at all.

Some people have legitimate reasons for no-showing. Cars break, family emergencies happen, storms roll in. Even the most punctual of us sometimes just space on something. If someone calls in at the last minute to say “I can’t make it” I’m more forgiving than if we never hear from them at all. That’s why it’s good to have the doctors, who know the people they’re dealing with, make the final call.

Of course, there are those who will just lie and make up an excuse, and sometimes it’s tricky to know who is or isn’t worth penalizing. Some people just don’t care, or are dishonest, or both.

$5.36 isn’t a huge amount for most. But it’s still symbolic. It forces people to, as they say, “have skin in the game.” Yes, they may still have a copay, but that’s only paid if they show up. This puts them in the position of being penalized for thoughtlessness.

Is it a great idea? Not really. I suspect most of us would dismiss it rather than fight with the patient.

But there aren’t any easy answers, and I’d like to see how, if they go ahead with the proposal, it plays out. If it works, I hope we won’t be too far behind.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in 2024 the French government proposed fining patients €5 ($5.36 at the time of writing) for no-show doctor appointments.

The rationale is that there are 27 million missed medical appointments annually in France (just based on population size, I’d guess it’s higher in the United States) and that they not only waste time, but also keep people who need to be seen sooner from getting in.

The penalty wouldn’t be automatic, and it’s up to the physician to decide if a patient’s excuse is valid. As I understand it, the €5 is paid as a fine to the national healthcare service, and not to the physician (I may be wrong on that).

In many ways I agree with this. No-shows are a waste of time and money for every medical practice. Given the patchwork of regulations and insurance rules we face in the United States, it’s almost impossible to penalize patients for missed visits unless you don’t take insurance at all.

Some people have legitimate reasons for no-showing. Cars break, family emergencies happen, storms roll in. Even the most punctual of us sometimes just space on something. If someone calls in at the last minute to say “I can’t make it” I’m more forgiving than if we never hear from them at all. That’s why it’s good to have the doctors, who know the people they’re dealing with, make the final call.

Of course, there are those who will just lie and make up an excuse, and sometimes it’s tricky to know who is or isn’t worth penalizing. Some people just don’t care, or are dishonest, or both.

$5.36 isn’t a huge amount for most. But it’s still symbolic. It forces people to, as they say, “have skin in the game.” Yes, they may still have a copay, but that’s only paid if they show up. This puts them in the position of being penalized for thoughtlessness.

Is it a great idea? Not really. I suspect most of us would dismiss it rather than fight with the patient.

But there aren’t any easy answers, and I’d like to see how, if they go ahead with the proposal, it plays out. If it works, I hope we won’t be too far behind.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Earlier in 2024 the French government proposed fining patients €5 ($5.36 at the time of writing) for no-show doctor appointments.

The rationale is that there are 27 million missed medical appointments annually in France (just based on population size, I’d guess it’s higher in the United States) and that they not only waste time, but also keep people who need to be seen sooner from getting in.

The penalty wouldn’t be automatic, and it’s up to the physician to decide if a patient’s excuse is valid. As I understand it, the €5 is paid as a fine to the national healthcare service, and not to the physician (I may be wrong on that).

In many ways I agree with this. No-shows are a waste of time and money for every medical practice. Given the patchwork of regulations and insurance rules we face in the United States, it’s almost impossible to penalize patients for missed visits unless you don’t take insurance at all.

Some people have legitimate reasons for no-showing. Cars break, family emergencies happen, storms roll in. Even the most punctual of us sometimes just space on something. If someone calls in at the last minute to say “I can’t make it” I’m more forgiving than if we never hear from them at all. That’s why it’s good to have the doctors, who know the people they’re dealing with, make the final call.

Of course, there are those who will just lie and make up an excuse, and sometimes it’s tricky to know who is or isn’t worth penalizing. Some people just don’t care, or are dishonest, or both.

$5.36 isn’t a huge amount for most. But it’s still symbolic. It forces people to, as they say, “have skin in the game.” Yes, they may still have a copay, but that’s only paid if they show up. This puts them in the position of being penalized for thoughtlessness.

Is it a great idea? Not really. I suspect most of us would dismiss it rather than fight with the patient.

But there aren’t any easy answers, and I’d like to see how, if they go ahead with the proposal, it plays out. If it works, I hope we won’t be too far behind.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met for 3 days in June. New vaccines and new recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, COVID, and a new pneumococcal vaccine were revealed.

RSV Protection

We’ll begin with RSV vaccines for adults aged 60 or older. For this group, shared clinical decision-making is out; it no longer applies. New, more specific recommendations from ACIP for RSV vaccines are both age based and risk based. The age-based recommendation applies to those aged 75 or older, who should receive a single RSV vaccine dose. If they have already received a dose under the old recommendation, they don’t need another one, at least for now.

The risk-based recommendation applies to adults from age 60 up to 75, but only for those with risk factors for severe RSV. These risk factors include lung disease, heart disease, immunocompromise, diabetes, obesity with a BMI of 40 or more, neurologic conditions, neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, hematologic disorders, frailty, and living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Those aged 60-75 with these risk factors should receive the RSV vaccine, and those without them should not receive it. The best time to get the RSV vaccine is late summer, but early fall administration with other adult vaccines is allowed and is acceptable.

Vaccine safety concerns were top of mind as ACIP members began their deliberations. Possible safety concerns for RSV vaccines have been detected for Guillain-Barré syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Safety surveillance updates are still interim and inconclusive. These signals still need further study and clarification. 

Two RSV vaccines have been on the market: one by Pfizer, called Abrysvo, which does not contain an adjuvant; and another one by GSK, called Arexvy, which does contain an adjuvant. With the recent FDA approval of Moderna’s new mRNA RSV vaccine, mRESVIA, there are now three RSV vaccines licensed for those 60 or older. Arexvy is now FDA approved for adults in their 50s. That just happened in early June, but ACIP doesn’t currently recommend it for this fifty-something age group, even for those at high risk for severe RSV disease. This may change with greater clarification of potential vaccine safety concerns.

There is also news about protecting babies from RSV. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the United States, and most hospitalizations for RSV are in healthy, full-term infants. We now have two ways to protect babies: a dose of RSV vaccine given to mom, or a dose of the long-acting monoclonal antibody nirsevimab given to the baby. ACIP clarified that those who received a dose of maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during future pregnancies, but infants born to those who were vaccinated for RSV during a prior pregnancy can receive nirsevimab, which is recommended for infants up to 8 months of age during their first RSV season, and for high-risk infants and toddlers aged 8-19 months during their second RSV season.

Last RSV season, supplies of nirsevimab were limited and doses had to be prioritized. No supply problems are anticipated for the upcoming season. A study published in March showed that nirsevimab was 90% effective at preventing RSV-associated hospitalization for infants in their first RSV season.
 

COVID

Here’s what’s new for COVID vaccines. A new-formula COVID vaccine will be ready for fall. ACIP voted unanimously to recommend a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This is a universal recommendation, just like the one we have for flu. But understand that even though COVID has waned, it’s still more deadly than flu. Most Americans now have some immunity against COVID, but this immunity wanes with time, and it also wanes as the virus keeps changing. These updated vaccines provide an incremental boost to our immunity for the new formula for fall. FDA has directed manufacturers to use a monovalent JN.1 lineage formula, with a preference for the KP.2 strain.

