Clinician Reviews

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Once weekly glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide (Ozempic, Novo Nordisk) significantly improved hemoglobin A1c level and body weight for up to 3 years in a large cohort of adults with type 2 diabetes, show real-world data from Israel.

Treatment with semaglutide was associated with reductions in both A1c (–0.77%; P < .001) and body weight (–4.7 kg; P < .001) at 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained for up to 3 years and, in particular, in those patients with higher adherence to the therapy.

Avraham Karasik, MD, from the Institute of Research and Innovation at Maccabi Health Services, Tel Aviv, led the study and presented the work as a poster at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.

“We found a clinically relevant improvement in blood sugar control and weight loss after 6 months of treatment, comparable with that seen in randomized trials,” said Dr. Karasik during an interview. “Importantly, these effects were sustained for up to 3 years, supporting the use of once weekly semaglutide for the long-term management of type 2 diabetes.”

Esther Walden, RN, deputy head of care at Diabetes UK, appreciated that the real-world findings reflected those seen in the randomized controlled trials. “This study suggests that improvements in blood sugars and weight loss can potentially be sustained in the longer term for adults with type 2 diabetes taking semaglutide as prescribed.”
 

Large scale, long term, and real world

Dr. Karasik explained that in Israel, there are many early adopters of once weekly semaglutide, and as such, it made for a large sample size, with a significant use duration for the retrospective study. “It’s a popular drug and there are lots of questions about durability of effect,” he pointed out.

Though evidence from randomized controlled trials support the effectiveness of once weekly semaglutide to treat type 2 diabetes, these studies are mostly of relatively short follow-up, explained Dr. Karasik, pointing out that long-term, large-scale, real-world data are needed. “In real life, people are acting differently to the trial setting and some adhere while others don’t, so it was interesting to see the durability as well as what happens when people discontinue treatment or adhere less.”

“Unsurprisingly, people who had a higher proportion of days covered ([PDC]; the total days of semaglutide use as a proportion of the total number of days followed up) had a higher effect,” explained Dr. Karasik, adding that, “if you don’t take it, it doesn’t work.”

A total of 23,442 patients were included in the study, with 6,049 followed up for 2 years or more. Mean baseline A1c was 7.6%-7.9%; body mass index (BMI) was 33.7-33.8 kg/m²; metformin was taken by 84%-88% of participants; insulin was taken by 30%; and 31% were treated with another GLP-1 RA prior to receiving semaglutide.

For study inclusion, participants were required to have had redeemed at least one prescription for subcutaneous semaglutide (0.25, 0.5, or 1 mg), and had at least one A1c measurement 12 months before and around 6 months after the start of semaglutide.

The primary outcome was change in A1c from baseline to the end of the follow-up at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36 months. Key secondary outcomes included change in body weight from baseline to the end of the follow-up (36 months); change in A1c and body weight in subgroups of patients who were persistently on therapy (at 12, 24, 36 months); and change in A1c and body weight in subgroups stratified by baseline characteristics. There was also an exploratory outcome, which was change in A1c and weight after treatment discontinuation. Dr. Karasik presented some of these results in his poster.

Median follow-up was 17.6 months in the total population and was 29.9 months in those who persisted with therapy for 2 years or more. “We have over 23,000 participants so it’s a large group, and these are not selected patients so the generalizability is better.”
 

Three-year sustained effect

Results from the total population showed that A1c lowered by a mean of 0.77% (from 7.6% to 6.8%) and body weight reduced by 4.7 kg (from 94.1 kg to 89.7 kg) after 6 months of treatment. These reductions were maintained during 3 years of follow-up in around 1,000 patients.

A significant 75% of participants adhered to once weekly semaglutide (PDC of more than 60%) within the first 6 months. In patients who used semaglutide for at least 2 years, those with high adherence (PDC of at least 80%) showed an A1c reduction of 0.76% after 24 months and of 0.43% after 36 months. Body weight was reduced by 6.0 kg after 24 months and 5.8 kg after 36 months.

Reductions in both A1c and weight were lower in patients with PDC of below 60%, compared with those with PDC of 60%-79% or 80% or over (statistically significant difference of P < .05 for between-groups differences for both outcomes across maximum follow-up time).

As expected, among patients who were GLP-1 RA–naive, reductions in A1c level and body weight were more pronounced, compared with GLP-1 RA–experienced patients (A1c reduction, –0.87% vs. –0.54%; weight loss, –5.5 kg vs. –3.0 kg, respectively; P < .001 for between-groups difference for both outcomes).

Dr. Karasik reported that some patients who stopped taking semaglutide did not regain weight immediately and that this potential residual effect after treatment discontinuation merits additional investigation. “This is not like in the randomized controlled trials. I don’t know how to interpret it, but that’s the observation. A1c did increase a little when they stopped therapy, compared to those with PDC [of 60%-79% or 80% or over] (P < .05 for between-groups difference for both outcomes in most follow-up time).”

He also highlighted that in regard to the long-term outcomes, “unlike many drugs where the effect fades out with time, here we don’t see that happening. This is another encouraging point.”

Dr. Karasik declares speaker fees and grants from Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca. The study was supported by Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

HAMBURG, GERMANY – Once-weekly tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Lilly) added to insulin glargine resulted in greater reductions in hemoglobin A1c along with more weight loss and less hypoglycemia, compared with prandial insulin lispro (Humalog, Sanofi), for patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes, show data from the SURPASS-6 randomized clinical trial.

Tirzepatide led to a statistically and clinically significant reduction in mean A1c, at −2.1%, compared with insulin lispro, at −1.1%, by week 52. It also resulted in a higher percentage of participants meeting an A1c target of less than 7.0%, wrote the researchers, whose study was presented at the annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and was published simultaneously in JAMA.

Also, daily insulin glargine use was substantially lower among participants who received tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro. Insulin glargine was administered at a dosage 13 IU/day; insulin lispro was administered at a dosage of 62 IU/day. “At the highest dose, some patients stopped their insulin [glargine] in the tirzepatide arm,” said Juan Pablo Frias, MD, medical director and principal investigator of Velocity Clinical Research, Los Angeles, who presented the findings. “We demonstrated clinically meaningful and superior glycemic and body weight control with tirzepatide compared with insulin lispro, while tirzepatide was also associated with less clinically significant hypoglycemia.”

