Podcasts about nejm

Featuring articles on PI3K-altered colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, oral semaglutide, and proportional-assist ventilation; a review article on tumor lysis syndrome; a case report of a girl with chest pain and bone and liver lesions; and Perspectives on integrating pharmacotherapy into tobacco control, on Medicaid enrollees with chronic conditions, and on ultraprocessed food.

A large meta-analysis in The Lancet found clopidogrel superior to aspirin for long-term secondary prevention in coronary artery disease, reducing major cardiovascular events by 14% without added bleeding risk. The REBOOT trial in NEJM showed no benefit of beta-blockers in post-MI patients with preserved ejection fraction, and even potential harm in women on high doses, prompting reevaluation of routine use. Finally, a phase 2 trial in JAMA Internal Medicine showed daily azelastine nasal spray reduced COVID-19 incidence by 67% and shortened illness duration, though larger studies are needed to confirm its prophylactic role.

Featuring articles on hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, rehabilitation after myocardial infarction in older adults, the 2024 Marburg virus disease outbreak in Rwanda, and medications for opioid use disorder in county jails; a case report of a woman with dyspnea and fatigue; a Medicine and Society on the race-correction debates; and Perspectives on recent efforts toward equity, on medical research funding in a divided America, and on the end of days.

Amanda Janitz is an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Hudson College of Public Health. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. A.E. Janitz and Others. Improving Care Coordination for Indigenous Patients with Cancer. N Engl J Med 2025;393:940-942.

Darshali Vyas is a pulmonary and critical care fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. D.A. Vyas, L.G. Eisenstein, and D.S. Jones. The Race-Correction Debates — Progress, Tensions, and Future Directions. N Engl J Med 2025;393:1029-1036.

Welcome back to the Hot Topics podcast from NB Medical with Dr Neal Tucker. In this new season, we chat to Dr Simon Curtis about the upcoming Autumn 2025 Hot Topics course, then discuss three new pieces of research.First, in the Lancet, which are the best anti-hypertensives, what effect does increasing a dose actually have and how good are combinations? Second, in the NEJM, does giving all the drugs improve CKD outcomes? The case for finerenone and empagliflozin. Third, do ADHD drugs help outcomes beyond core symptoms such as accidents, suicide and crime? But can we rely on the research method used...?ReferencesLancet Antihypertensive Efficacy PaperNEJM Finerenone & EmpagliflozinReport on trends in CKDBMJ ADHD meds & prevention of complicationswww.nbmedical.com/podcast

Featuring articles on obesity, type 1 diabetes, syphilis, and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; a review article on the management of acute type B aortic dissection; a Clinical Problem-Solving describing a fruitful workup; and Perspectives on the corporatization deal, on advancing physician-scientist training in China, and on the rise of drug innovation in China.

Amitabh Chandra is a professor of public policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. A. Chandra and M. Shepard. The Corporatization Deal — Health Care, Investors, and the Profit Priority. N Engl J Med 2025;393:833-835.

Just read the latest from NEJM? The PIpELINe Trial

With all the attention focused on Alzheimer's biomarkers and amyloid antibodies, it's easy to forget that comprehensive dementia care is more than blood draws and infusions. On today's podcast, we buck this trend and dive into the complexities and challenges of comprehensive dementia care with the authors of two pivotal articles recently published in JAMA. We've invited David Reuben and Greg Sachs to talk about their two respective trials, published in JAMA — D-CARE and IN-PEACE — aimed at improving the evidence for care models supporting individuals diagnosed with dementia. D-CARE tested the comparative effectiveness of health system-based dementia care, a community-based program, and usual care, while IN-PEACE assessed the addition of palliative care to dementia care programs for individuals with moderate to severe dementia. Despite their pragmatic trial designs and high expectations, both studies' primary outcomes were negative, although there were some intriguing positive secondary outcomes. We discuss how some critical questions about the integration of these findings into practice, and how they fit in with previous research that did show benefits (see this past podcast on using health navigators to improve dementia care). If you want to learn more about comprehensive dementia care, check out these past podcasts: Our previous podcast on comprehensive dementia care with Lee Jennings and Chris Callahan Our podcast on the GUIDE Model with Malaz Boustani and Diane Ty Our podcast on Transforming the Culture of Dementia Care with Anne Basting, Ab Desai, Susan McFadden, and Judy Long Lastly, here is the link to Greg Sachs' NEJM article that describes his maternal grandmother decline from Alzheimer's disease.  

Featuring articles on lung cancer, vasomotor symptoms in breast cancer, autoimmune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis, and high-risk cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma; a review article on educational strategies for clinical supervision of AI use; a case report of a woman with fatigue and myalgias; a Sounding Board on vaccine policy in the U.S.; and Perspectives on preventive care at the Supreme Court, regulating private equity in health care, reforming the prescription drug user fee program, and on the consultant.

Nicholas Bagley is a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. N. Bagley. Preventive Care at the Supreme Court. N Engl J Med 2025;393:729-731.