Older adults (aged 75 or older) and children under 6 months old are hit hardest by COVID. The littlest ones are too young to be vaccinated, but they can get protection from maternal vaccination. The uptake for last year’s COVID vaccine has been disappointing. Only 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received a dose of the updated shot. Focus-group discussions highlight the importance of a physician recommendation. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider’s recommendation to get the COVID vaccine are more likely to get vaccinated. 
 

Pneumococcal Vaccines

On June 17, 2024, a new pneumococcal vaccine, PCV21, was FDA approved for those aged 18 or older under an accelerated-approval pathway. ACIP voted to keep it simple and recommends PCV21 as an option for adults aged 19 or older who currently have an indication to receive a dose of PCV. This new PCV21 vaccine is indicated for prevention of both invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Its brand name is Capvaxive and it’s made by Merck. IPD includes bacteremia, pneumonia, pneumococcal bacteremia, and meningitis.

There are two basic types of pneumococcal vaccines: polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV), which do not produce memory B cells; and PCV conjugate vaccines, which do trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. PCV21 covers 11 unique serotypes not in PCV20. This is important because many cases of adult disease are caused by subtypes not covered by other FDA-approved pneumococcal vaccines. PCV21 has greater coverage of the serotypes that cause invasive disease in adults as compared with PCV20. PCV20 covers up to 58% of those strains, while PCV21 covers up to 84% of strains responsible for invasive disease in adults. But there’s one serotype missing in PCV21, which may limit the groups who receive it. PCV21 does not cover serotype 4, a major cause of IPD in certain populations. Adults experiencing homelessness are 100-300 times more likely to develop IPD due to serotype 4. So are adults in Alaska, especially Alaska Natives. They have an 88-fold increase in serotype 4 invasive disease. Serotype 4 is covered by other pneumococcal vaccines, so for these patients, PCV20 is likely a better high-valent conjugate vaccine option than PCV21.
 

Flu Vaccines

What’s new for flu? Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a seasonal flu vaccination every year. That’s not new, but there are two new things coming this fall: (1) The seasonal flu vaccine is going trivalent. FDA has removed the Yamagata flu B strain because it no longer appears to be circulating. (2) ACIP made a special off-label recommendation to boost flu protection for solid organ transplant recipients ages 18-64 who are on immunosuppressive medications. These high-risk patients now have the off-label option of receiving one of the higher-dose flu vaccines, including high-dose and adjuvanted flu vaccines, which are FDA approved only for those 65 or older.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for American Medical Association; Medical Association of Atlanta; ACIP liaison. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from American College of Physicians; Medscape; American Medical Association.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met for 3 days in June. New vaccines and new recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, COVID, and a new pneumococcal vaccine were revealed.

RSV Protection

We’ll begin with RSV vaccines for adults aged 60 or older. For this group, shared clinical decision-making is out; it no longer applies. New, more specific recommendations from ACIP for RSV vaccines are both age based and risk based. The age-based recommendation applies to those aged 75 or older, who should receive a single RSV vaccine dose. If they have already received a dose under the old recommendation, they don’t need another one, at least for now.

The risk-based recommendation applies to adults from age 60 up to 75, but only for those with risk factors for severe RSV. These risk factors include lung disease, heart disease, immunocompromise, diabetes, obesity with a BMI of 40 or more, neurologic conditions, neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, hematologic disorders, frailty, and living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Those aged 60-75 with these risk factors should receive the RSV vaccine, and those without them should not receive it. The best time to get the RSV vaccine is late summer, but early fall administration with other adult vaccines is allowed and is acceptable.

Vaccine safety concerns were top of mind as ACIP members began their deliberations. Possible safety concerns for RSV vaccines have been detected for Guillain-Barré syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Safety surveillance updates are still interim and inconclusive. These signals still need further study and clarification. 

Two RSV vaccines have been on the market: one by Pfizer, called Abrysvo, which does not contain an adjuvant; and another one by GSK, called Arexvy, which does contain an adjuvant. With the recent FDA approval of Moderna’s new mRNA RSV vaccine, mRESVIA, there are now three RSV vaccines licensed for those 60 or older. Arexvy is now FDA approved for adults in their 50s. That just happened in early June, but ACIP doesn’t currently recommend it for this fifty-something age group, even for those at high risk for severe RSV disease. This may change with greater clarification of potential vaccine safety concerns.

There is also news about protecting babies from RSV. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the United States, and most hospitalizations for RSV are in healthy, full-term infants. We now have two ways to protect babies: a dose of RSV vaccine given to mom, or a dose of the long-acting monoclonal antibody nirsevimab given to the baby. ACIP clarified that those who received a dose of maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during future pregnancies, but infants born to those who were vaccinated for RSV during a prior pregnancy can receive nirsevimab, which is recommended for infants up to 8 months of age during their first RSV season, and for high-risk infants and toddlers aged 8-19 months during their second RSV season.

Last RSV season, supplies of nirsevimab were limited and doses had to be prioritized. No supply problems are anticipated for the upcoming season. A study published in March showed that nirsevimab was 90% effective at preventing RSV-associated hospitalization for infants in their first RSV season.
 

COVID

Here’s what’s new for COVID vaccines. A new-formula COVID vaccine will be ready for fall. ACIP voted unanimously to recommend a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This is a universal recommendation, just like the one we have for flu. But understand that even though COVID has waned, it’s still more deadly than flu. Most Americans now have some immunity against COVID, but this immunity wanes with time, and it also wanes as the virus keeps changing. These updated vaccines provide an incremental boost to our immunity for the new formula for fall. FDA has directed manufacturers to use a monovalent JN.1 lineage formula, with a preference for the KP.2 strain.

Older adults (aged 75 or older) and children under 6 months old are hit hardest by COVID. The littlest ones are too young to be vaccinated, but they can get protection from maternal vaccination. The uptake for last year’s COVID vaccine has been disappointing. Only 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received a dose of the updated shot. Focus-group discussions highlight the importance of a physician recommendation. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider’s recommendation to get the COVID vaccine are more likely to get vaccinated. 
 

Pneumococcal Vaccines

On June 17, 2024, a new pneumococcal vaccine, PCV21, was FDA approved for those aged 18 or older under an accelerated-approval pathway. ACIP voted to keep it simple and recommends PCV21 as an option for adults aged 19 or older who currently have an indication to receive a dose of PCV. This new PCV21 vaccine is indicated for prevention of both invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Its brand name is Capvaxive and it’s made by Merck. IPD includes bacteremia, pneumonia, pneumococcal bacteremia, and meningitis.

There are two basic types of pneumococcal vaccines: polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV), which do not produce memory B cells; and PCV conjugate vaccines, which do trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. PCV21 covers 11 unique serotypes not in PCV20. This is important because many cases of adult disease are caused by subtypes not covered by other FDA-approved pneumococcal vaccines. PCV21 has greater coverage of the serotypes that cause invasive disease in adults as compared with PCV20. PCV20 covers up to 58% of those strains, while PCV21 covers up to 84% of strains responsible for invasive disease in adults. But there’s one serotype missing in PCV21, which may limit the groups who receive it. PCV21 does not cover serotype 4, a major cause of IPD in certain populations. Adults experiencing homelessness are 100-300 times more likely to develop IPD due to serotype 4. So are adults in Alaska, especially Alaska Natives. They have an 88-fold increase in serotype 4 invasive disease. Serotype 4 is covered by other pneumococcal vaccines, so for these patients, PCV20 is likely a better high-valent conjugate vaccine option than PCV21.
 