Weight improved for participants who received tirzepatide compared with those who received insulin lispro, at –10 kg and +4 kg respectively. The rate of clinically significant hypoglycemia (blood glucose < 54 mg/dL) or severe hypoglycemia was tenfold lower with tirzepatide, compared with insulin lispro.

The session dedicated to tirzepatide was comoderated by Apostolos Tsapas, MD, professor of medicine and diabetes, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece, and Konstantinos Toulis, MD, consultant in endocrinology and diabetes, General Military Hospital, Thessaloniki, Greece. Dr. Toulis remarked that, in the chronic disease setting, management and treatment intensification are challenging to integrate, and there are barriers to adoption in routine practice. “This is particularly true when it adds complexity, as in the case of multiple prandial insulin injections on top of basal insulin in suboptimally treated individuals with type 2 diabetes.

“Demonstrating superiority over insulin lispro in terms of the so-called trio of A1c, weight loss, and hypoglycemic events, tirzepatide offers both a simpler to adhere to and a more efficacious treatment intensification option.” He noted that, while long-term safety data are awaited, “this seems to be a definite step forward from any viewpoint, with the possible exception of the taxpayer’s perspective.”

Dr. Tsapas added: “These data further support the very high dual glucose and weight efficacy of tirzepatide and the primary role of incretin-related therapies amongst the injectables for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.”
 

Tirzepatide 5, 10, 15 mg vs. insulin lispro in addition to insulin glargine

The researchers aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding once-weekly tirzepatide, compared with thrice-daily prandial insulin lispro, as an adjunctive therapy to insulin glargine for patients with type 2 diabetes that was inadequately controlled with basal insulin.

Tirzepatide activates the body’s receptors for glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1). The study authors noted that “recent guidelines support adding an injectable incretin-related therapy such as GLP-1 receptor agonist for glycemic control, rather than basal insulin, when oral medications are inadequate.”

The open-label, phase 3b clinical trial drew data from 135 sites across 15 countries and included 1,428 adults with type 2 diabetes who were taking basal insulin. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:3 ratio to receive once-weekly subcutaneous injections of tirzepatide (5 mg [n = 243], 10 mg [n = 238], or 15 mg [n = 236]) or prandial thrice-daily insulin lispro (n = 708).

Both arms were well matched. The average age was 60 years, and 60% of participants were women. The average amount of time patients had type 2 diabetes was 14 years; 85% of participants continued taking metformin. The average A1c level was 8.8% at baseline. Patients were categorized as having obesity (average body mass index, 33 kg/m²). The average insulin glargine dose was 46 units, or 0.5 units/kg.

Outcomes included noninferiority of tirzepatide (pooled cohort) compared with insulin lispro, both in addition to insulin glargine; and A1c change from baseline to week 52 (noninferiority margin, 0.3%). Key secondary endpoints included change in body weight and percentage of participants who achieved an A1c target of less than 7.0%.

About 90% of participants who received the study drug completed the study, said Dr. Frias. “Only 0.5% of tirzepatide patients needed rescue therapy, while only 2% of the insulin lispro did.”

Prior to optimization, the average insulin glargine dose was 42 IU/kg; during optimization, it rose to an average of 46 IU/kg. “At 52 weeks, those on basal-bolus insulin found their insulin glargine dose stayed flat while insulin lispro was 62 units,” reported Dr. Frias. “The three tirzepatide doses show a reduction in insulin glargine, such that the pooled dose reached an average of 11 units, while 20% actually came off their basal insulin altogether [pooled tirzepatide].”

Tirzepatide (pooled) led to the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% for 68% of patients versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

About 68% of the patients who received tirzepatide (pooled) achieved the recommended A1c target of less than 7.0% versus 36% of patients in the insulin lispro group.

“Individual tirzepatide doses and pooled doses showed significant reduction in A1c and up to a 2.5% reduction,” Dr. Frias added. “Normoglycemia was obtained by a greater proportion of patients on tirzepatide doses versus basal-bolus insulin – one-third in the 15-mg tirzepatide dose.”
 

Body weight reduction of 10% or more with tirzepatide

Further, at week 52, weight loss of 5% or more was achieved by 75.4% of participants in the pooled tirzepatide group, compared with 6.3% in the prandial lispro group. The weight loss was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in cardiometabolic parameters.

In an exploratory analysis, weight loss of 10% or more was achieved by a mean of 48.9% of pooled tirzepatide-treated participants at week 52, compared with 2% of those taking insulin lispro, said Dr. Frias.

“It is possible that the body weight loss induced by tirzepatide therapy and its reported effect in reducing liver fat content may have led to an improvement in insulin sensitivity and decreased insulin requirements,” wrote the researchers in their article.

Hypoglycemia risk and the weight gain observed with complex insulin regimens that include prandial insulin have been main limitations to optimally up-titrate insulin therapy in clinical practice, wrote the authors.

Dr. Frias noted that, in this study, 48% of patients who received insulin lispro experienced clinically significant hypoglycemia, while only 10% of patients in the tirzepatide arms did. “This was 0.4 episodes per patient-year versus 4.4 in tirzepatide and insulin lispro respectively.”

There were more reports of adverse events among the tirzepatide groups than the insulin lispro group. “Typically, with tirzepatide, the commonest adverse events were GI in origin and were mild to moderate.” Rates were 14%-26% for nausea, 11%-15% for diarrhea, and 5%-13% for vomiting.

The study was sponsored by Eli Lilly. Dr. Frias has received grants from Eli Lilly paid to his institution during the conduct of the study and grants, personal fees, or nonfinancial support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Merck, Altimmune, 89BIO, Akero, Carmot Therapeutics, Intercept, Janssen, Madrigal, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk outside the submitted work. Dr. Toulis and Dr. Tsapas declared no relevant disclosures.

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

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three patients who experience their first bout of atrial fibrillation (AFib) during hospitalization can expect to experience a recurrence of the arrhythmia within the year, new research shows.

The findings, reported in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest these patients may be good candidates for oral anticoagulants to reduce their risk for stroke.

“Atrial fibrillation is very common in patients for the very first time in their life when they’re sick and in the hospital,” said William F. McIntyre, MD, PhD, a cardiologist at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., who led the study. These new insights into AFib management suggest there is a need for primary care physicians to be on the lookout for potential recurrence.