This is a hybrid heart disease risk factor post of a podcast with Prof Bruce Lanphear on lead and a piece I was asked to write for the Washington Post on risk factors for heart disease.First, the podcast. You may have thought the problem with lead exposure was circumscribed to children, but it's a much bigger issue than that. I'll concentrate on the exposure risk to adults in this interview, including the lead-estrogen hypothesis. Bruce has been working on the subject of lead exposure for more than 30 years. Let me emphasize that the problem is not going away, as highlighted in a recent New England Journal of Medicine piece on lead contamination in Milwaukee schools, “The Latest Episode in an Ongoing Toxic Pandemic.”Transcript with links to the audio and citationsEric Topol (00:05):Well, hello. This is Eric Topol with Ground Truths, and I'm very delighted to welcome Professor Bruce Lanphear from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia for a very interesting topic, and that's about lead exposure. We tend to think about lead poisoning with the Flint, Michigan, but there's a lot more to this story. So welcome, Bruce.Bruce Lanphear (00:32):Thank you, Eric. It's great to be here.Eric Topol (00:33):Yeah. So you had a New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Review in October last year, which was probably a wake up to me, and I'm sure to many others. We'll link to that, where you reviewed the whole topic, the title is called Lead Poisoning. But of course it's not just about a big dose, but rather chronic exposure. So maybe you could give us a bit of an overview of that review that you wrote for NEJM.Bruce Lanphear (01:05):Yeah, so we really focused on the things where we feel like there's a definitive link. Things like lead and diminished IQ in children, lead and coronary heart disease, lead and chronic renal disease. As you mentioned, we've typically thought of lead as sort of the overt lead poisoning where somebody becomes acutely ill. But over the past century what we've learned is that lead is one of those toxic chemicals where it's the chronic wear and tear on our bodies that catches up and it's at the root of many of these chronic diseases that are causing problems today.Eric Topol (01:43):Yeah, it's pretty striking. The one that grabbed me and kind of almost fell out of my chair was that in 2019 when I guess the most recent data there is 5.5 million cardiovascular deaths ascribed to relatively low levels, or I guess there is no safe level of lead exposure, that's really striking. That's a lot of people dying from something that cardiology and medical community is not really aware of. And there's a figure 3 [BELOW] that we will also show in the transcript, where you show the level where you start to see a takeoff. It starts very low and by 50 μg/liter, you're seeing a twofold risk and there's no threshold, it keeps going up. How many of us do you think are exposed to that type of level as adults, Bruce?Bruce Lanphear (02:39):Well, as adults, if we go back in time, all of us. If you go back to the 1970s when lead was still in gasoline, the median blood lead level of Americans was about 13 to 15 µg/dL. So we've all been exposed historically to those levels, and part of the reason we've begun to see a striking decline in coronary heart disease, which peaked in 1968. And by 1978, there was a 20% decline, 190,000 more people were alive than expected. So even in that first decade, there was this striking decline in coronary heart disease. And so, in addition to the prospective studies that have found this link between an increase in lead exposure and death from cardiovascular disease and more specifically coronary heart disease. We can look back in time and see how the decline in leaded gasoline led to a decline in heart disease and hypertension.Eric Topol (03:41):Yeah, but it looks like it's still a problem. And you have a phenomenal graph that's encouraging, where you see this 95% reduction in the lead exposure from the 1970s. And as you said, the factors that can be ascribed to like getting rid of lead from gasoline and others. But what is troubling is that we still have a lot of people that this could be a problem. Now, one of the things that was fascinating is that you get into that herbal supplements could be a risk factor. That we don't do screening, of course, should we do screening? And there's certain people that particularly that you consider at high risk that should get screened. So I wasn't aware, I mean the one type of supplements that you zoomed in on, how do you say it? Ayurvedic?Supplements With LeadBruce Lanphear (04:39):Oh yeah. So this is Ayurvedic medicine and in fact, I just was on a Zoom call three weeks ago with a husband and wife who live in India. The young woman had taken Ayurvedic medicine and because of that, her blood lead levels increased to 70 µg/dL, and several months later she was pregnant, and she was trying to figure out what to do with this. Ayurvedic medicine is not well regulated. And so, that's one of the most important sources when we think about India, for example. And I think you pointed out a really important thing is number one, we don't know that there's any safe level even though blood lead levels in the United States and Europe, for example, have come down by over 95%. The levels that we're exposed to and especially the levels in our bones are 10 to 100 times higher than our pre-industrial ancestors.Bruce Lanphear (05:36):So we haven't yet reached those levels that our ancestors were exposed to. Are there effects at even lower and lower levels? Everything would suggest, we should assume that there is, but we don't know down below, let's say one microgram per deciliter or that's the equivalent of 10 parts per billion of lead and blood. What we also know though is when leaded gasoline was restricted in the United States and Canada and elsewhere, the companies turned to the industrializing countries and started to market it there. And so, we saw first the epidemic of coronary heart disease in the United States, Canada, Europe. Then that's come down over the past 50 years. At the same time, it was rising in low to middle income countries. So today over 95% of the burden of disease from lead including heart disease is found in industrializing countries.Eric Topol (06:34):Right. Now, it's pretty striking, of course. Is it true that airlines fuel is still with lead today?Bruce Lanphear (06:45):Well, not commercial airlines. It's going to be a small single piston aircraft. So for example, when we did a study down around the Santa Clara County Airport, Reid-Hillview, and we can see that the children who live within a half mile of the airport had blood lead levels about 10% higher than children that live further away. And the children who live downwind, 25% higher still. Now, nobody's mapped out the health effects, but one of the things that's particularly troubling about emissions from small aircraft is that the particle size of lead is extraordinarily small, and we know how nanoparticles because they have larger surface area can be more problematic. They also can probably go straight up into the brain or across the pulmonary tissues, and so those small particles we should be particularly worried about. But it's been such a long journey to try to figure out how to get that out of aircraft. It's a problem. The EPA recognized it. They said it's an endangerment, but the industry is still pushing back.Eric Topol (07:55):Yeah, I mean, it's interesting that we still have these problems, and I am going to in a minute ask you what we can do to just eradicate lead as much as possible, but we're not there yet. But one study that seemed to be hard to believe that you cited in the review. A year after a ban leaded fuel in NASCAR races, mortality from coronary heart disease declined significantly in communities near racetracks. Can you talk about that one because it's a little bit like the one you just mentioned with the airports?Bruce Lanphear (08:30):Yeah. Now that study particularly, this was by Alex Hollingsworth, was particularly looking at people over 65. And we're working on a follow-up study that will look at people below 65, but it was quite striking. When NASCAR took lead out of their fuel, he compared the rates of coronary heart disease of people that live nearby compared to a control group populations that live further away. And he did see a pretty striking reduction. One of the things we also want to look at in our follow-up is how quickly does that risk begin to taper off? That's going to be really important in terms of trying to develop a strategy around preventing lead poisoning. How quickly do we expect to see it fall? I think it's probably going to be within 12 to 24 months that we'll see benefits.Eric Topol (09:20):That's interesting because as you show in a really nice graphic in adults, which are the people who would be listening to this podcast. Of course, they ought to be concerned too about children and all and reproductive health. But the point about the skeleton, 95% of the lead is there and the main organs, which we haven't mentioned the kidney and the kidney injury that occurs no less the cardiovascular, the blood pressure elevation. So these are really, and you mentioned not necessarily highlighted in that graphic, but potential cognitive hit as well. You also wrote about how people who have symptoms of abdominal pain, memory impairment, and high blood pressure that's unexplained, maybe they should get a blood level screening. I assume those are easy to get, right?Bruce Lanphear (10:17):Oh yeah, absolutely. You can get those in any hospital, any clinic across the country. We're still struggling with having those available where it's most needed in the industrializing countries, but certainly available here. Now, we don't expect that for most people who have those symptoms, lead poisoning is going to be the cause, right. It'd still be unusual unless you work in an industry, for example, smelting batteries to recycle them. We don't expect it to be real common, and we're not even sure, Eric, whether we should be doing widespread screening. If I looked at this as a population scientist, the real focus should be on identifying the sources. We mostly know where those are here and radically moving it down. Getting rid of the lead service lines, which was such a big part of what President Biden was doing, and it was perfect. For every dollar invested to reduce lead exposure from those lead service lines. Ronnie Levin at Harvard said there'd be a 35-fold return in cost, benefits really, and this has always been true, that reducing lead exposure throughout the past 40 years has always been shown to be amazingly cost beneficial. The problem is operating within a free market health system, even though there's tremendous social benefits, that benefit isn't going to be monetized or privatized. And so, who's going to make those decisions? We hope our government is, but that doesn't always play out.Eric Topol (11:52):Well. What's interesting is, as opposed to the problems we have today that are prominent such as the microplastic, nanoplastics, the air pollution, the forever chemicals, that just keep getting worse, I mean, they are just cumulative. This one, there was tremendous improvement, but it's still not enough. And I guess you're zooming in on the lead lines. That'd be the most important thing to work on today. Another thing that has come up, there's been trials, as you may I'm sure, because all over this field of chelation, there's a trial that was run by the NIH, supported by NH that looked at chelation to prevent coronary disease. Is there any evidence that people who have a problem with lead would benefit from chelation therapy?Bruce Lanphear (12:44):Well, there's two major studies that have been done, and Tony Lamas was in charge of both of them. The first one Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) study, it was a randomized controlled trial, not intended specifically to focus on lead, but rather it was to look at sort of this alternative therapy. They found significant benefits