Flu Vaccines

What’s new for flu? Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a seasonal flu vaccination every year. That’s not new, but there are two new things coming this fall: (1) The seasonal flu vaccine is going trivalent. FDA has removed the Yamagata flu B strain because it no longer appears to be circulating. (2) ACIP made a special off-label recommendation to boost flu protection for solid organ transplant recipients ages 18-64 who are on immunosuppressive medications. These high-risk patients now have the off-label option of receiving one of the higher-dose flu vaccines, including high-dose and adjuvanted flu vaccines, which are FDA approved only for those 65 or older.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for American Medical Association; Medical Association of Atlanta; ACIP liaison. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from American College of Physicians; Medscape; American Medical Association.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

ACIP, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, met for 3 days in June. New vaccines and new recommendations for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), flu, COVID, and a new pneumococcal vaccine were revealed.

RSV Protection

We’ll begin with RSV vaccines for adults aged 60 or older. For this group, shared clinical decision-making is out; it no longer applies. New, more specific recommendations from ACIP for RSV vaccines are both age based and risk based. The age-based recommendation applies to those aged 75 or older, who should receive a single RSV vaccine dose. If they have already received a dose under the old recommendation, they don’t need another one, at least for now.

The risk-based recommendation applies to adults from age 60 up to 75, but only for those with risk factors for severe RSV. These risk factors include lung disease, heart disease, immunocompromise, diabetes, obesity with a BMI of 40 or more, neurologic conditions, neuromuscular conditions, chronic kidney disease, liver disorders, hematologic disorders, frailty, and living in a nursing home or other long-term care facility. Those aged 60-75 with these risk factors should receive the RSV vaccine, and those without them should not receive it. The best time to get the RSV vaccine is late summer, but early fall administration with other adult vaccines is allowed and is acceptable.

Vaccine safety concerns were top of mind as ACIP members began their deliberations. Possible safety concerns for RSV vaccines have been detected for Guillain-Barré syndrome, atrial fibrillation, and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Safety surveillance updates are still interim and inconclusive. These signals still need further study and clarification. 

Two RSV vaccines have been on the market: one by Pfizer, called Abrysvo, which does not contain an adjuvant; and another one by GSK, called Arexvy, which does contain an adjuvant. With the recent FDA approval of Moderna’s new mRNA RSV vaccine, mRESVIA, there are now three RSV vaccines licensed for those 60 or older. Arexvy is now FDA approved for adults in their 50s. That just happened in early June, but ACIP doesn’t currently recommend it for this fifty-something age group, even for those at high risk for severe RSV disease. This may change with greater clarification of potential vaccine safety concerns.

There is also news about protecting babies from RSV. RSV is the most common cause of hospitalization for infants in the United States, and most hospitalizations for RSV are in healthy, full-term infants. We now have two ways to protect babies: a dose of RSV vaccine given to mom, or a dose of the long-acting monoclonal antibody nirsevimab given to the baby. ACIP clarified that those who received a dose of maternal RSV vaccine during a previous pregnancy are not recommended to receive additional doses during future pregnancies, but infants born to those who were vaccinated for RSV during a prior pregnancy can receive nirsevimab, which is recommended for infants up to 8 months of age during their first RSV season, and for high-risk infants and toddlers aged 8-19 months during their second RSV season.

Last RSV season, supplies of nirsevimab were limited and doses had to be prioritized. No supply problems are anticipated for the upcoming season. A study published in March showed that nirsevimab was 90% effective at preventing RSV-associated hospitalization for infants in their first RSV season.
 

COVID

Here’s what’s new for COVID vaccines. A new-formula COVID vaccine will be ready for fall. ACIP voted unanimously to recommend a dose of the updated 2024-2025 COVID vaccine for everyone aged 6 months or older. This is a universal recommendation, just like the one we have for flu. But understand that even though COVID has waned, it’s still more deadly than flu. Most Americans now have some immunity against COVID, but this immunity wanes with time, and it also wanes as the virus keeps changing. These updated vaccines provide an incremental boost to our immunity for the new formula for fall. FDA has directed manufacturers to use a monovalent JN.1 lineage formula, with a preference for the KP.2 strain.

Older adults (aged 75 or older) and children under 6 months old are hit hardest by COVID. The littlest ones are too young to be vaccinated, but they can get protection from maternal vaccination. The uptake for last year’s COVID vaccine has been disappointing. Only 22.5% of adults and 14% of children received a dose of the updated shot. Focus-group discussions highlight the importance of a physician recommendation. Adults and children who receive a healthcare provider’s recommendation to get the COVID vaccine are more likely to get vaccinated. 
 

Pneumococcal Vaccines

On June 17, 2024, a new pneumococcal vaccine, PCV21, was FDA approved for those aged 18 or older under an accelerated-approval pathway. ACIP voted to keep it simple and recommends PCV21 as an option for adults aged 19 or older who currently have an indication to receive a dose of PCV. This new PCV21 vaccine is indicated for prevention of both invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD) and pneumococcal pneumonia. Its brand name is Capvaxive and it’s made by Merck. IPD includes bacteremia, pneumonia, pneumococcal bacteremia, and meningitis.

There are two basic types of pneumococcal vaccines: polysaccharide vaccines (PPSV), which do not produce memory B cells; and PCV conjugate vaccines, which do trigger memory B-cell production and therefore induce greater long-term immunity. PCV21 covers 11 unique serotypes not in PCV20. This is important because many cases of adult disease are caused by subtypes not covered by other FDA-approved pneumococcal vaccines. PCV21 has greater coverage of the serotypes that cause invasive disease in adults as compared with PCV20. PCV20 covers up to 58% of those strains, while PCV21 covers up to 84% of strains responsible for invasive disease in adults. But there’s one serotype missing in PCV21, which may limit the groups who receive it. PCV21 does not cover serotype 4, a major cause of IPD in certain populations. Adults experiencing homelessness are 100-300 times more likely to develop IPD due to serotype 4. So are adults in Alaska, especially Alaska Natives. They have an 88-fold increase in serotype 4 invasive disease. Serotype 4 is covered by other pneumococcal vaccines, so for these patients, PCV20 is likely a better high-valent conjugate vaccine option than PCV21.
 

Flu Vaccines

What’s new for flu? Everyone aged 6 months or older needs a seasonal flu vaccination every year. That’s not new, but there are two new things coming this fall: (1) The seasonal flu vaccine is going trivalent. FDA has removed the Yamagata flu B strain because it no longer appears to be circulating. (2) ACIP made a special off-label recommendation to boost flu protection for solid organ transplant recipients ages 18-64 who are on immunosuppressive medications. These high-risk patients now have the off-label option of receiving one of the higher-dose flu vaccines, including high-dose and adjuvanted flu vaccines, which are FDA approved only for those 65 or older.

Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for American Medical Association; Medical Association of Atlanta; ACIP liaison. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from American College of Physicians; Medscape; American Medical Association.

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

Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.

Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.

I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.

Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.

Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

The football that we see on TV, with all its hoopla, ugliness, and mind-numbing advertisements, shouldn’t discourage us from allowing kids who want to knock heads and bump shoulders to enjoy the sport at a young age. As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.

Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.

I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.

Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.

Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

The football that we see on TV, with all its hoopla, ugliness, and mind-numbing advertisements, shouldn’t discourage us from allowing kids who want to knock heads and bump shoulders to enjoy the sport at a young age. As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Over the last couple of decades, I have become increasingly more uncomfortable watching American-style football on television. Lax refereeing coupled with over-juiced players who can generate g-forces previously attainable only on a NASA rocket sled has resulted in a spate of injuries I find unacceptable. The revolving door of transfers from college to college has made the term scholar-athlete a relic that can be applied to only a handful of players at the smallest uncompetitive schools.