AFib is strongly linked to stroke, and patients at greater risk for stroke may be prescribed oral anticoagulants. Although the arrhythmia can be reversed before the patient is discharged from the hospital, risk for recurrence was unclear, Dr. McIntyre said.

“We wanted to know if the patient was in atrial fibrillation because of the physiologic stress that they were under, or if they just have the disease called atrial fibrillation, which should usually be followed lifelong by a specialist,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues followed 139 patients (mean age, 71 years) at three medical centers in Ontario who experienced new-onset AFib during their hospital stay, along with an equal number of patients who had no history of AFib and who served as controls. The research team used a Holter monitor to record study participants’ heart rhythm for 14 days to detect incident AFib at 1 and 6 months after discharge. They also followed up with periodic phone calls for up to 12 months. Among the study participants, half were admitted for noncardiac surgeries, and the other half were admitted for medical illnesses, including infections and pneumonia. Participants with a prior history of AFib were excluded from the analysis.

The primary outcome of the study was an episode of AFib that lasted at least 30 seconds on the monitor or one detected during routine care at the 12-month mark.

Patients who experienced AFib for the first time in the hospital had roughly a 33% risk for recurrence within a year, nearly sevenfold higher than their age- and sex-matched counterparts who had not had an arrhythmia during their hospital stay (3%; confidence interval, 0%-6.4%).

“This study has important implications for management of patients who have a first presentation of AFib that is concurrent with a reversible physiologic stressor,” the authors wrote. “An AFib recurrence risk of 33.1% at 1 year is neither low enough to conclude that transient new-onset AFib in the setting of another illness is benign nor high enough that all such transient new-onset AFib can be assumed to be paroxysmal AFib. Instead, these results call for risk stratification and follow-up in these patients.”

The researchers reported that among people with recurrent AFib in the study, the median total time in arrhythmia was 9 hours. “This far exceeds the cutoff of 6 minutes that was established as being associated with stroke using simulated AFib screening in patients with implanted continuous monitors,” they wrote. “These results suggest that the patients in our study who had AFib detected in follow-up are similar to contemporary patients with AFib for whom evidence-based therapies, including oral anticoagulation, are warranted.”

Dr. McIntyre and colleagues were able to track outcomes and treatments for the patients in the study. In the group with recurrent AFib, 1 had a stroke, 2 experienced systemic embolism, 3 had a heart failure event, 6 experienced bleeding, and 11 died. In the other group, there was one case of stroke, one of heart failure, four cases involving bleeding, and seven deaths. “The proportion of participants with new-onset AFib during their initial hospitalization who were taking oral anticoagulants was 47.1% at 6 months and 49.2% at 12 months. This included 73% of participants with AFib detected during follow-up and 39% who did not have AFib detected during follow-up,” they wrote.

The uncertain nature of AFib recurrence complicates predictions about patients’ posthospitalization experiences within the following year. “We cannot just say: ‘Hey, this is just a reversible illness, and now we can forget about it,’ ” Dr. McIntyre said. “Nor is the risk of recurrence so strong in the other direction that you can give patients a lifelong diagnosis of atrial fibrillation.”
 

Role for primary care

Without that certainty, physicians cannot refer everyone who experiences new-onset AFib to a cardiologist for long-term care. The variability in recurrence rates necessitates a more nuanced and personalized approach. Here, primary care physicians step in, offering tailored care based on their established, long-term patient relationships, Dr. McIntyre said.

The study participants already have chronic health conditions that bring them into regular contact with their family physician. This gives primary care physicians a golden opportunity to be on lookout and to recommend care from a cardiologist at the appropriate time if it becomes necessary, he said.

“I have certainly seen cases of recurrent atrial fibrillation in patients who had an episode while hospitalized, and consistent with this study, this is a common clinical occurrence,” said Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, director of Mount Sinai Heart, New York. Primary care physicians must remain vigilant and avoid the temptation to attribute AFib solely to illness or surgery

“Ideally, we would have randomized clinical trial data to guide the decision about whether to use prophylactic anticoagulation,” said Dr. Bhatt, who added that a cardiology consultation may also be appropriate.

Dr. McIntyre reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous relationships with industry.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – Spironolactone may be an effective and safe treatment option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), regardless of whether they report having menstrual HS flares or have been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.

The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).

The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.

“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.

Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”

“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”

Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – Spironolactone may be an effective and safe treatment option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), regardless of whether they report having menstrual HS flares or have been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.

The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).

The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.

“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.

Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”

“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”

Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – Spironolactone may be an effective and safe treatment option for women with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), regardless of whether they report having menstrual HS flares or have been diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Those are the key findings from a single-center retrospective study that Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, and colleagues presented during a poster session at the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery.

In an interview after the meeting, Dr. Hsiao, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said that hormones are thought to play a role in HS pathogenesis given the typical HS symptom onset around puberty and fluctuations in disease activity with menses (typically premenstrual flares) and pregnancy. “Spironolactone, an anti-androgenic agent, is used to treat HS in women; however, there is a paucity of data on the efficacy of spironolactone for HS and whether certain patient characteristics may influence treatment response,” she told this news organization. “This study is unique in that we contribute to existing literature regarding spironolactone efficacy in HS and we also investigate whether the presence of menstrual HS flares or polycystic ovarian syndrome influences the likelihood of response to spironolactone.”

Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International

For the analysis, Dr. Hsiao and colleagues retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 53 adult women with HS who were prescribed spironolactone and who received care at USC’s HS clinic between January 2015 and December 2021. They collected data on demographics, comorbidities, HS medications, treatment response at 3 and 6 months, as well as adverse events. They also evaluated physician-assessed response to treatment when available.

The mean age of patients was 31 years, 37% were White, 30.4% were Black, 21.7% were Hispanic, 6.5% were Asian, and the remainder were biracial. The mean age at HS diagnosis was 25.1 years and the three most common comorbidities were acne (50.9%), obesity (45.3%), and anemia (37.7%). As for menstrual history, 56.6% had perimenstrual HS flares and 37.7% had irregular menstrual cycles. The top three classes of concomitant medications were antibiotics (58.5%), oral contraceptives (50.9%), and other birth control methods (18.9%).

The mean spironolactone dose was 104 mg/day; 84.1% of the women experienced improvement of HS 3 months after starting the drug, while 81.8% had improvement of their HS 6 months after starting the drug. The researchers also found that 56.6% of women had documented perimenstrual HS flares and 7.5% had PCOS.