about an 18% reduction in subsequent cardiac events. That led to a second study that was just published last year, and it was focused on people who had diabetes. They saw some benefit, but it wasn't significant. So whether that's because there wasn't enough variability and exposure, it's not entirely clear, but we've seen this with lead in IQ deficits in kids where we can show that we can reduce blood lead levels. But ultimately what tends to happen is once you've taken lead out of the blood, some of it's released again from the bone, but you still have all that lead in the bone that's there. You get some of it out, but you're not going to get the bulk of it out.The Lead-Estrogen HypothesisEric Topol (13:47):Right. It's a reservoir that's hard to reckon with. Yeah. Now another thing, you have a Substack that is called Plagues, Pollution & Poverty, and you wrote a really provocative piece in that earlier and April called How Estrogen Keeps Lead - and Heart Attacks - in Check, and basically you got into the lead estrogen hypothesis.Eric Topol (14:10):Can you enlighten us about that?Bruce Lanphear (14:12):Yeah. A lot of the seminal work in this area was done by Ellen Silbergeld, who's a brilliant and somewhat peculiar toxicologist and Ellen for years, I focused on childhood lead exposure, and for years Ellen would tell me, almost demolish me for not studying adults. And because she had found back in 1988 that as women go into menopause, their blood lead levels spike increased by about 30%, and that's where most of our lead is stored is in our bone. And so, as I was thinking about this, it all became clear because blood lead levels in boys and girls is about the same. It's comparable up until menarche, and then girls young women's blood leads fall by about 20%. And they stay 20% lower throughout the reproductive years until menopause. And especially during those first few years around menopause, perimenopause, you see fairly striking increases in the weakening of the bone and blood lead levels.Bruce Lanphear (15:19):So that might very well help to explain why estrogen is protected, because what happens is throughout the reproductive life, women are losing a little bit of lead every month. And estrogen is at its lowest during that time, and that's going to be when blood lead is at its highest because estrogen pushes lead into the bone. Not only that, women lose lead into the developing fetus when they're pregnant. So what Ellen found is that there was less of a spike around menopause for the women that had three or four pregnancies because they had offloaded that into their babies. So all of this, if you put it together, and this is of course in a very short note of it, you can see that lead increases dyslipidemia, it leads to tears in the endothelium of the arterial wall, it's going to increase thrombosis. All of these things that we think of as the classic atherosclerosis. Well, what estrogen does is the opposite of those. It decreases dyslipidemia, it repairs the arterial endothelial wall. So how much of it is that estrogen is protective, and how much is it that it's moving lead out of the system, making it less biologically available?Eric Topol (16:46):Yeah, I know. It's really interesting. Quite provocative. Should be followed up on, for sure. Just getting to you, you're a physician and epidemiologist, MD MPH, and you have spent your career on this sort of thing, right? I mean, is your middle name lead or what do you work on all the time?Bruce Lanphear (17:09):Yeah, I've been doing this for about 30 years, and one of my mentors, Herb Needleman spent 40 years of his career on it. And in some ways, Eric, it seems to me particularly in these very difficult entrenched problems like lead, we don't have any pharmaceutical company reaching out to us to promote what we do. We've got industry trying to squash what we do.Bruce Lanphear (17:35):It really does take a career to really make a dent in this stuff. And in a way, you can look at my trajectory and it is really following up on what Herb Needleman did and what Clare Patterson did, and that was finding the effects at lower and lower levels. Because what we do with lead and most other toxic chemicals, the ones that don't cause cancer, is we assume that there's a safe level or threshold until we prove otherwise. And yet when you look at the evidence, whether it's about asbestos and mesothelioma, air pollution and cardiovascular mortality, lead and cardiovascular mortality, benzene and leukemia, none of those exhibit a threshold. In some cases, the risks are steepest proportionately at the lowest measurable levels, and that really raises some tremendous challenges, right? Because how are we going to bring air pollution or lead down to zero? But at the same time, it also provides these tremendous opportunities because we know that they're causing disease. We know what the sources are. If we could only bring about the political will to address them, we could prevent a lot of death, disease, and disability. I mean, about 20% of deaths around the world every year are from air pollution, lead, and other toxic chemicals, and yet the amount of money we invest in them is just paltry compared to what we invest in other things. Which is not to pit one against the other, but it's to say we haven't invested enough in these.Eric Topol (19:14):No, absolutely. I think your point, just to make sure that it's clear, is that even at low levels, this is of course where most of the population exposure would be, and that's why that's so incriminating. Now, one of the things I just want to end up with is that we know that these are tiny, tiny particles of lead, and then the question is how they can synergize and find particulate matter of air pollution in the nanoplastic, microplastic story and binding to forever chemicals, PFAS. How do you process all that? Because it's not just a single hit here, it's also the fact that there's ability to have binding to the other environmental toxins that are not going away.Bruce Lanphear (20:10):That's right. And in a way, when we talk about lead playing this tremendous role in the rise and decline of coronary heart disease, we can't entirely separate it out, for example, from air pollution or cigarette smoke for that matter, nor plastic. So for example, with air pollution, if we look at air pollution over the past century, up until the 1980s, even into the 1990s, it was leaded, right? So you couldn't separate them. If you look at cigarette smoke, cigarette tobacco in the 1940s and 1950s was grown in fields where they used lead arsenic as an insecticide. So smokers even today have blood lead levels that are 20% higher than non-smokers, and people who are not smokers but exposed to secondhand smoke have blood lead levels 20% higher than non-smokers who aren't exposed to secondhand smoke. So in a way, we should try to tease apart these differences, but it's going to be really challenging. In a way we can almost think about them as a spectrum of exposures. Now with plastics, you can really think of plastics as a form of pollution because it's not just one thing. There's all these additives, whether it's the PFAS chemicals or lead, which is used as a stabilizer. And so, all of them really are kind of integrated into each other, which again, maybe there's some opportunity there if we really were ready to tackle.Eric Topol (21:40):And interestingly, just yesterday, it was announced by the current administration that they're stopping all the prior efforts on the forever chemicals that were initiated in the water supply. And I mean, if there's one takeaway from our discussion, it's that we have to get all over this and we're not paying enough attention to our environmental exposures. You've really highlighted spotlighted the lead story. And obviously there are others that are, instead of getting somewhat better, they're actually going in the opposite direction. And they're all tied together that's what is so striking here, and they all do many bad things to our bodies. So I don't know how, I'm obviously really interested in promoting healthy aging, and unless we get on this, we're chasing our tails, right?Bruce Lanphear (22:31):Well, I think that's right, Eric. And I was reading the tips that you'd written about in preparation for your book release, and you focused understandably on what each of us can do, how we can modify our own lifestyles. We almost need six tips about what our government should do in order to make it harder for us to become sick, or to encourage those healthy behaviors that you talked about. That's a big part of it as well. One of the things we're celebrating the hundredth anniversary. This is not really something to celebrate, but we are. The hundredth anniversary of the addition of tetraethyl lead to gasoline. And one of the key things about that addition, there was this debate because when it was being manufactured, 80% of the workers at a plant in New Jersey suffered from severe lead poisoning, and five died, and it was enough that New York City, Philadelphia and New Jersey banned tetraethyl lead.Bruce Lanphear (23:31):Then there was this convening by the US Surgeon General to determine whether it was safe to add tetraethyl lead to gasoline. One scientist, Yandell Henderson said, absolutely not. You're going to create a scourge worse than tuberculosis with slow lead poisoning and hardening of your arteries. Robert Kehoe, who represented the industry said, we know lead is toxic, but until you've shown that it's toxic when added to gasoline, you have no right to prohibit us from using it. So that is now known as the Kehoe rule, and it's relevant not only for lead, but for PFAS, for air pollution, for all these other things, because what it set as a precedent, until you've shown that these chemicals or pollution is toxic when used in commerce, you have no right to prohibit industry from using it. And that's the fix we're in.Eric Topol (24:27):Well, it sounds too much like the tobacco story and so many other things that were missed opportunities to promote public health. Now, is Canada doing any better than us on this stuff?Bruce Lanphear (24:40):In some ways, but not in others. And one of the interesting thing is we don't have standards, we have guidelines. And amazingly, the cities generally try to conform to those guidance levels. With water lead, we're down to five parts per billion. The US is sticking around with ten parts per billion, but it's not even really very, it's not enforced very well. So we are doing better in some ways, not so good in other ways. The European Union, generally speaking, is doing much better than North America.Eric Topol (25:15):Yeah, well, it doesn't look very encouraging at the moment, but hopefully someday we'll get there. Bruce, this has been a really fascinating discussion. I think we all should be thankful to you for dedicating your career to a topic that a lot of us are not up on, and you hopefully are getting us all into a state of awareness. And congratulations on that review, which was masterful and keep up the great work. Thank you.Bruce Lanphear (25:42):Thank you, Eric. I appreciate it.