Many of you who are regular readers of Letters from Maine have probably tired of my boasting that when I played football in high school we wore leather helmets. I enjoyed playing football and continued playing in college for a couple of years until it became obvious that “bench” was going to be my usual position. But, I would not want my grandson to play college football. Certainly, not at the elite college level. Were he to do so, he would be putting himself at risk for significant injury by participating in what I no longer view as an appealing activity. Let me add that I am not including chronic traumatic encephalopathy among my concerns, because I think its association with football injuries is far from settled. My concern is more about spinal cord injuries, which, although infrequent, are almost always devastating.

I should also make it perfectly clear that my lack of enthusiasm for college and professional football does not place me among the increasingly vocal throng calling for the elimination of youth football. For the 5- to 12-year-olds, putting on pads and a helmet and scrambling around on a grassy field bumping shoulders and heads with their peers is a wonderful way to burn off energy and satisfies a need for roughhousing that comes naturally to most young boys (and many girls). The chance of anyone of those kids playing youth football reaching the elite college or professional level is extremely unlikely. Other activities and the realization that football is not in their future weeds the field during adolescence.

Although there have been some studies suggesting that starting football at an early age is associated with increased injury risk, a recent and well-controlled study published in the journal Sports Medicine has found no such association in professional football players. This finding makes some sense when you consider that most of the children in this age group are not mustering g-forces anywhere close to those a college or professional athlete can generate.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Pediatrics offers more evidence to consider before one passes judgment on youth football. When reviewing the records of nearly 1500 patients in a specialty-care concussion setting at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, investigators found that recreation-related concussions and non–sport- or recreation-related concussions were more prevalent than sports-related concussions. The authors propose that “less supervision at the time of injury and less access to established concussion healthcare following injury” may explain their observations.

Of course as a card-carrying AARP old fogey, I long for the good old days when youth sports were organized by the kids in backyards and playgrounds. There we learned to pick teams and deal with the disappointment of not being a first-round pick and the embarrassment of being a last rounder. We settled out-of-bounds calls and arguments about ball possession without adults’ assistance — or video replays for that matter. But those days are gone and likely never to return, with parental anxiety running at record highs. We must accept youth sports organized for kids by adults is the way it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

The football that we see on TV, with all its hoopla, ugliness, and mind-numbing advertisements, shouldn’t discourage us from allowing kids who want to knock heads and bump shoulders to enjoy the sport at a young age. As long as the program is organized with the emphasis on fun nor structured as a fast track to elite play it will be healthier for the kids than sitting on the couch at home watching the carnage on TV.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome to The Curbsiders. I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. We’re going to be talking about the evaluation of chronic neck pain, which is a really common complaint in primary care. So, Paul, what are the three buckets of neck pain? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: Well, as our listeners probably know, neck pain is extraordinarily common. There are three big buckets. There is mechanical neck pain, which is sort of the bread-and-butter “my neck just hurts” — probably the one you’re going to see most commonly in the office. We’ll get into that in just a second. 

The second bucket is cervical radiculopathy. We see a little bit more neurologic symptoms as part of the presentation. They may have weakness. They may have pain.

The third type of neck pain is cervical myelopathy, which is the one that probably warrants more aggressive follow-up and evaluation, and potentially even management. And that is typically your older patients in nontraumatic cases, who have bony impingement on the central spinal cord, often with upper motor neuron signs, and it can ultimately be very devastating. It’s almost a spectrum of presentations to worry about in terms of severity and outcomes.

We’ll start with the mechanical neck pain. It’s the one that we see the most commonly in the primary care office. We’ve all dealt with this. This is the patient who’s got localized neck pain that doesn’t really radiate anywhere; it kind of sits in the middle of the neck. In fact, if you actually poke back there where the patient says “ouch,” you’re probably in the right ballpark. The etiology and pathophysiology, weirdly, are still not super well-defined, but it’s probably mostly myofascial in etiology. And as such, it often gets better no matter what you do. It will probably get better with time.

You are not going to have neurologic deficits with this type of neck pain. There’s not going to be weakness, or radiation down the arm, or upper motor neuron signs. No one is mentioning the urinary symptoms with this. You can treat it with NSAIDs and physical therapy, which may be necessary if it persists. Massage can sometimes be helpful, but basically you’re just kind of supporting the patients through their own natural healing process. Physical therapy might help with the ergonomics and help make sure that they position themselves and move in a way that does not exacerbate the underlying structures. That is probably the one that we see the most and in some ways is probably the easiest to manage. 

Dr. Watto: This is the one that we generally should be least worried about. But cervical radiculopathy, which is the second bucket, is not as severe as cervical myelopathy, so it’s kind of in between the two. Cervical radiculopathy is basically the patient who has neck pain that’s going down one arm or the other, usually not both arms because that would be weird for them to have symmetric radiculopathy. It’s a nerve being pinched somewhere, usually more on one side than the other. 

The good news for patients is that the natural history is that it’s going to get better over time, almost no matter what we do. I almost think of this akin to sciatica. Usually sciatica and cervical radiculopathy do not have any motor weakness along with them. It’s really just the pain and maybe a little bit of mild sensory symptoms. So, you can reassure the patient that this usually goes away. Our guest said he sometimes gives gabapentin for this. That’s not my practice. I would be more likely to refer to physical therapy or try some NSAIDs if they’re really having trouble functioning or maybe some muscle relaxants. But they aren’t going to need to go to surgery. 

What about cervical myelopathy, Paul? Do those patients need surgery? 

Dr. Williams: Yes. The idea with cervical myelopathy is to keep it from progressing. It typically occurs in older patients. It’s like arthritis — a sort of bony buildup that compresses on the spinal cord itself. These patients will often have neck pain but not always. It’s also associated with impairments in motor function and other neurologic deficits. So, the patients may report that they have difficulty buttoning their buttons or managing fine-motor skills. They may have radicular symptoms down their arms. They may have an abnormal physical examination. They may have weakness on exam, but they’ll have a positive Hoffmann’s test where you flick the middle finger and look for flexion of the first finger and the thumb. They may have abnormal tandem gait, or patellar or Achilles hyperreflexia. Their neuro exam will not be normal much of the time, and in later cases because it’s upper motor neuron disease, they may even report urinary symptoms like urinary hesitancy or just a feeling of general unsteadiness of the gait, even though we’re at the cervical level. If you suspect myelopathy — and the trick is to think about it and recognize it when you see it — then you should send them for an MRI. If it persists or they have rapid regression, you get the MRI and refer them to neurosurgery. It’s not necessarily a neurosurgical emergency, but things should move along fairly briskly once you’ve actually identified it. 

Dr. Watto: Dr. Mikula made the point that if someone comes to you in a wheelchair, they are probably not going to regain the ability to walk. You’re really trying to prevent progression. If they are already severely disabled, they’re probably not going to get totally back to full functioning, even with surgery. You’re just trying to prevent things from getting worse. That’s the main reason to identify this and get the patient to surgery. 

We covered a lot more about neck pain. This was a very superficial review of what we talked about with Dr. Anthony Mikula. Click here to listen to the full podcast.

Matthew F. Watto is clinical assistant professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania, and internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Paul N. Williams is associate professor of clinical medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, and staff physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome to The Curbsiders. I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. We’re going to be talking about the evaluation of chronic neck pain, which is a really common complaint in primary care. So, Paul, what are the three buckets of neck pain? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: Well, as our listeners probably know, neck pain is extraordinarily common. There are three big buckets. There is mechanical neck pain, which is sort of the bread-and-butter “my neck just hurts” — probably the one you’re going to see most commonly in the office. We’ll get into that in just a second. 