“Spironolactone is often thought of as a helpful medication to consider if a patient reports having HS flares around menses or features of PCOS,” Dr. Hsiao said. However, she added, “our study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the response to spironolactone based on the presence of premenstrual flares or concomitant PCOS.” She said that spironolactone may be used as an adjunct therapeutic option in patients with more severe disease in addition to other medical and surgical therapies for HS. “Combining different treatment options that target different pathophysiologic factors is usually required to achieve adequate disease control in HS,” she said.

Dr. Hsiao acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center design and small sample size. “A confounding variable is that some patients were on other medications in addition to spironolactone, which may have influenced treatment outcomes,” she noted. “Larger prospective studies are needed to identify optimal dosing for spironolactone therapy in HS as well as predictors of treatment response.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that with only one FDA-approved systemic medication for the management of HS (adalimumab), “we off-label bandits must be creative to curtail the incredibly painful impact this chronic, destructive inflammatory disease can have on our patients.”

“The evidence supporting our approaches, whether it be antibiotics, immunomodulators, or in this case, antihormonal therapies, is limited, so more data is always welcome,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study. “One very interesting point raised by the authors, one I share with my trainees frequently from my own experience, is that regardless of menstrual cycle abnormalities, spironolactone can be impactful. This is important to remember, in that overt signs of hormonal influences is not a requisite for the use or effectiveness of antihormonal therapy.”

Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of board of directors for the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, UCB, as a speaker for AbbVie, and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

In July 2023, nirsevimab (Beyfortus), a monoclonal antibody, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in infants and children younger than 2 years of age. On Aug. 3, 2023, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended routine use of it for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during or entering their first RSV season. Its use is also recommended for certain children 8-19 months of age who are at increased risk for severe RSV disease at the start of their second RSV season. Hearing the approval, I immediately had a flashback to residency, recalling the multiple infants admitted each fall and winter exhibiting classic symptoms including cough, rhinorrhea, nasal flaring, retractions, and wheezing with many having oxygen requirements and others needing intubation. Only supportive care was available.

RSV is the leading cause of infant hospitalizations. Annually, the CDC estimates there are 50,000-80,000 RSV hospitalizations and 100-300 RSV-related deaths in the United States in persons younger than 5 years of age. While premature infants have the highest rates of hospitalization (three times a term infant) about 79% of hospitalized children younger than 2 years have no underlying medical risks.¹ The majority of children will experience RSV as an upper respiratory infection within the first 2 years of life. However, severe disease requiring hospitalization is more likely to occur in premature infants and children younger than 6 months; children younger than 2 with congenital heart disease and/or chronic lung disease; children with severe cystic fibrosis; as well as the immunocompromised child and individuals with neuromuscular disorders that preclude clearing mucous secretions or have difficulty swallowing.

Palivizumab (Synagis), the first monoclonal antibody to prevent RSV in infants was licensed in 1998. Its use was limited to infants meeting specific criteria developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Only 5% of infants had access to it. It was a short-acting agent requiring monthly injections, which were very costly ($1,661-$2,584 per dose). Eligible infants could receive up to five injections per season. Several studies proved its use was not cost beneficial.

What are the advantages of nirsevimab? It’s a long-acting monoclonal antibody. Only one dose is required per season. Costs will significantly diminish. It is recommended for all infants younger than 8 months of age born during RSV season. Those children 8-19 months at risk for severe RSV disease can receive it prior to the start of their second RSV season. During RSV season (October 1 to March 31), the initial dose should be administered to newborns just prior to hospital discharge. Older infants and newborns who did not receive it prior to hospital discharge can receive it at their medical home. Newborns should receive it within the first week of life. It is covered by the Vaccine for Children Program. Simultaneous administration with routine childhood immunizations is recommended. Finally, RSV season may vary in tropical areas (Southern Florida, Puerto Rico. etc.) and Alaska. The timing of nirsevimab administration should be based on local RSV activity provided by state and local authorities.

In addition, the FDA approved an RSV vaccine (Abrysvo) for use in adults at least 60 years of age and in pregnant women at 32-36 weeks’ gestation. The latter is administered to prevent lower respiratory tract infection in infants from birth to 6 months. Recommendations have been published for administration in nonpregnant adults. Specific information is forthcoming in terms timing of administration of nirsevimab in infants whose mothers receive Abrysvo.

RSV season is quickly approaching. Detailed recommendations for administration and FAQ questions related to nirsevimab and palivizumab can be found at https://www.aap.org or https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/acip-recs/index.html.
 

Influenza

So, what about influenza? Vaccine composition has been tweaked to match the circulating viruses but the recommended age for annual routine administration remains unchanged. All persons at least 6 months of age should be vaccinated. Children between 6 months and 8 years need two doses at least 4 weeks apart when receiving vaccine for the first time. Immunizing everyone in the household is encouraged especially if there are household contacts at risk for developing severe disease, including infants too young to be vaccinated. Keep in mind children may be coinfected with multiple viruses. Adams and colleagues reviewed the prevalence of coinfection of influenza and Sars-CoV-2 in persons younger than 18 years reported to three CDC surveillance platforms during the 2021-2022 season.² Thirty-two of 575 hospitalized (6%) coinfections were analyzed and 7 of 44 (16%) deaths. Compared with patients without coinfections, the coinfected patients were more likely to require mechanical ventilation (13% vs. 4%) or CPAP (16% vs. 6%). Only 4 of 23 who were influenza vaccine eligible were vaccinated. Of seven coinfected children who died, none had received influenza vaccine and only one received an antiviral. Only 5 of 31 (16%) infected only with influenza were vaccinated.³

Influenza activity was lower than usual during the 2021-2022 season. However, this report revealed underuse of both influenza vaccine and antiviral therapy, both of which are routinely recommended.
 

COVID-19

What’s new with COVID-19? On Sept. 12, 2023, ACIP recommended that everyone at least 6 months of age receive the 2023-2024 (monovalent, XBB containing) COVID-19 vaccines. Children at least 5 years of age need one dose and those younger need one or two doses depending on the number of doses previously received. Why the change? Circulating variants continue to change. There is a current uptick in cases including hospitalizations (7.7%) and deaths (4.5%) and it’s just the beginning of the season.⁴ Symptoms, risk groups and complications have not changed. The primary goal is to prevent infection, hospitalization, long term complications, and death.