________________________________________________My Recommendations for Preventing Heart Disease (Markedly Truncated from Text and Graphics Provided in SUPER AGERS)Recently the Washington Post asked me for a listicle of 10 ways to prevent heart disease. I generally avoid making such lists but many people have de-subscribed to this newspaper, never subscribed, or missed the post, so here it is with links to citations:Guest column by Eric Topol, MDThe buildup of cholesterol and other substances in the wall of our arteries, known as atherosclerosis, is common. It can lead to severe plaques that narrow the artery and limit blood flow, or to a crack in the artery wall that can trigger blood clot formation, resulting in a heart attack.While we've seen some major advances in treating heart disease, it remains the leading killer in the United States, even though about 80 percent of cases are considered preventable. There are evidence-based steps you can take to stave it off. As a cardiologist, here's what I recommend to my patients.1. Do both aerobic and resistance exerciseThis is considered the single most effective medical intervention to protect against atherosclerosis and promote healthy aging. Physical activity lowers inflammation in the body. Evidence has shown that both aerobic and strength training forms of exercise are important. But only 1 in 4 Americans meet the two activity guidelines from the American Heart Association: aerobic exercise of 150 minutes per week of at least moderate physical activity, such as walking, bicycling on level ground, dancing or gardening, and strength training for at least two sessions per week, which typically translates to 60 minutes weekly.The protective benefit of exercise is seen with even relatively low levels of activity, such as around 2,500 steps per day (via sustained physical activity, not starting and stopping), and generally increases proportionately with more activity. It used to be thought that people who exercise only on the weekend — known as “weekend warriors” — put themselves in danger, but recent data shows the benefits of exercise can be derived from weekend-only workouts, too.2. Follow an anti-inflammatory dietA predominantly plant-based diet — high in fiber and rich in vegetables, fruits and whole grains, as seen with the Mediterranean diet — has considerable evidence from large-scale observational and randomized trials for reducing body-wide inflammation and improving cardiovascular outcomes.Foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids, such as salmon, also form part of a diet that suppresses inflammation. On the other hand, red meat and ultra-processed foods are pro-inflammatory, and you should limit your consumption. High protein intake of more than 1.4 grams per kilogram of body weight per day — around 95 grams for someone who is 150 pounds — has also been linked to promoting inflammation and to atherosclerosis in experimental models. That is particularly related to animal-based proteins and the role of leucine, an essential amino acid that is obtained only by diet.3. Maintain a healthy weightBeing overweight or obese indicates an excess of white adipose tissue. This kind of tissue can increase the risk of heart disease because it stores fat cells, known as adipocytes, which release substances that contribute to inflammation.In studies, we've seen that glucagon-like peptide (GLP-1) drugs can reduce inflammation with weight loss, and a significant reduction of heart attacks and strokes among high-risk patients treated for obesity. Lean body weight also helps protect against atrial fibrillation, the most common heart rhythm abnormality.4. Know and avoid metabolic syndrome and prediabetesTied into obesity, in part, is the problem of insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. Two out of three people with obesity have this syndrome, which is defined as having three out of five features: high fasting blood glucose, high fasting triglycerides, high blood pressure, low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and central adiposity (waist circumference of more than 40 inches in men, 35 inches in women).Metabolic syndrome is also present in a high proportion of people without obesity, about 50 million Americans. Prediabetes often overlaps with it. Prediabetes is defined as a hemoglobin A1c (a measure of how much glucose is stuck to your red blood cells) between 5.7 and 6.4 percent, or a fasting glucose between 100 and 125 milligrams per deciliter.Both metabolic syndrome and prediabetes carry an increased risk of heart disease and can be prevented — and countered — by weight loss, exercise and an optimal diet.As the glucagon-like peptide drug family moves to pills and less expense in the future, these medications may prove helpful for reducing risk in people with metabolic syndrome and prediabetes. For those with Type 2 diabetes, the goal is optimizing glucose management and maximal attention to lifestyle factors.5. Keep your blood pressure in a healthy rangeHypertension is an important risk factor for heart disease and is exceptionally common as we age. The optimal blood pressure is 120/80 mm Hg or lower. But with aging, there is often an elevation of systolic blood pressure to about 130 mm Hg, related to stiffening of arteries. While common, it is still considered elevated.Ideally, everyone should monitor their blood pressure with a home device to make sure they haven't developed hypertension. A mild abnormality of blood pressure will typically improve with lifestyle changes, but more substantial elevations will probably require medications.6. Find out your genetic riskWe now have the means of determining your genetic risk of coronary artery disease with what is known as a polygenic risk score, derived from a gene chip. The term polygenic refers to hundreds of DNA variants in the genome that are linked to risk of heart disease. This is very different from a family history, because we're a product of both our mother's and father's genomes, and the way the DNA variants come together in each of us can vary considerably for combinations of variants.That means you could have high or low risk for heart disease that is different from your familial pattern. People with a high polygenic risk score benefit the most from medications to lower cholesterol, such as statins. A polygenic risk score can be obtained from a number of commercial companies, though it isn't typically covered by insurance.I don't recommend getting a calcium score of your coronary arteries via a computed tomography (CT) scan. This test is overused and often induces overwhelming anxiety in patients with a high calcium score but without symptoms or bona fide risk. If you have symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease, such as chest discomfort with exercise, then a CT angiogram may be helpful to map the coronary arteries. It is much more informative than a calcium score.7. Check your blood lipidsThe main lipid abnormality that requires attention is low-density cholesterol (LDL), which is often high and for people with increased risk of heart disease should certainly be addressed. While lifestyle improvements can help, significant elevation typically requires medications such as a statin; ezetimibe; bempedoic acid; or injectables such as evolocumab (Repatha), alirocumab (Praluent) or inclisiran (Leqvio). The higher the risk, the more aggressive LDL lowering may be considered.It should be noted that the use of potent statins, such as rosuvastatin or atorvastatin, especially at high doses, is linked to inducing glucose intolerance and risk of Type 2 diabetes. While this is not a common side effect, it requires attention since it is often missed from lack of awareness.A low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol often responds to weight loss and exercise. We used to think that high HDL was indicative of “good cholesterol,” but more recent evidence suggests that is not the case and it may reflect increased risk when very high.To get a comprehensive assessment of risk via your blood lipids, it's important to get the apolipoprotein B (apoB) test at least once because about 20 percent of people have normal LDL and a high apoB.Like low HDL, high fasting triglycerides may indicate insulin resistance as part of the metabolic syndrome and will often respond to lifestyle factors.The lipoprotein known as Lp(a) should also be assessed at least once because it indicates risk when elevated. The good news is scientists are on the cusp of finally having medications to lower it, with five different drugs in late-stage clinical trials.8. Reduce exposure to environmental pollutantsIn recent years, we've learned a lot about the substantial pro-inflammatory effects of air pollution, microplastics and forever chemicals, all of which have been linked to a higher risk of heart disease. In one study, microplastics or nanoplastics in the artery wall were found in about 60 percent of more than 300 people. Researchers found a vicious inflammatory response around the plastics, and a four- to fivefold risk of heart attacks or strokes during three years of follow-up.While we need policy changes to address these toxic substances in the environment, risk can be reduced by paying attention to air and water quality using filtration or purification devices, less use of plastic water bottles and plastic storage, and, in general, being much more aware and wary of our pervasive use of plastics.9. Don't smoke This point, it should be well known that cigarette smoking is a potent risk factor for coronary artery disease and should be completely avoided.10. Get Good SleepAlthough we tend to connect sleep health with brain and cognitive function, there's evidence that sleep regularity and quality are associated with less risk of heart disease. Regularity means adhering to a routine schedule as much as possible, and its benefit may be due to our body's preference for maintaining its circadian rhythm. Sleep quality — meaning with fewer interruptions — and maximal deep sleep can be tracked with smartwatches, fitness bands, rings or mattress sensors.Sleep apnea, when breathing stops and starts during sleep, is fairly common and often unsuspected. So if you're having trouble sleeping or you snore loudly, talk to your doctor about ruling out the condition. Testing for sleep apnea can involve checking for good oxygen saturation throughout one's sleep. That can be done through a sleep study or at home using rings or smartwatches that include oxygen saturation in their sensors and body movement algorithms that pick up disturbed breathing.Eric Topol, MD, is a cardiologist, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research in San Diego. He is the author of “Super Agers: An Evidence-Based Approach to Longevity” and the author of Ground Truths on Substack.*********************°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°Thanks to many of you Ground Truths subscribers who helped put SUPER AGERS on the NYT bestseller list for 4 weeks.Here are 2 recent, informative, and fun conversations I had on the topicMichael Shermer, The SkepticRuss Roberts, EconTalk I'm also very appreciative for your reading and subscribing to Ground Truths.If you found this interesting PLEASE share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.All content on Ground Truths—its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts, are free, open-access.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Let me know topics that you would like to see covered.Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past three years. Just a week ago we just had nearly 50 interns (high school, college and medical students) present posters of the work they did over the summer and it was exhilarating! Some photos below Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Thank you for listening to The Peptide Podcast. If you enjoyed the show and want to support what we do, head over to our Partners Page. You'll find some amazing brands we trust—and by checking them out, you're helping us keep the podcast going.  