The second bucket is cervical radiculopathy. We see a little bit more neurologic symptoms as part of the presentation. They may have weakness. They may have pain.

The third type of neck pain is cervical myelopathy, which is the one that probably warrants more aggressive follow-up and evaluation, and potentially even management. And that is typically your older patients in nontraumatic cases, who have bony impingement on the central spinal cord, often with upper motor neuron signs, and it can ultimately be very devastating. It’s almost a spectrum of presentations to worry about in terms of severity and outcomes.

We’ll start with the mechanical neck pain. It’s the one that we see the most commonly in the primary care office. We’ve all dealt with this. This is the patient who’s got localized neck pain that doesn’t really radiate anywhere; it kind of sits in the middle of the neck. In fact, if you actually poke back there where the patient says “ouch,” you’re probably in the right ballpark. The etiology and pathophysiology, weirdly, are still not super well-defined, but it’s probably mostly myofascial in etiology. And as such, it often gets better no matter what you do. It will probably get better with time.

You are not going to have neurologic deficits with this type of neck pain. There’s not going to be weakness, or radiation down the arm, or upper motor neuron signs. No one is mentioning the urinary symptoms with this. You can treat it with NSAIDs and physical therapy, which may be necessary if it persists. Massage can sometimes be helpful, but basically you’re just kind of supporting the patients through their own natural healing process. Physical therapy might help with the ergonomics and help make sure that they position themselves and move in a way that does not exacerbate the underlying structures. That is probably the one that we see the most and in some ways is probably the easiest to manage. 

Dr. Watto: This is the one that we generally should be least worried about. But cervical radiculopathy, which is the second bucket, is not as severe as cervical myelopathy, so it’s kind of in between the two. Cervical radiculopathy is basically the patient who has neck pain that’s going down one arm or the other, usually not both arms because that would be weird for them to have symmetric radiculopathy. It’s a nerve being pinched somewhere, usually more on one side than the other. 

The good news for patients is that the natural history is that it’s going to get better over time, almost no matter what we do. I almost think of this akin to sciatica. Usually sciatica and cervical radiculopathy do not have any motor weakness along with them. It’s really just the pain and maybe a little bit of mild sensory symptoms. So, you can reassure the patient that this usually goes away. Our guest said he sometimes gives gabapentin for this. That’s not my practice. I would be more likely to refer to physical therapy or try some NSAIDs if they’re really having trouble functioning or maybe some muscle relaxants. But they aren’t going to need to go to surgery. 

What about cervical myelopathy, Paul? Do those patients need surgery? 

Dr. Williams: Yes. The idea with cervical myelopathy is to keep it from progressing. It typically occurs in older patients. It’s like arthritis — a sort of bony buildup that compresses on the spinal cord itself. These patients will often have neck pain but not always. It’s also associated with impairments in motor function and other neurologic deficits. So, the patients may report that they have difficulty buttoning their buttons or managing fine-motor skills. They may have radicular symptoms down their arms. They may have an abnormal physical examination. They may have weakness on exam, but they’ll have a positive Hoffmann’s test where you flick the middle finger and look for flexion of the first finger and the thumb. They may have abnormal tandem gait, or patellar or Achilles hyperreflexia. Their neuro exam will not be normal much of the time, and in later cases because it’s upper motor neuron disease, they may even report urinary symptoms like urinary hesitancy or just a feeling of general unsteadiness of the gait, even though we’re at the cervical level. If you suspect myelopathy — and the trick is to think about it and recognize it when you see it — then you should send them for an MRI. If it persists or they have rapid regression, you get the MRI and refer them to neurosurgery. It’s not necessarily a neurosurgical emergency, but things should move along fairly briskly once you’ve actually identified it. 

Dr. Watto: Dr. Mikula made the point that if someone comes to you in a wheelchair, they are probably not going to regain the ability to walk. You’re really trying to prevent progression. If they are already severely disabled, they’re probably not going to get totally back to full functioning, even with surgery. You’re just trying to prevent things from getting worse. That’s the main reason to identify this and get the patient to surgery. 

We covered a lot more about neck pain. This was a very superficial review of what we talked about with Dr. Anthony Mikula. Click here to listen to the full podcast.

Matthew F. Watto is clinical assistant professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania, and internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Paul N. Williams is associate professor of clinical medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, and staff physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: Welcome to The Curbsiders. I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. We’re going to be talking about the evaluation of chronic neck pain, which is a really common complaint in primary care. So, Paul, what are the three buckets of neck pain? 

Paul N. Williams, MD: Well, as our listeners probably know, neck pain is extraordinarily common. There are three big buckets. There is mechanical neck pain, which is sort of the bread-and-butter “my neck just hurts” — probably the one you’re going to see most commonly in the office. We’ll get into that in just a second. 

The second bucket is cervical radiculopathy. We see a little bit more neurologic symptoms as part of the presentation. They may have weakness. They may have pain.

The third type of neck pain is cervical myelopathy, which is the one that probably warrants more aggressive follow-up and evaluation, and potentially even management. And that is typically your older patients in nontraumatic cases, who have bony impingement on the central spinal cord, often with upper motor neuron signs, and it can ultimately be very devastating. It’s almost a spectrum of presentations to worry about in terms of severity and outcomes.

We’ll start with the mechanical neck pain. It’s the one that we see the most commonly in the primary care office. We’ve all dealt with this. This is the patient who’s got localized neck pain that doesn’t really radiate anywhere; it kind of sits in the middle of the neck. In fact, if you actually poke back there where the patient says “ouch,” you’re probably in the right ballpark. The etiology and pathophysiology, weirdly, are still not super well-defined, but it’s probably mostly myofascial in etiology. And as such, it often gets better no matter what you do. It will probably get better with time.

You are not going to have neurologic deficits with this type of neck pain. There’s not going to be weakness, or radiation down the arm, or upper motor neuron signs. No one is mentioning the urinary symptoms with this. You can treat it with NSAIDs and physical therapy, which may be necessary if it persists. Massage can sometimes be helpful, but basically you’re just kind of supporting the patients through their own natural healing process. Physical therapy might help with the ergonomics and help make sure that they position themselves and move in a way that does not exacerbate the underlying structures. That is probably the one that we see the most and in some ways is probably the easiest to manage. 

Dr. Watto: This is the one that we generally should be least worried about. But cervical radiculopathy, which is the second bucket, is not as severe as cervical myelopathy, so it’s kind of in between the two. Cervical radiculopathy is basically the patient who has neck pain that’s going down one arm or the other, usually not both arms because that would be weird for them to have symmetric radiculopathy. It’s a nerve being pinched somewhere, usually more on one side than the other. 

The good news for patients is that the natural history is that it’s going to get better over time, almost no matter what we do. I almost think of this akin to sciatica. Usually sciatica and cervical radiculopathy do not have any motor weakness along with them. It’s really just the pain and maybe a little bit of mild sensory symptoms. So, you can reassure the patient that this usually goes away. Our guest said he sometimes gives gabapentin for this. That’s not my practice. I would be more likely to refer to physical therapy or try some NSAIDs if they’re really having trouble functioning or maybe some muscle relaxants. But they aren’t going to need to go to surgery. 

What about cervical myelopathy, Paul? Do those patients need surgery? 