We are now armed with the most up-to-date interventions to help prevent the acquisition of these three viruses. Our next step is recommending and delivering them to our patients.
 

Dr. Word is a pediatric infectious disease specialist and director of the Houston Travel Medicine Clinic. She reported no relevant financial disclosures.

References

1.Suh M et al. J Infect Dis. 2022;226(Suppl 2):S154-36. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiac120.

2. Adams K et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2022;71:1589-96. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7150a4.

3. Pingali C et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023 Aug 25;72:912-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7234a3.

4. CDC Covid Data Tracker.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I have written before about the COSMOS study and its finding that multivitamins (and chocolate) did not improve brain or cardiovascular health. So I was surprised to read that a “new” study found that vitamins can forestall dementia and age-related cognitive decline.

Upon closer look, the new data are neither new nor convincing, at least to me.

©Graça Victoria/iStockphoto.com

Chocolate and multivitamins for CVD and cancer prevention

The large randomized COSMOS trial was supposed to be the definitive study on chocolate that would establish its heart-health benefits without a doubt. Or, rather, the benefits of a cocoa bean extract in pill form given to healthy, older volunteers. The COSMOS study was negative. Chocolate, or the cocoa bean extract they used, did not reduce cardiovascular events.

And yet for all the prepublication importance attached to COSMOS, it is scarcely mentioned. Had it been positive, rest assured that Mars, the candy bar company that cofunded the research, and other interested parties would have been shouting it from the rooftops. As it is, they’re already spinning it.

Which brings us to the multivitamin component. COSMOS actually had a 2 × 2 design. In other words, there were four groups in this study: chocolate plus multivitamin, chocolate plus placebo, placebo plus multivitamin, and placebo plus placebo. This type of study design allows you to study two different interventions simultaneously, provided that they are independent and do not interact with each other. In addition to the primary cardiovascular endpoint, they also studied a cancer endpoint.

The multivitamin supplement didn’t reduce cardiovascular events either. Nor did it affect cancer outcomes. The main COSMOS study was negative and reinforced what countless other studies have proven: Taking a daily multivitamin does not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or developing cancer.
 

But wait, there’s more: COSMOS-Mind

But no researcher worth his salt studies just one or two endpoints in a study. The participants also underwent neurologic and memory testing. These results were reported separately in the COSMOS-Mind study.

COSMOS-Mind is often described as a separate (or “new”) study. In reality, it included the same participants from the original COSMOS trial and measured yet another primary outcome of cognitive performance on a series of tests administered by telephone. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with studying multiple outcomes in your patient population (after all, that salami isn’t going to slice itself), they cannot all be primary outcomes. Some, by necessity, must be secondary hypothesis–generating outcomes. If you test enough endpoints, multiple hypothesis testing dictates that eventually you will get a positive result simply by chance.

There was a time when the neurocognitive outcomes of COSMOS would have been reported in the same paper as the cardiovascular outcomes, but that time seems to have passed us by. Researchers live or die by the number of their publications, and there is an inherent advantage to squeezing as many publications as possible from the same dataset. Though, to be fair, the journal would probably have asked them to split up the paper as well.

In brief, the cocoa extract again fell short in COSMOS-Mind, but the multivitamin arm did better on the composite cognitive outcome. It was a fairly small difference – a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score at the 3-year mark (the z-score is the mean divided by the standard deviation). Much was also made of the fact that the improvement seemed to vary by prior history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Those with a history of CVD had a 0.11-point improvement, whereas those without had a 0.06-point improvement. The authors couldn’t offer a definitive explanation for these findings. Any argument that multivitamins improve cardiovascular health and therefore prevent vascular dementia has to contend with the fact that the main COSMOS study didn’t show a cardiovascular benefit for vitamins. Speculation that you are treating nutritional deficiencies is exactly that: speculation.

A more salient question is: What does a 0.07-point improvement on the z-score mean clinically? This study didn’t assess whether a multivitamin supplement prevented dementia or allowed people to live independently for longer. In fairness, that would have been exceptionally difficult to do and would have required a much longer study.

Their one attempt to quantify the cognitive benefit clinically was a calculation about normal age-related decline. Test scores were 0.045 points lower for every 1-year increase in age among participants (their mean age was 73 years). So the authors contend that a 0.07-point increase, or the 0.083-point increase that they found at year 3, corresponds to 1.8 years of age-related decline forestalled. Whether this is an appropriate assumption, I leave for the reader to decide.
 

COSMOS-Web and replication

The results of COSMOS-Mind were seemingly bolstered by the recent publication of COSMOS-Web. Although I’ve seen this study described as having replicated the results of COSMOS-Mind, that description is a bit misleading. This was yet another ancillary COSMOS study; more than half of the 2,262 participants in COSMOS-Mind were also included in COSMOS-Web. Replicating results in the same people isn’t true replication.

The main difference between COSMOS-Mind and COSMOS-Web is that the former used a telephone interview to administer the cognitive tests and the latter used the Internet. They also had different endpoints, with COSMOS-Web looking at immediate recall rather than a global test composite.

COSMOS-Web was a positive study in that patients getting the multivitamin supplement did better on the test for immediate memory recall (remembering a list of 20 words), though they didn’t improve on tests of memory retention, executive function, or novel object recognition (basically a test where subjects have to identify matching geometric patterns and then recall them later). They were able to remember an additional 0.71 word on average, compared with 0.44 word in the placebo group. (For the record, it found no benefit for the cocoa extract).

Everybody does better on memory tests the second time around because practice makes perfect, hence the improvement in the placebo group. This benefit at 1 year did not survive to the end of follow-up at 3 years, in contrast to COSMOS-Mind, where the benefit was not apparent at 1 year and seen only at year 3. A history of cardiovascular disease didn’t seem to affect the results in COSMOS-Web as it did in COSMOS-Mind. As far as replications go, COSMOS-Web has some very non-negligible differences, compared with COSMOS-Mind. This incongruity, especially given the overlap in the patient populations is hard to reconcile. If COSMOS-Web was supposed to assuage any doubts that persisted after COSMOS-Mind, it hasn’t for me.
 

One of these studies is not like the others

Finally, although the COSMOS trial and all its ancillary study analyses suggest a neurocognitive benefit to multivitamin supplementation, it’s not the first study to test the matter. The Age-Related Eye Disease Study looked at vitamin C, vitamin E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper. There was no benefit on any of the six cognitive tests administered to patients. The Women’s Health Study, the Women’s Antioxidant Cardiovascular Study and PREADViSE have all failed to show any benefit to the various vitamins and minerals they studied. A meta-analysis of 11 trials found no benefit to B vitamins in slowing cognitive aging.