Today, we're diving into one of the most talked-about topics in health and weight loss right now: GLP-1 medications like semaglutide and the newer dual GIP/GLP-1s like tirzepatide. You've probably seen the headlines, scrolled past a few TikToks, or heard a friend mention it — but with all that noise comes a lot of confusion, half-truths, and flat-out myths. Today we're breaking it all down. What's real? What's hype? And what do you actually need to know if you're using these medications — or thinking about it? Let's separate science from scare tactics and get to the truth, one myth at a time. Myth #1: GLP-1s Cause Dangerous Muscle Loss The claim:  “GLP-1s cause massive muscle loss.” Truth: This is an overstatement. Some loss of lean mass is normal with any kind of weight loss — whether it's through diet, medication, or surgery. What studies show is that with medications like semaglutide (Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Zepbound), about 20–25% of the total weight lost comes from lean mass, and the rest is fat — which is exactly what we're targeting in obesity treatment. That 20–25% figure isn't unique to these meds; it's actually pretty typical in weight loss without focused resistance training or optimized protein intake. You may also hear “You'll lose all your muscle and become frail on GLP-1s.” Truth: You won't “lose all your muscle.” In fact, muscle loss is preventable by maintaining adequate protein intake, resistance training, and managing weight loss pace. Furthermore, many patients gain strength and mobility as excess weight comes off. And lastly, my favorite myth is “You can't preserve muscle on GLP-1s.” Truth: That's completely false — muscle loss isn't inevitable on GLP-1s if you take the right approach. You can absolutely preserve muscle by making a few intentional choices: aim for enough protein each day (a good goal is around 0.8 grams per pound of body weight), include some strength or resistance training a couple times a week, and avoid losing weight too quickly. These simple steps go a long way in protecting your lean mass while still getting all the benefits of weight loss. One study on semaglutide showed that people lost an average of about 15% of their body weight, and only around 3–4% of that was lean mass. So if someone drops 30 pounds, maybe 6 to 8 of those pounds might be lean mass—not ideal, but definitely not disastrous either, and very manageable with the right lifestyle habits.  The truth is, while some lean mass loss is expected with any type of weight loss, research shows that most of the weight lost on GLP-1s is actually fat, not muscle. For example, in the STEP 1 trial, about 80% of the weight lost on semaglutide came from fat, and only about 20% from lean tissue (as we mentioned earlier).  The SURMOUNT-1 trial with tirzepatide showed similar results—significant fat loss with relatively preserved muscle, especially when paired with resistance training. And that's important, because preserving muscle during weight loss helps protect metabolism, strength, and overall health. With good nutrition and movement, GLP-1s can lead to healthier body composition—not just a lower number on the scale. Okay, moving along to the next myth … Myth #2: GLP-1s Can Cause Blindness The truth: This myth stems from concerns about diabetic retinopathy worsening, which is tied to how quickly blood sugar drops, not to the drug itself. In the SUSTAIN-6 trial (Marso et al., NEJM, 2016), a small subset of patients with pre-existing advanced diabetic retinopathy saw transient worsening—but only in those with rapid improvements in A1c. No increased rates of blindness or new-onset retinopathy have been found in non-diabetic patients using GLP-1s for weight loss. The bottom line is that those without advanced diabetic eye disease, there's no increased risk of blindness. Patients with diabetic retinopathy should be monitored closely—but this is about glycemic management, not a direct effect of the medication. Myth #3: GLP-1s Cause Kidney or Liver Damage The truth: This is false. In fact, GLP-1 agonists may protect kidney and liver function—especially in patients with diabetes or fatty liver disease. The most recent notable study showing kidney‑protective effects of a GLP‑1 receptor agonist is the FLOW trial, which evaluated semaglutide in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This double‑blind, randomized, placebo‑controlled trial included 3,533 participants followed for a median of 3.4 years and found that semaglutide reduced the risk of major kidney‑related events—including kidney failure, substantial eGFR decline, and death from renal or cardiovascular causes—by 24% compared to placebo. A 2025 meta-analysis of multiple randomized controlled trials (11 studies, 85,373 participants) concluded that GLP‑1 receptor agonists reduced the risk of composite kidney failure outcomes by 18%, kidney failure by 16%, and all‑cause death by 12%. And let's not forget the SMART trial, involving obese patients with kidney disease but without diabetes, found that semaglutide protected kidney function in this non‑diabetic, CKD‑affected population.  When it comes to the liver, there's actually growing evidence they're actually helping reverse non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). The STEP 1 MRI substudy and SURPASS-3 MRI substudy have shown people on these medications can reduce liver fat by 30 to even 50% and in some cases, completely resolve liver inflammation — that more serious form called NASH, where fat is combined with inflammation and early scarring. The LEAN trial found that nearly 60% of people taking semaglutide had resolution of NASH, without worsening their liver scarring. That's huge. And even better, we're seeing these effects even in people who don't have diabetes. Just losing weight helps fatty liver, but these meds seem to do more than that — they actually target inflammation and fat storage in the liver itself.. The bottom line is GLP-1s are not nephrotoxic or hepatotoxic. In fact, they may be organ-protective—especially for people with underlying metabolic issues. Myth #4: These Drugs Lead to Bone Loss The claim: “You'll get osteoporosis from losing too much weight!” The truth: While extreme weight loss can affect bone density, GLP-1s themselves do not cause bone loss, and may even have neutral or protective effects on bone. A 2022 study in Bone found no significant change in BMD (bone mineral density) in adults treated with semaglutide for obesity. While the SUSTAIN and PIONEER programs found no increased risk of fractures in semaglutide-treated patients versus placebo. Truly, concerns about bone loss are more relevant in extreme calorie restriction or eating disorders—not evidence-based GLP-1 treatment with appropriate nutrition. Myth #5: Everyone Gets Gastroparesis The claim: “These medications paralyze your stomach” The truth: GLP-1s slow gastric emptying, which is part of how they work—making you feel full longer. But this is dose-dependent and typically reversible. A 2023 FDA safety review found that true gastroparesis is extremely rare and resolves when the drug is stopped. Reality check: Nausea, early satiety, and mild bloating are common but manageable side effects. True, lasting gastroparesis is not typical, especially when doses are titrated gradually. Myth #6: GLP-1s Make Your Hair Fall Out The claim: “You'll lose a ton of hair—just like with crash diets” The truth: Hair shedding is not directly caused by GLP-1 medications. Instead, it's often a temporary, non-scarring condition called telogen effluvium, which can happen with any rapid weight loss, regardless of the method. A 2023 analysis from the American Academy of Dermatology emphasized that telogen effluvium is common with surgical or medical weight loss, especially if patients lose more than 10% of their body weight within a few months. In clinical trials like STEP and SURMOUNT, hair loss was not listed as a common side effect, but patient-reported data show it occurs occasionally—likely tied to nutritional stress, not the drug itself. So why does hair loss happen? We've talked about this before, but I don't want to leave this important information out.  Hair follicles are sensitive to internal stress. Rapid changes in caloric intake, nutrient levels (like iron, zinc, and biotin), or hormone balance can push hairs into the shedding phase. This is a delayed effect, often showing up 2–3 months after weight loss begins, and it typically resolves within 6–12 months. What helps is slower, sustained weight loss, prioritizing protein intake, supplementing iron, zinc, and biotin if deficient, and avoiding very low-calorie diets and over-restriction. Myth #6: GLP-1s Cause Dehydration It's a common myth that GLP-1 medications cause dehydration — but that's not exactly true. The medication itself doesn't directly dehydrate you. What can happen is that some people experience nausea, vomiting, or a reduced appetite early on, which can lead to drinking less water without realizing it. That's where the dehydration risk comes in. A good general rule for staying hydrated is to aim for half your body weight in ounces of water per day. So, for example, if you weigh 160 pounds, try to drink around 80 ounces daily — more if you're active or live in a hot climate. Electrolytes can also be really helpful, especially if you're feeling tired, dizzy, or crampy. I like LMNT packets — they're a clean option with no sugar and a good balance of sodium, magnesium, and potassium. The sodium in LMNT packets helps keep you hydrated by pulling water into your cells and helping your body retain the fluids it needs to function properly. Just one a day can make a big difference in how you feel. Myth #7: You Have to Stay on GLP-1s Forever or You'll Gain All the Weight Back The claim: “As soon as you stop taking it, all the weight comes back” The truth: Yes—some weight regain is likely after stopping GLP-1 medications. But that doesn't mean they're ineffective or that you're doomed to rebound completely. The same pattern happens after any type of weight loss intervention, whether it's a diet, surgery, or medication. The STEP 4 trial (Wilding et al., 2022) showed that participants who stopped semaglutide after 20 weeks regained an average of 6% of their weight loss over the next year. But it's important to note that they still weighed less than at baseline—and many continued to experience improvements in blood pressure, cholesterol, and insulin sensitivity. Similarly, in SURMOUNT-4, patients who stopped tirzepatide also regained weight, but less than they lost. So why does this weight gain happen? I feel like the answer to this is obvious, but I've found that it's not.  GLP-1s change your appetite and hunger cues. Once the medication is stopped, your body's baseline hunger signals return—and often with increased intensity, due to metabolic adaptation. But this isn't unique to GLP-1s. The same thing happens after crash diets, keto, intermittent fasting, or bariatric surgery if long-term changes aren't made. The real issue isn't the drug—it's the lack of a plan after the drug. To help make results sustainable, we need to use the medication as a tool, not a crutch. We should use it to help us lose weight and understand our hunger cues, while transitioning to a whole foods, protein based diet coupled with resistance training to help preserve and build muscle.  Just remember, if you're coming off a GLP-1 and want to keep the momentum going, the key is to approach it thoughtfully. Tapering slowly under medical supervision can help your body adjust and reduce the chances of weight regain. At the same time, this is a great moment to double down on the habits that helped you feel your best while on the medication. Think ongoing support—like working with a health coach, joining a support group, or even doing behavioral therapy—to help reinforce those long-term lifestyle changes. It's not just about what you stop; it's about what you keep doing that matters most. You don't necessarily have to stay on GLP-1s forever—but if you stop without a plan, some weight regain is very likely. Think of them like glasses: they help you see clearly while you build the habits to eventually navigate without them. For some, that may mean staying on a lower maintenance dose long-term—just like with blood pressure or cholesterol meds. What are my final thoughts? I want to be clear—GLP-1s aren't magic. But they are powerful tools when paired with education, support, and smart lifestyle changes.  Myths like ‘you'll go blind,' ‘you'll lose all your hair,' or ‘you'll be stuck on these meds forever' aren't just misleading and downright false—they discourage people from getting real help.  So if you're thinking about these medications, get informed, ask the hard questions, and make your decision based on science—not fear. Thank you for listening to The Peptide Podcast. If you enjoyed the show and want to support what we do, head over to our Partners Page. You'll find some amazing brands we trust—and by checking them out, you're helping us keep the podcast going.  Until next time, be well, and as always, have a happy, healthy week.