Dr. Williams: Yes. The idea with cervical myelopathy is to keep it from progressing. It typically occurs in older patients. It’s like arthritis — a sort of bony buildup that compresses on the spinal cord itself. These patients will often have neck pain but not always. It’s also associated with impairments in motor function and other neurologic deficits. So, the patients may report that they have difficulty buttoning their buttons or managing fine-motor skills. They may have radicular symptoms down their arms. They may have an abnormal physical examination. They may have weakness on exam, but they’ll have a positive Hoffmann’s test where you flick the middle finger and look for flexion of the first finger and the thumb. They may have abnormal tandem gait, or patellar or Achilles hyperreflexia. Their neuro exam will not be normal much of the time, and in later cases because it’s upper motor neuron disease, they may even report urinary symptoms like urinary hesitancy or just a feeling of general unsteadiness of the gait, even though we’re at the cervical level. If you suspect myelopathy — and the trick is to think about it and recognize it when you see it — then you should send them for an MRI. If it persists or they have rapid regression, you get the MRI and refer them to neurosurgery. It’s not necessarily a neurosurgical emergency, but things should move along fairly briskly once you’ve actually identified it. 

Dr. Watto: Dr. Mikula made the point that if someone comes to you in a wheelchair, they are probably not going to regain the ability to walk. You’re really trying to prevent progression. If they are already severely disabled, they’re probably not going to get totally back to full functioning, even with surgery. You’re just trying to prevent things from getting worse. That’s the main reason to identify this and get the patient to surgery. 

We covered a lot more about neck pain. This was a very superficial review of what we talked about with Dr. Anthony Mikula. Click here to listen to the full podcast.

Matthew F. Watto is clinical assistant professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania, and internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Paul N. Williams is associate professor of clinical medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine, and staff physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for The Curbsiders; received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from The Curbsiders.

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

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I’m speaking from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we’ve seen some interesting, new data in GI cancers.

If you allow me, I’d like to go in a craniocaudal fashion. It’s my anatomic mnemonic. I think that’s appropriate because our plenary session yesterday kicked off with some exciting data in esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. 

This was the long-awaited ESOPEC trial. It’s a phase 3 study looking at perioperative FLOT (5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel), a chemo triplet, vs the CROSS protocol, which is neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and at first blush, FLOT looked to be the true winner. There were some really remarkable milestones in this study, and I have some reservations about the FLOT arm that I’ll raise in just a second. 

The investigators are to be commended because in a truly deadly disease, they reported a 5-year overall survival in half of the patients who were receiving FLOT. That is truly commendable and really a milestone in our field. The reason I take a little bit of issue with the trial is that I still have some questions about methodology.

It wasn’t that long ago at ASCO GI that there was a really heated debate called “FLOT or Not” — not in this precise setting, but asking the question, do we think that patients with upper GI malignancy are even fit enough to handle a chemo triplet like FLOT? 

The reason I bring that up now in 2024 is that, to my surprise, and I think to many others’, there was a lower-than-expected completion rate of the patients in this trial who were receiving the CROSS regimen. The number of people who were able to complete that in full was about two-thirds, which compared with a historical control from a trial scheme that first emerged over a decade ago that used to be over 90% completion. I found that quite strange. 

I also think this trial suffers a little bit, and unavoidably, from the evolution of care that’s happened since it was first enrolling. Of course, I refer to adjuvant immunotherapy. Now, the real question is whether there is synergy between patients who receive radiation upfront and then adjuvant nivolumab, as per CheckMate 577. 

In her plenary discussion, I thought Dr. Karyn Goodman did a masterful job — I would encourage you to watch it on ASCO’s website —discussing how we can take all these data and reconcile them for optimal patient outcome. She ultimately suggested that we might deploy all four modalities in the management of these people. 

She proposed a paradigm with a PET-adapted, upfront induction chemotherapy, then moving to chemoradiation, then moving to surgery, and finally moving to immunotherapy. That is all four of the traditional arms of oncology. I find that really rather remarkable. Watch that space. This is a great trial with really remarkable survival data, but I’m not entirely convinced that the CROSS arm was given its due. 

Next up, I want to talk about pancreas cancer, which is something near and dear to my heart. It affects about one in four of my patients and it remains, unfortunately, a highly lethal disease. I think the top-line news from this meeting is that the KRAS mutation is druggable. I’m probably showing my age, but when I did my fellowship in 2009 through 2012, I was taught that KRAS was sort of the undruggable mutation par excellence. At this meeting, we’ve seen maturing data in regard to targeting KRAS G12C with both sotorasib and adagrasib. The disease control rates are astounding, at 80% and more, which is really remarkable. I wouldn’t have believed that even a few years ago. 

I’m even more excited about how we bring a rising tide that can lift all boats and apply this to other KRAS mutations, and not just KRAS G12C but all KRAS mutations. I think that’s coming, hopefully, with the pan-RAS inhibitors, because once that happens — if that happens; I’ll try not to be irrationally exuberant — that would take the traditional mutation found in almost all pancreas cancers and really make it its own Achilles heel. I think that could be such a huge leap forward. 

Another matter, however, that remains unresolved at this meeting is in the neoadjuvant setting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. There’s still equipoise, actually, between neoadjuvant gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. I thought that that was very well spelled out by some of our Dutch colleagues, who continue to do great work in a variety of cancers, including colorectal. 

Where I’d like to move next is colorectal cancer. Of course, immunotherapy remains a hot topic at all of these conferences. There were three different aspects of immunotherapy I’d like to highlight at this conference in regard to colon and rectal cancer. 

First, Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz presented updated data from CheckMate 8HW, which looked at nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs chemotherapy in the first line for MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient colon cancer. Once again, the data we’ve had now for several years at the 2-year mark are incredibly impressive. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates for nivo/ipi are above 70% and down at around 14% for chemo. 

What was impressive about this meeting is that Dr. Lenz presented PFS2, trying to determine the impact, if any, of subsequent therapy. What was going on here, which I think was ethically responsible by the investigators, was crossover. About two-thirds of the chemo arm crossed over to any form of immuno-oncology (IO), and just under a half crossed over to nivo and ipi. The PFS benefits continued with up-front IO. The way that Dr. Lenz phrased it is that you really never get the chance to win back the benefit that you would derive by giving immunotherapy first line to someone who has MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient metastatic colon cancer. 

One thing that’s still not settled in my mind, though, is, does this really dethrone single-agent immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177? What I’m really driving at is the ipilimumab. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the addition of an anti-CTLA4 agent worth the toxicity that we know comes along with that mechanism of action? Watch this space. 

I was also really interested in NEOPRISM-CRC, which looked at the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant down-staging of radiographically high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer. Here, the investigators really make a strong case that, up front in these potentially respectable cases, not only should we know about mismatch repair deficiency but we should actually be interrogating further for tumor mutational burden (TMB). 

They had TMB-high patients. In fact, the median TMB was 42 mutations per megabase, with really impressive down-staging using three cycles of every-3-week pembrolizumab before surgery. Again, I really think we’re at an exciting time where, even for colon cancer that looks operable up front, we might actually have the opportunity to improve pathologic and clinical complete responses before and after surgery. 

Finally, I want to bring up what continues to amaze me. Two years ago, at ASCO 2022, we heard from Dr. Andrea Cercek and the Memorial Sloan Kettering group about the incredible experience they were having with neoadjuvant, or frankly, definitive dostarlimab in mismatch repair–deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. 