The claim that COSMOS is the “first” study to test the hypothesis hinges on some careful wordplay. Prior studies tested specific vitamins, not a multivitamin. In the discussion of the paper, these other studies are critiqued for being short term. But the Physicians’ Health Study II did in fact study a multivitamin and assessed cognitive performance on average 2.5 years after randomization. It found no benefit. The authors of COSMOS-Web critiqued the 2.5-year wait to perform cognitive testing, saying it would have missed any short-term benefits. Although, given that they simultaneously praised their 3 years of follow-up, the criticism is hard to fully accept or even understand.

Whether follow-up is short or long, uses individual vitamins or a multivitamin, the results excluding COSMOS are uniformly negative. I for one am skeptical that a multivitamin or any individual vitamin can prevent dementia. Same goes for chocolate.

Do enough tests in the same population, and something will rise above the noise just by chance. When you get a positive result in your research, it’s always exciting. But when a slew of studies that came before you are negative, you aren’t groundbreaking. You’re an outlier.

Dr. Labos is a cardiologist at Hôpital Notre-Dame, Montreal. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association has released a focused update on managing patients with cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning.

The update reflects treatment advances and new knowledge, including the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for patients whose condition is refractory to poison antidotes and other therapies.

The new guidelines are designed primarily for North American health care professionals who treat adults and children who are critically ill because of poisoning, including intentional and unintentional drug overdose, chemical exposure, and drug-drug interactions, the authors note.

Published online in Circulation, the update was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 

‘Nearly miraculous’

“It’s been 13 years since the poisoning treatment guidelines had a comprehensive update,” lead author Eric J. Lavonas, MD, professor of emergency medicine at Denver Health and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Colo., told this news organization. “In that time, we’ve learned a lot about how to best use antidotes and other treatments to save the most critically poisoned patients.”

Highlighting a few key points from the update, he said, “For those rare situations when antidotes aren’t enough, the new guidelines include the use of heart-lung machines (VA-ECMO) for patients with beta-blocker, calcium channel blocker, or sodium channel blocker poisoning causing cardiogenic shock.”

Furthermore, he said, “High-dose insulin treatment for patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning [also recommended in the update] has really become mainstream. The doses are up to 10 times higher than the amount used to treat diabetic emergencies.

“Some excellent science has shown that giving IV lipid emulsion can save the life of someone with an accidental overdose of local anesthetic medications, particularly bupivacaine,” he added. “The result is sometimes nearly miraculous.

“But when this treatment is extended to poisoning from other medications, it often doesn’t work as well, and in some situations may make things worse,” he said. “The issue may be that giving lipids increases absorption of drug from the stomach and intestines, which can be dangerous when the patient took an overdose of pills.”
 

Low level of evidence

The guidelines were compiled by the Critical Poisoning Writing Group, which includes experts from emergency medicine, pediatrics, medical toxicology, pharmacology, critical care, emergency medical services, education, research, and nursing. Group members were appointed by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and were approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee.

First and foremost, the group recommends timely consultation with a medical toxicologist, a clinical toxicologist, or a regional poison center to facilitate rapid, effective therapy, because treatment of cardiac arrest and toxicity from poisoning often requires treatments that most clinicians don’t use frequently.

Other key points include the following:

• Naloxone administration may reverse respiratory arrest due to opioid overdose, preventing progression to cardiac arrest.
• Give high-dose insulin therapy early in the treatment of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning, Dr. Lavonas noted.
• Standard advanced life support plus sodium bicarbonate is appropriate for life-threatening dysrhythmias caused by cocaine or other sodium channel blockers.
• If cyanide poisoning is suspected, clinicians should not wait for confirmatory testing; treatment should begin immediately with hydroxocobalamin (preferred) or sodium nitrite plus sodium thiosulfate.
• Digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments can reverse life-threatening dysrhythmias from digoxin poisoning.
• Use of 20% intravenous lipid emulsion can be efficacious in the resuscitation of life-threatening local anesthetic toxicity, especially from bupivacaine, Dr. Lavonas indicated.
• Sedation is recommended for patients with severe agitation from sympathomimetic poisoning to manage hyperthermia and acidosis, prevent rhabdomyolysis and injury, and allow evaluation for other life-threatening conditions.
• Although flumazenil reverses central nervous system and respiratory depression from benzodiazepine poisoning, risks and contraindications, provided in the guidelines, limit its use.
• VA-ECMO can be lifesaving for patients with cardiogenic shock or dysrhythmias that are refractory to other treatments.

“Unfortunately, despite improvements in the design and funding support for resuscitation research, the overall certainty of the evidence base for resuscitation science and management of critical poisoning is low,” the group acknowledges.

Of the 73 guideline recommendations, only 2 are supported by level A evidence; 3 are supported by level B-randomized evidence, 12 by level B-nonrandomized evidence, and the rest by level C evidence.

“Accordingly, the strength of recommendations is weaker than optimal,” they write. “Clinical trials in resuscitation and the management of critical poisoning are sorely needed.”
 

‘Don’t go it alone!’

“Most critical poisonings are pretty uncommon, and each patient is different,” Dr. Lavonas said. “Even in the emergency department or ICU, most physicians will treat a patient who is critically ill with any given poison less than once a year. The antidotes and medication doses needed to effectively treat these patients are often very different than everyday medical practice.

“Don’t try to go it alone!” he urges. “Poisoning cases are complex, and the treatments work best when they are implemented quickly and assertively. A toxicologist can help sort through complex situations and get effective treatment started without delay.”

Every certified poison center has a medical toxicologist or clinical toxicologist on call 24/7 to give advice to physicians and hospitals about patients who are critically ill after being poisoned, he added. “Everyone in the U.S. has access to a poison center by calling one number: 1-800-222-1222.”

Dr. Lavonas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association has released a focused update on managing patients with cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning.

The update reflects treatment advances and new knowledge, including the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for patients whose condition is refractory to poison antidotes and other therapies.

The new guidelines are designed primarily for North American health care professionals who treat adults and children who are critically ill because of poisoning, including intentional and unintentional drug overdose, chemical exposure, and drug-drug interactions, the authors note.