Featuring articles on overweight, obesity and diabetes; lactated Ringer's solution versus normal saline; and spinal muscular atrophy; a review article on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease; a case report of a woman with respiratory failure and abnormal chest imaging; and Perspectives on dismantling public health infrastructure, on progress lost, on private law in American health care, and on the serendipitous dance between life and death.

Tom Frieden is the president and chief executive officer of Resolve to Save Lives and former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. T.R. Frieden. Dismantling Public Health Infrastructure, Endangering American Lives. N Engl J Med 2025;393:625-627.

Send us a Text Message (please include your email so we can respond!)Episode 71! We continue talking about the articles from the CCR25 conference with FLUID or "A Crossover Trial of Hospital-Wide Lactated Ringer's Solution versus Normal Saline" published in NEJM 2025 by McIntyre et al and our old article is BICAR-ICU or "Sodium bicarbonate therapy for patients with severe metabolic acidaemia in the intensive care unit" by Jaber et al in Lancet 2018.FLUID: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40503714/FLUID (NEJM): https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2416761BICAR-ICU: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29910040/If you enjoy the show be sure to like and subscribe, leave that 5 star review! Be sure to follow us on the social @icucast for the associated figures, comments, and other content not available in the audio format! Email us at icuedandtoddcast@gmail.com with any questions or suggestions! Thank you Mike Gannon for the intro and exit music!