I remember being at the conference and there was simultaneous publication of that abstract in The New York Times because it was so remarkable. There was a 100% clinical complete response. The patients didn’t require radiation, they didn’t require chemotherapy, and they didn’t require surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer, provided there was this vulnerability of mismatch-repair deficiency. 

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Cercek and her group have updated those data with more than 40 patients, and again, a 100% clinical complete response, including mature, complete responses at over a year in about 20 patients. Again, we are really doing our rectal cancer patients a disservice if we’re not checking for mismatch-repair deficiency upfront, and especially if we’re not talking about them in multidisciplinary conferences. 

One of the things that absolutely blows my mind about rectal cancer is just how complicated it’s becoming. I think it is the standard of care to discuss these cases upfront with radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and pathology. 

Maybe the overarching message I would take from everything I’ve said today is that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. It’s really a dyad, a partnership that guides optimal medical oncology care. As much as I love ASCO, I often wish we had more of our pathology colleagues here. I look forward to taking all the findings from this meeting back to the tumor board and really having a dynamic dialogue.

Dr. Lewis is director, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I’m speaking from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we’ve seen some interesting, new data in GI cancers.

If you allow me, I’d like to go in a craniocaudal fashion. It’s my anatomic mnemonic. I think that’s appropriate because our plenary session yesterday kicked off with some exciting data in esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. 

This was the long-awaited ESOPEC trial. It’s a phase 3 study looking at perioperative FLOT (5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel), a chemo triplet, vs the CROSS protocol, which is neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and at first blush, FLOT looked to be the true winner. There were some really remarkable milestones in this study, and I have some reservations about the FLOT arm that I’ll raise in just a second. 

The investigators are to be commended because in a truly deadly disease, they reported a 5-year overall survival in half of the patients who were receiving FLOT. That is truly commendable and really a milestone in our field. The reason I take a little bit of issue with the trial is that I still have some questions about methodology.

It wasn’t that long ago at ASCO GI that there was a really heated debate called “FLOT or Not” — not in this precise setting, but asking the question, do we think that patients with upper GI malignancy are even fit enough to handle a chemo triplet like FLOT? 

The reason I bring that up now in 2024 is that, to my surprise, and I think to many others’, there was a lower-than-expected completion rate of the patients in this trial who were receiving the CROSS regimen. The number of people who were able to complete that in full was about two-thirds, which compared with a historical control from a trial scheme that first emerged over a decade ago that used to be over 90% completion. I found that quite strange. 

I also think this trial suffers a little bit, and unavoidably, from the evolution of care that’s happened since it was first enrolling. Of course, I refer to adjuvant immunotherapy. Now, the real question is whether there is synergy between patients who receive radiation upfront and then adjuvant nivolumab, as per CheckMate 577. 

In her plenary discussion, I thought Dr. Karyn Goodman did a masterful job — I would encourage you to watch it on ASCO’s website —discussing how we can take all these data and reconcile them for optimal patient outcome. She ultimately suggested that we might deploy all four modalities in the management of these people. 

She proposed a paradigm with a PET-adapted, upfront induction chemotherapy, then moving to chemoradiation, then moving to surgery, and finally moving to immunotherapy. That is all four of the traditional arms of oncology. I find that really rather remarkable. Watch that space. This is a great trial with really remarkable survival data, but I’m not entirely convinced that the CROSS arm was given its due. 

Next up, I want to talk about pancreas cancer, which is something near and dear to my heart. It affects about one in four of my patients and it remains, unfortunately, a highly lethal disease. I think the top-line news from this meeting is that the KRAS mutation is druggable. I’m probably showing my age, but when I did my fellowship in 2009 through 2012, I was taught that KRAS was sort of the undruggable mutation par excellence. At this meeting, we’ve seen maturing data in regard to targeting KRAS G12C with both sotorasib and adagrasib. The disease control rates are astounding, at 80% and more, which is really remarkable. I wouldn’t have believed that even a few years ago. 

I’m even more excited about how we bring a rising tide that can lift all boats and apply this to other KRAS mutations, and not just KRAS G12C but all KRAS mutations. I think that’s coming, hopefully, with the pan-RAS inhibitors, because once that happens — if that happens; I’ll try not to be irrationally exuberant — that would take the traditional mutation found in almost all pancreas cancers and really make it its own Achilles heel. I think that could be such a huge leap forward. 

Another matter, however, that remains unresolved at this meeting is in the neoadjuvant setting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. There’s still equipoise, actually, between neoadjuvant gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. I thought that that was very well spelled out by some of our Dutch colleagues, who continue to do great work in a variety of cancers, including colorectal. 

Where I’d like to move next is colorectal cancer. Of course, immunotherapy remains a hot topic at all of these conferences. There were three different aspects of immunotherapy I’d like to highlight at this conference in regard to colon and rectal cancer. 

First, Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz presented updated data from CheckMate 8HW, which looked at nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs chemotherapy in the first line for MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient colon cancer. Once again, the data we’ve had now for several years at the 2-year mark are incredibly impressive. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates for nivo/ipi are above 70% and down at around 14% for chemo. 

What was impressive about this meeting is that Dr. Lenz presented PFS2, trying to determine the impact, if any, of subsequent therapy. What was going on here, which I think was ethically responsible by the investigators, was crossover. About two-thirds of the chemo arm crossed over to any form of immuno-oncology (IO), and just under a half crossed over to nivo and ipi. The PFS benefits continued with up-front IO. The way that Dr. Lenz phrased it is that you really never get the chance to win back the benefit that you would derive by giving immunotherapy first line to someone who has MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient metastatic colon cancer. 

One thing that’s still not settled in my mind, though, is, does this really dethrone single-agent immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177? What I’m really driving at is the ipilimumab. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the addition of an anti-CTLA4 agent worth the toxicity that we know comes along with that mechanism of action? Watch this space. 

I was also really interested in NEOPRISM-CRC, which looked at the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant down-staging of radiographically high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer. Here, the investigators really make a strong case that, up front in these potentially respectable cases, not only should we know about mismatch repair deficiency but we should actually be interrogating further for tumor mutational burden (TMB). 

They had TMB-high patients. In fact, the median TMB was 42 mutations per megabase, with really impressive down-staging using three cycles of every-3-week pembrolizumab before surgery. Again, I really think we’re at an exciting time where, even for colon cancer that looks operable up front, we might actually have the opportunity to improve pathologic and clinical complete responses before and after surgery. 

Finally, I want to bring up what continues to amaze me. Two years ago, at ASCO 2022, we heard from Dr. Andrea Cercek and the Memorial Sloan Kettering group about the incredible experience they were having with neoadjuvant, or frankly, definitive dostarlimab in mismatch repair–deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. 

I remember being at the conference and there was simultaneous publication of that abstract in The New York Times because it was so remarkable. There was a 100% clinical complete response. The patients didn’t require radiation, they didn’t require chemotherapy, and they didn’t require surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer, provided there was this vulnerability of mismatch-repair deficiency. 

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Cercek and her group have updated those data with more than 40 patients, and again, a 100% clinical complete response, including mature, complete responses at over a year in about 20 patients. Again, we are really doing our rectal cancer patients a disservice if we’re not checking for mismatch-repair deficiency upfront, and especially if we’re not talking about them in multidisciplinary conferences. 

One of the things that absolutely blows my mind about rectal cancer is just how complicated it’s becoming. I think it is the standard of care to discuss these cases upfront with radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and pathology. 