Published online in Circulation, the update was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 

‘Nearly miraculous’

“It’s been 13 years since the poisoning treatment guidelines had a comprehensive update,” lead author Eric J. Lavonas, MD, professor of emergency medicine at Denver Health and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Colo., told this news organization. “In that time, we’ve learned a lot about how to best use antidotes and other treatments to save the most critically poisoned patients.”

Highlighting a few key points from the update, he said, “For those rare situations when antidotes aren’t enough, the new guidelines include the use of heart-lung machines (VA-ECMO) for patients with beta-blocker, calcium channel blocker, or sodium channel blocker poisoning causing cardiogenic shock.”

Furthermore, he said, “High-dose insulin treatment for patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning [also recommended in the update] has really become mainstream. The doses are up to 10 times higher than the amount used to treat diabetic emergencies.

“Some excellent science has shown that giving IV lipid emulsion can save the life of someone with an accidental overdose of local anesthetic medications, particularly bupivacaine,” he added. “The result is sometimes nearly miraculous.

“But when this treatment is extended to poisoning from other medications, it often doesn’t work as well, and in some situations may make things worse,” he said. “The issue may be that giving lipids increases absorption of drug from the stomach and intestines, which can be dangerous when the patient took an overdose of pills.”
 

Low level of evidence

The guidelines were compiled by the Critical Poisoning Writing Group, which includes experts from emergency medicine, pediatrics, medical toxicology, pharmacology, critical care, emergency medical services, education, research, and nursing. Group members were appointed by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and were approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee.

First and foremost, the group recommends timely consultation with a medical toxicologist, a clinical toxicologist, or a regional poison center to facilitate rapid, effective therapy, because treatment of cardiac arrest and toxicity from poisoning often requires treatments that most clinicians don’t use frequently.

Other key points include the following:

• Naloxone administration may reverse respiratory arrest due to opioid overdose, preventing progression to cardiac arrest.
• Give high-dose insulin therapy early in the treatment of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning, Dr. Lavonas noted.
• Standard advanced life support plus sodium bicarbonate is appropriate for life-threatening dysrhythmias caused by cocaine or other sodium channel blockers.
• If cyanide poisoning is suspected, clinicians should not wait for confirmatory testing; treatment should begin immediately with hydroxocobalamin (preferred) or sodium nitrite plus sodium thiosulfate.
• Digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments can reverse life-threatening dysrhythmias from digoxin poisoning.
• Use of 20% intravenous lipid emulsion can be efficacious in the resuscitation of life-threatening local anesthetic toxicity, especially from bupivacaine, Dr. Lavonas indicated.
• Sedation is recommended for patients with severe agitation from sympathomimetic poisoning to manage hyperthermia and acidosis, prevent rhabdomyolysis and injury, and allow evaluation for other life-threatening conditions.
• Although flumazenil reverses central nervous system and respiratory depression from benzodiazepine poisoning, risks and contraindications, provided in the guidelines, limit its use.
• VA-ECMO can be lifesaving for patients with cardiogenic shock or dysrhythmias that are refractory to other treatments.

“Unfortunately, despite improvements in the design and funding support for resuscitation research, the overall certainty of the evidence base for resuscitation science and management of critical poisoning is low,” the group acknowledges.

Of the 73 guideline recommendations, only 2 are supported by level A evidence; 3 are supported by level B-randomized evidence, 12 by level B-nonrandomized evidence, and the rest by level C evidence.

“Accordingly, the strength of recommendations is weaker than optimal,” they write. “Clinical trials in resuscitation and the management of critical poisoning are sorely needed.”
 

‘Don’t go it alone!’

“Most critical poisonings are pretty uncommon, and each patient is different,” Dr. Lavonas said. “Even in the emergency department or ICU, most physicians will treat a patient who is critically ill with any given poison less than once a year. The antidotes and medication doses needed to effectively treat these patients are often very different than everyday medical practice.

“Don’t try to go it alone!” he urges. “Poisoning cases are complex, and the treatments work best when they are implemented quickly and assertively. A toxicologist can help sort through complex situations and get effective treatment started without delay.”

Every certified poison center has a medical toxicologist or clinical toxicologist on call 24/7 to give advice to physicians and hospitals about patients who are critically ill after being poisoned, he added. “Everyone in the U.S. has access to a poison center by calling one number: 1-800-222-1222.”

Dr. Lavonas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The American Heart Association has released a focused update on managing patients with cardiac arrest or life-threatening toxicity due to poisoning.

The update reflects treatment advances and new knowledge, including the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for patients whose condition is refractory to poison antidotes and other therapies.

The new guidelines are designed primarily for North American health care professionals who treat adults and children who are critically ill because of poisoning, including intentional and unintentional drug overdose, chemical exposure, and drug-drug interactions, the authors note.

Published online in Circulation, the update was endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
 

‘Nearly miraculous’

“It’s been 13 years since the poisoning treatment guidelines had a comprehensive update,” lead author Eric J. Lavonas, MD, professor of emergency medicine at Denver Health and the Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Colo., told this news organization. “In that time, we’ve learned a lot about how to best use antidotes and other treatments to save the most critically poisoned patients.”

Highlighting a few key points from the update, he said, “For those rare situations when antidotes aren’t enough, the new guidelines include the use of heart-lung machines (VA-ECMO) for patients with beta-blocker, calcium channel blocker, or sodium channel blocker poisoning causing cardiogenic shock.”

Furthermore, he said, “High-dose insulin treatment for patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning [also recommended in the update] has really become mainstream. The doses are up to 10 times higher than the amount used to treat diabetic emergencies.

“Some excellent science has shown that giving IV lipid emulsion can save the life of someone with an accidental overdose of local anesthetic medications, particularly bupivacaine,” he added. “The result is sometimes nearly miraculous.

“But when this treatment is extended to poisoning from other medications, it often doesn’t work as well, and in some situations may make things worse,” he said. “The issue may be that giving lipids increases absorption of drug from the stomach and intestines, which can be dangerous when the patient took an overdose of pills.”
 

Low level of evidence

The guidelines were compiled by the Critical Poisoning Writing Group, which includes experts from emergency medicine, pediatrics, medical toxicology, pharmacology, critical care, emergency medical services, education, research, and nursing. Group members were appointed by the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science Subcommittee and were approved by the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee.