Featuring articles on treatments for chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes, bubonic plague, and advanced breast cancer; a review article on hypogonadism; a Clinical Problem-Solving describing gasping for strength; a Medicine and Society on the infant mortality rate; and Perspectives on profit-driven medicine, on lead contamination in Milwaukee schools, on training health communicators, and on ER and becoming a physician.

New guidelines from the 2025 Alzheimer's Association International Conference support using high-performing blood tests to help diagnose Alzheimer's in memory care patients, offering a less invasive option than spinal taps or PET scans. A NEJM trial found the smaller NTCU380mini IUD nearly as effective as the standard TCU380A, with fewer side effects and better tolerability. Lastly, a large study showed that adults with diabetes who exercised—even only on weekends—had significantly lower mortality, supporting flexible activity patterns.

Nancy Tomes is a professor of history at Stony Brook University. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. N. Tomes. A Gilded Age for Patients? The Broken Promises of Profit-Driven Medicine. N Engl J Med 2025;393:521-524.

Ve čtvrtek 7. srpna začnou platit americká cla, která Donald Trump uvalil na desítky států. Poslední dohoda dojednaná s předsedkyní Evropské komise Ursulou von der Leyenovou stanovuje jejich výši pro evropské zboží na 15 procent. „Přes tento strop se nepůjde. Ale o tom, které výrobky budou mít tuto sazbu a které budou mít méně, se teprve bude jednat,“ upozorňuje pro Český rozhlas Plus ekonomka a bývalá česká zástupkyně u Světové banky Jana Matesová.

Ve čtvrtek 7. srpna začnou platit americká cla, která Donald Trump uvalil na desítky států. Poslední dohoda dojednaná s předsedkyní Evropské komise Ursulou von der Leyenovou stanovuje jejich výši pro evropské zboží na 15 procent. „Přes tento strop se nepůjde. Ale o tom, které výrobky budou mít tuto sazbu a které budou mít méně, se teprve bude jednat,“ upozorňuje pro Český rozhlas Plus ekonomka a bývalá česká zástupkyně u Světové banky Jana Matesová.Všechny díly podcastu Interview Plus můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

In this chapter, Dr. Schupbach analyzes the business of healthcare and a way he believes can let patients wage war on the mis-alligned incentives. This is a continuation of our Grand Rounds sequence. Come join Alex and Venk on this adventure! TEASER Specifically, childhood obesity is skyrocketing--1 in 5 children are now above the 95th percentile BMI for age and sex. A recent NEJM article showed Liraglutide (a medication that costs approximately $12,000 per year) was effective in children as young as 6 years old. This is just one example of many where cheap foods, expensive drugs, and band-aid solutions are generating record profits for the most powerful voices at the table. But are we truly acting in the best interests of our patients? What are the unintended consequences of these misaligned incentives? What is our responsibility in all this and where do we start if we want to be part of the solution?

Featuring articles on myeloma, mitochondrial DNA disease, cardiac surgery, and squamous-cell carcinoma; a review article on motor vehicle crash prevention; a case report of a woman with seizure-like activity and odd behaviors; a Medicine and Society article on the evaluation of occupational pulmonary impairment; and Perspectives on Covid-19 vaccines, on public policies, and on living on the edge of the valley of the sick.

A new NEJM trial found methotrexate offers similar lung function improvements as prednisone in pulmonary sarcoidosis, but with fewer side effects—suggesting it could be a safer first-line option for some patients. A JAMA study revealed that patients trust physicians less when AI is mentioned in care ads, highlighting the importance of framing AI as a tool that supports—not replaces—clinical judgment. Another NEJM trial showed that giving take-home ondansetron to children after ED visits for gastroenteritis significantly reduced vomiting and return visits, with no added risks. Together, these studies support a shift toward individualized care, better patient communication, and practical interventions to improve outcomes.

Jason Schwartz is an associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Yale School of Public Health. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. J.L. Schwartz. Revised Recommendations for Covid-19 Vaccines — U.S. Vaccination Policy under Threat. N Engl J Med 2025;393:417-419.

Watch the NEJM In Studio video of this interview at NEJM.org. Rohan Khazanchi is a research affiliate at the FXB Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard University and a resident in the Harvard Medicine-Pediatrics Residency Program. Harleen Marwah, the interviewer, is a recent Editorial Fellow at the Journal. R. Khazanchi and Others. Reform and Remedy for Imprecision and Inequity — Ending the Race-Based Evaluation of Occupational Pulmonary Impairment. N Engl J Med 2025;393:508-514.

什麼是猝睡症？ 過去如何治療猝睡症？ 你知道有一款猝睡症藥物剛通過二期臨床試驗嗎？ 本集《會談地圖》將為各位導讀刊載在《新英格蘭醫學期刊》（NEJM）一款猝睡症新藥成功開發的研究，讓我們更深入了解猝睡症與未來治療的新方向！ 本集重點：什麼是猝睡症？食慾素（orexin）於猝睡症生理機制中扮演的重要角色Oveporexton如何突破血腦屏障？臨床試驗發現的副作用以及臨床評估指標我們應如何解讀臨床試驗？ 一起透過認識這項突破性的臨床試驗研究，了解猝睡症的新藥開發過程中有哪些重要的醫學藥理發現，而這又對未來的藥物研發與臨床決策具有何種意義吧！ Powered by Firstory Hosting

Featuring articles on type 2 diabetes, gastric cancer, lung cancer, and malaria; a review article on competency-based medical education; a case report of a man with cough, dyspnea, and hypoxemia; and Perspectives on brain death in pregnancy, on the Supreme Court's failure to protect trans minors, on real-world data, and on avocado and salt.

Katie Watson is a professor of medical education, medical social sciences, and obstetrics and gynecology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. K. Watson. Brain Death in Pregnancy — Abortion, Advance-Directive, or End-of-Life Law? N Engl J Med 2025;393:313-315.

The 2017 NEJM study, ALPS, compared amiodarone, lidocaine, and placebo for refractory shockable rhythms in adults with out of hospital cardiac arrest. They found no significant difference in survival to hospital discharge or functional survival between any of the arms. If that study has left you confused, you're not alone. And you're in luck. Tanner Smida joins us again to discuss his latest paper using something called target trial emulation to assess the difference in ROSC and survival to discharge between amiodarone and lidocaine. This is a great discussion of his paper, the methodology, and how we can put his results into the context of ALPS.Citations:1.Smida T, Crowe R, Price BS, Scheidler J, Martin PS, Shukis M, Bardes J: A retrospective ‘target trial emulation' comparing amiodarone and lidocaine for adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2025;March;208:110515.2. Kudenchuk PJ, Brown SP, Daya M, Rea T, Nichol G, Morrison LJ, Leroux B, Vaillancourt C, Wittwer L, Callaway CW, et al.: Amiodarone, Lidocaine, or Placebo in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. N Engl J Med. 2016;May 5;374(18):1711–22.3.Hernán MA, Robins JM: Using Big Data to Emulate a Target Trial When a Randomized Trial Is Not Available: Table 1. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;April 15;183(8):758–64.