Maybe the overarching message I would take from everything I’ve said today is that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. It’s really a dyad, a partnership that guides optimal medical oncology care. As much as I love ASCO, I often wish we had more of our pathology colleagues here. I look forward to taking all the findings from this meeting back to the tumor board and really having a dynamic dialogue.

Dr. Lewis is director, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Hello. I’m Mark Lewis, director of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology at Intermountain Health in Utah. I’m speaking from the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting in Chicago, where we’ve seen some interesting, new data in GI cancers.

If you allow me, I’d like to go in a craniocaudal fashion. It’s my anatomic mnemonic. I think that’s appropriate because our plenary session yesterday kicked off with some exciting data in esophageal cancer, specifically esophageal adenocarcinoma. 

This was the long-awaited ESOPEC trial. It’s a phase 3 study looking at perioperative FLOT (5-FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin/docetaxel), a chemo triplet, vs the CROSS protocol, which is neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin and paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and at first blush, FLOT looked to be the true winner. There were some really remarkable milestones in this study, and I have some reservations about the FLOT arm that I’ll raise in just a second. 

The investigators are to be commended because in a truly deadly disease, they reported a 5-year overall survival in half of the patients who were receiving FLOT. That is truly commendable and really a milestone in our field. The reason I take a little bit of issue with the trial is that I still have some questions about methodology.

It wasn’t that long ago at ASCO GI that there was a really heated debate called “FLOT or Not” — not in this precise setting, but asking the question, do we think that patients with upper GI malignancy are even fit enough to handle a chemo triplet like FLOT? 

The reason I bring that up now in 2024 is that, to my surprise, and I think to many others’, there was a lower-than-expected completion rate of the patients in this trial who were receiving the CROSS regimen. The number of people who were able to complete that in full was about two-thirds, which compared with a historical control from a trial scheme that first emerged over a decade ago that used to be over 90% completion. I found that quite strange. 

I also think this trial suffers a little bit, and unavoidably, from the evolution of care that’s happened since it was first enrolling. Of course, I refer to adjuvant immunotherapy. Now, the real question is whether there is synergy between patients who receive radiation upfront and then adjuvant nivolumab, as per CheckMate 577. 

In her plenary discussion, I thought Dr. Karyn Goodman did a masterful job — I would encourage you to watch it on ASCO’s website —discussing how we can take all these data and reconcile them for optimal patient outcome. She ultimately suggested that we might deploy all four modalities in the management of these people. 

She proposed a paradigm with a PET-adapted, upfront induction chemotherapy, then moving to chemoradiation, then moving to surgery, and finally moving to immunotherapy. That is all four of the traditional arms of oncology. I find that really rather remarkable. Watch that space. This is a great trial with really remarkable survival data, but I’m not entirely convinced that the CROSS arm was given its due. 

Next up, I want to talk about pancreas cancer, which is something near and dear to my heart. It affects about one in four of my patients and it remains, unfortunately, a highly lethal disease. I think the top-line news from this meeting is that the KRAS mutation is druggable. I’m probably showing my age, but when I did my fellowship in 2009 through 2012, I was taught that KRAS was sort of the undruggable mutation par excellence. At this meeting, we’ve seen maturing data in regard to targeting KRAS G12C with both sotorasib and adagrasib. The disease control rates are astounding, at 80% and more, which is really remarkable. I wouldn’t have believed that even a few years ago. 

I’m even more excited about how we bring a rising tide that can lift all boats and apply this to other KRAS mutations, and not just KRAS G12C but all KRAS mutations. I think that’s coming, hopefully, with the pan-RAS inhibitors, because once that happens — if that happens; I’ll try not to be irrationally exuberant — that would take the traditional mutation found in almost all pancreas cancers and really make it its own Achilles heel. I think that could be such a huge leap forward. 

Another matter, however, that remains unresolved at this meeting is in the neoadjuvant setting with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. There’s still equipoise, actually, between neoadjuvant gemcitabine, paclitaxel, and FOLFIRINOX. I thought that that was very well spelled out by some of our Dutch colleagues, who continue to do great work in a variety of cancers, including colorectal. 

Where I’d like to move next is colorectal cancer. Of course, immunotherapy remains a hot topic at all of these conferences. There were three different aspects of immunotherapy I’d like to highlight at this conference in regard to colon and rectal cancer. 

First, Dr. Heinz-Josef Lenz presented updated data from CheckMate 8HW, which looked at nivolumab and ipilimumab (nivo/ipi) vs chemotherapy in the first line for MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient colon cancer. Once again, the data we’ve had now for several years at the 2-year mark are incredibly impressive. The 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) rates for nivo/ipi are above 70% and down at around 14% for chemo. 

What was impressive about this meeting is that Dr. Lenz presented PFS2, trying to determine the impact, if any, of subsequent therapy. What was going on here, which I think was ethically responsible by the investigators, was crossover. About two-thirds of the chemo arm crossed over to any form of immuno-oncology (IO), and just under a half crossed over to nivo and ipi. The PFS benefits continued with up-front IO. The way that Dr. Lenz phrased it is that you really never get the chance to win back the benefit that you would derive by giving immunotherapy first line to someone who has MSI-high or mismatch repair–deficient metastatic colon cancer. 

One thing that’s still not settled in my mind, though, is, does this really dethrone single-agent immunotherapy, such as pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-177? What I’m really driving at is the ipilimumab. Is the juice worth the squeeze? Is the addition of an anti-CTLA4 agent worth the toxicity that we know comes along with that mechanism of action? Watch this space. 

I was also really interested in NEOPRISM-CRC, which looked at the role of immunotherapy in neoadjuvant down-staging of radiographically high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer. Here, the investigators really make a strong case that, up front in these potentially respectable cases, not only should we know about mismatch repair deficiency but we should actually be interrogating further for tumor mutational burden (TMB). 

They had TMB-high patients. In fact, the median TMB was 42 mutations per megabase, with really impressive down-staging using three cycles of every-3-week pembrolizumab before surgery. Again, I really think we’re at an exciting time where, even for colon cancer that looks operable up front, we might actually have the opportunity to improve pathologic and clinical complete responses before and after surgery. 

Finally, I want to bring up what continues to amaze me. Two years ago, at ASCO 2022, we heard from Dr. Andrea Cercek and the Memorial Sloan Kettering group about the incredible experience they were having with neoadjuvant, or frankly, definitive dostarlimab in mismatch repair–deficient locally advanced rectal cancer. 

I remember being at the conference and there was simultaneous publication of that abstract in The New York Times because it was so remarkable. There was a 100% clinical complete response. The patients didn’t require radiation, they didn’t require chemotherapy, and they didn’t require surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer, provided there was this vulnerability of mismatch-repair deficiency. 

Now, 2 years later, Dr. Cercek and her group have updated those data with more than 40 patients, and again, a 100% clinical complete response, including mature, complete responses at over a year in about 20 patients. Again, we are really doing our rectal cancer patients a disservice if we’re not checking for mismatch-repair deficiency upfront, and especially if we’re not talking about them in multidisciplinary conferences. 

One of the things that absolutely blows my mind about rectal cancer is just how complicated it’s becoming. I think it is the standard of care to discuss these cases upfront with radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, and pathology. 

Maybe the overarching message I would take from everything I’ve said today is that the oncologist without the pathologist is blind. It’s really a dyad, a partnership that guides optimal medical oncology care. As much as I love ASCO, I often wish we had more of our pathology colleagues here. I look forward to taking all the findings from this meeting back to the tumor board and really having a dynamic dialogue.

Dr. Lewis is director, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Intermountain Health, Salt Lake City, Utah. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.