Send us a textDr. Bobby unpacks the surge of health hype—from red light therapy to NAD⁺ boosters—and empowers listeners to stay curious yet skeptical using science-backed tools and critical thinking.Are claims like “boost your mitochondria” or “natural detox” real breakthroughs—or today's version of snake oil? Dr. Bobby explores why health hype is everywhere, why we're vulnerable to it, and how to sift compelling theories from proven treatments. He outlines examples of widely accepted beliefs that ultimately didn't hold up to rigorous scrutiny. Inserting stents to open clogged arteries seemed sensible, but studies like the COURAGE and ORBITA trials found no added benefit over medical management (NEJM). Dr. Bobby then turns to newer fads. Claims around NAD⁺ boosters (like NMN or NR), red light therapy, PRP for knee pain, and hydrogen water often rely on plausible-sounding mechanisms or mouse studies—but currently lack human RCTs to back them up. While these ideas may sound promising, human trials are either missing or preliminary.Why does this hype persist? Financial incentives are everywhere: the U.S. spends over $5 trillion annually on health, and the supplement market alone is worth $150 billion. Influencers, professionals, and even well-meaning providers may promote approaches they financially benefit from. As patients, we're often eager for solutions to symptoms like fatigue or anxiety—especially when conventional medicine doesn't have a satisfying answer. This opens the door for pseudoscience, placebo effects, and the viral spread of misinformation.To navigate this environment, Dr. Bobby outlines seven action steps. First, demand human evidence: ask if a treatment has been tested in RCTs, replicated, and proven in diverse populations. He recommends Examine.com for non-biased supplement research and revisiting his episode on evaluating health headlines (#22). Second, follow the money—financial conflicts should raise your skepticism. Third, be alert to hypey language like “miracle cure” or “doctor secrets”—phrases designed to manipulate, not inform. Fourth, understand the placebo effect, especially with vague symptoms. Fifth, ask  questions: “Compared to what?” “In whom?” “For how long?” “With what risks?” These shift the focus from excitement to real evaluation. Sixth, adopt what Dr. Bobby calls the mindset of a curious skeptic—open to ideas, but insistent on evidence. Finally, he urges listeners to consult evidence-literate doctors who will explore with you, both mainstream and emerging treatments with a critical eye—see episode #20 for more on choosing the right provider.Takeaways: Ask, “Has this been tested in people?” before jumping on a health trend. Beware buzzwords and financial conflicts—science, not sales, should guide your decisions. Embrace curiosity, but anchor it in real-world evidence to truly live long and well.

Featuring articles on gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer, pulmonary sarcoidosis, graft-versus-host disease, gastroenteritis in children, the rapid recovery of donor hearts after circulatory death, and an on-table reanimation of a pediatric heart from donation after circulatory death; a review article on fragile X disorders; a case report of a woman with neck swelling and dysphagia; and Perspectives on vaccine policy, on new mammography tools, and on the second life of Jacqui B.

Peter Marks is the former director of the FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Stephen Morrissey, the interviewer, is the Executive Managing Editor of the Journal. P. Marks. The Role of Public Health Agencies in Creating Vaccine Policy. N Engl J Med 2025;393:209-211.

Send us a Text Message (please include your email so we can respond!)Episode 69! We start talking about the articles from the CCR25 conference with RESCUE-3 or "Temporary Transvenous Diaphragm Neurostimulation for Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation" published in AJRCCM by Dres et al and PROMIZING or "Proportional-Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation" by Bosma et al in NEJM.RESCUE-3 (pubmed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40498082/PROMIZING (pubmed): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40513024/PROMIZING (NEJM): https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2505708If you enjoy the show be sure to like and subscribe, leave that 5 star review! Be sure to follow us on the social @icucast for the associated figures, comments, and other content not available in the audio format! Email us at icuedandtoddcast@gmail.com with any questions or suggestions! Thank you Mike Gannon for the intro and exit music!

Featuring articles on mild asthma, cardiovascular risk factors, stroke, advanced breast cancer, and transforming health care; a review article on juvenile idiopathic arthritis; a case report of a man with headache and ataxia; and Perspectives on who will care for America, on hospital financial assistance policies, and on libraries burned, and a life lived.

[1] Does the pursuit of excellence in medicine conflict with the pursuit of well-being? This is Episode #1 which was first released on 17, 2024. Description: -  Adam invites Dr. Lisa Rosenbaum to discuss her recent publication in the NEJM titled Being Well while Doing Well — Distinguishing Necessary from Unnecessary Discomfort in Training.   This thought-provoking paper is the 3rd in a series of 4 essays in the NEJM by Dr. Rosenbaum.  It's a social commentary on recent cultural and societal changes and their impact on medical education. We discuss Lisa's critical perspectives on the important notions of wellness and professional identity in our field.   Length of Episode: 40 minutes   Article discussed: Rosenbaum L. Being Well while Doing Well - Distinguishing Necessary from Unnecessary Discomfort in Training. N Engl J Med. 2024 Feb 8;390(6):568-572. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms2308228. Epub 2024 Jan 17. PMID: 38231543. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38231543/  Resources to check out :  Dr. Rosenbaum's recent related publications    https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMms2308228 Being Well while Doing Well — Distinguishing Necessary from Unnecessary Discomfort in Training   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38265727/ Beyond Moral Injury - Can We Reclaim Agency, Belief, and Joy in Medicine?   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38197811/ On Calling - From Privileged Professionals to Cogs of Capitalism?   https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38170694/ What Do Trainees Want? The Rise of House Staff Unions   Podcast ‘Not Otherwise Specified' https://not-otherwise-specified-podcast.nejm.org/e/tough-love/     Contact us: keylime@royalcollege.ca   Follow: Dr. Adam Szulewski https://x.com/Adam_Szulewski    

Chris Booth joins the show to discuss his recent NEJM paper that demonstrated significant DFS and OS improvements with a structured exercise program after adjuvant chemo in colorectal cancer. We discuss implications for GU and other malignancies.

In this week's episode, we dig into two deceptively simple questions: When does someone become a cancer survivor, and should palliative care be in the business of caring for them? Spoiler: It's more complicated than it seems. We've invited two palliative care doctors to talk about survivorship with us: Laura Petrillo, a physician-researcher at Mass General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, and Laura Shoemaker, an outpatient palliative care doctor at the Cleveland Clinic. This episode is a must-listen for those navigating the evolving landscape of cancer care, and asking not just how we treat cancer, but how we support people who are living with it.  If you want some further reading on survivorship, check out some of these articles: A NEJM article titled “Time to Study Metastatic-Cancer Survivorship” A ASCO publication that includes a section on survivorship - Patient-Centered Palliative Care for Patients With Advanced Lung Cancer A webinar on survivorship - Blending Survivorship and Palliative Care (NCI)

A big, deep dive into CTA and fractional flow reserve CT, and a sobering report on the new EVOQUE valve are discussed by John Mandrola, MD, in this week's podcast. This podcast is intended for healthcare professionals only. To read a partial transcript or to comment, visit: https://www.medscape.com/twic I Listener Feedback and Correction CRAAFT HF https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06505798 II Imaging and Behavior Change SCOT HEART 1 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1805971 Five Reasons I Don't Believe an Imaging Test Improves Outcomes https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/901204 SCOT HEART 2 https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jcmg.2024.05.016 III. More on Imaging and CT FFR Symptoms Don't Always Indicate the Severity of Coronary Artery Disease https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/symptoms-dont-always-indicate-severity-coronary-artery-2025a1000ge6 ADVANCE Registry Protocol https://www.journalofcardiovascularct.com/article/S1934-5925(16)30288-X/abstract Research Letter JACC CV Imaging  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2025.05.002 ADVANCE Registry Paper 2018 https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehy530 Cook et al JAMA Card https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2629072 Low diagnostic yield Patel paper NEJM https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0907272 Venk Murthy thread https://x.com/venkmurthy/status/1033379922679660544 IV EVOQUE Real World Data JACC has published a sobering research letter on the Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Replacement called EVOQUE valve. Lupu et al JACC IV https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2025.03.019 TRISCEND II https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2401918 You may also like: The Bob Harrington Show with the Stephen and Suzanne Weiss Dean of Weill Cornell Medicine, Robert A. Harrington, MD. https://www.medscape.com/author/bob-harrington Questions or feedback, please contact news@medscape.net