First and foremost, the group recommends timely consultation with a medical toxicologist, a clinical toxicologist, or a regional poison center to facilitate rapid, effective therapy, because treatment of cardiac arrest and toxicity from poisoning often requires treatments that most clinicians don’t use frequently.

Other key points include the following:

• Naloxone administration may reverse respiratory arrest due to opioid overdose, preventing progression to cardiac arrest.
• Give high-dose insulin therapy early in the treatment of patients with beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker poisoning, Dr. Lavonas noted.
• Standard advanced life support plus sodium bicarbonate is appropriate for life-threatening dysrhythmias caused by cocaine or other sodium channel blockers.
• If cyanide poisoning is suspected, clinicians should not wait for confirmatory testing; treatment should begin immediately with hydroxocobalamin (preferred) or sodium nitrite plus sodium thiosulfate.
• Digoxin-specific immune antibody fragments can reverse life-threatening dysrhythmias from digoxin poisoning.
• Use of 20% intravenous lipid emulsion can be efficacious in the resuscitation of life-threatening local anesthetic toxicity, especially from bupivacaine, Dr. Lavonas indicated.
• Sedation is recommended for patients with severe agitation from sympathomimetic poisoning to manage hyperthermia and acidosis, prevent rhabdomyolysis and injury, and allow evaluation for other life-threatening conditions.
• Although flumazenil reverses central nervous system and respiratory depression from benzodiazepine poisoning, risks and contraindications, provided in the guidelines, limit its use.
• VA-ECMO can be lifesaving for patients with cardiogenic shock or dysrhythmias that are refractory to other treatments.

“Unfortunately, despite improvements in the design and funding support for resuscitation research, the overall certainty of the evidence base for resuscitation science and management of critical poisoning is low,” the group acknowledges.

Of the 73 guideline recommendations, only 2 are supported by level A evidence; 3 are supported by level B-randomized evidence, 12 by level B-nonrandomized evidence, and the rest by level C evidence.

“Accordingly, the strength of recommendations is weaker than optimal,” they write. “Clinical trials in resuscitation and the management of critical poisoning are sorely needed.”
 

‘Don’t go it alone!’

“Most critical poisonings are pretty uncommon, and each patient is different,” Dr. Lavonas said. “Even in the emergency department or ICU, most physicians will treat a patient who is critically ill with any given poison less than once a year. The antidotes and medication doses needed to effectively treat these patients are often very different than everyday medical practice.

“Don’t try to go it alone!” he urges. “Poisoning cases are complex, and the treatments work best when they are implemented quickly and assertively. A toxicologist can help sort through complex situations and get effective treatment started without delay.”

Every certified poison center has a medical toxicologist or clinical toxicologist on call 24/7 to give advice to physicians and hospitals about patients who are critically ill after being poisoned, he added. “Everyone in the U.S. has access to a poison center by calling one number: 1-800-222-1222.”

Dr. Lavonas has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Diagnosis: Eccrine Poroma

Histopathology demonstrated epidermal thickening, epidermal protrusions, a well-defined mass of tumor cells that extended from the epidermis down to the dermis, and luminal structures. Poroid cells and ovoid nuclei with basophilic cytoplasm also were evident (Figure 1). Dermoscopy showed papillomatous growth, milky-red areas, and dotted vessels (Figure 2). Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) at the spinous layer showed hyporefractile, dark, roundish lumina surrounded by keratinocytes (Figure 3). Based on the histologic, dermoscopic, and RCM findings, our patient was diagnosed with eccrine poroma.

Goldman et al¹ first described poroma in 1956. Poromas, which include eccrine poroma, are a group of benign cutaneous neoplasms arising from the terminal eccrine or apocrine sweat gland ducts.² Histologically, poroid cells appear as cuboidal keratinocytes with monomorphous ovoid nuclei and discrete nucleoli.³ They usually appear as nodules or plaques with colors varying from flesh colored to red, brown, or bluish, and they clinically mimic several benign and malignant skin tumors. The differential diagnosis may include keratoacanthoma, plantar wart, verrucous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. Poromas can be of eccrine or apocrine origin.⁴ They also belong to a broad group of neoplasms, including nodular hidradenomas, clear cell hidradenomas, hidroacanthoma simplex, dermal duct tumors, and hidradenomas.⁵ Four subtypes—poroma, poroid hidradenoma, hidroacanthoma simplex, and dermal duct tumor—have been documented.⁶ Because poromas have nonspecific and variable clinical presentations, they often are misdiagnosed as other skin neoplasms, and differentiation may be difficult. For example, some cases of poroma present with follicular, sebaceous, and/or apocrine differentiation, leading to difficulty in diagnosis.

Characteristic features of eccrine poroma seen on dermoscopy and RCM have the potential to aid in the diagnosis compared to histopathology. Marchetti et al⁷ proposed 4 patterns of characteristic dermoscopic findings. Pattern 1 refers to the classic description with bleeding spots, a structureless yellow appearance, milkyred globules, and branched vessels. Patterns 2 and 3 simulate basal cell carcinoma, dermal nevus, or vascular tumors. Pattern 4 refers to tumors that are large in size and resemble keratinizing neoplasms.⁷ Brugués et al⁸ described poromas with the following RCM findings: an atypical honeycomb shape that was well separated from the normal epithelium, hyporefractile nests with atypical cells, lack of palisading, and dark holes. One study described RCM parameters as cords without palisading, dark holes, prominent vascularization, and abundant stroma—findings that were positively associated with poroma in a univariate analysis. These findings assist in distinguishing poromas from other conditions in the differential diagnosis.⁹

There is a substantial overlap in clinical appearance with malignant conditions, including basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous metastases, and Paget disease; therefore, the use of dermoscopy and RCM may be helpful in the diagnosis and recognition of specific features, as well as the corresponding patterns of poroma. Poromas commonly display vascularized features due to the variability of dermoscopic patterns of eccrine poroma, and further studies are required to establish the specificity of vascularized features.

Acral lesions are more likely to show the classic clinical features of erythema and exophytic growth. A case of a collision tumor with the verrucous changes of poroma, seborrheic keratosis, and viral wart has been described.10 The verrucous changes may lead to misdiagnosis as plantar warts or other neoplasms. Clinicians also should consider conditions that are induced by friction or trauma. In our patient, dermoscopy and RCM aided in the diagnosis of eccrine poroma due to the interference of prominent overlying verrucous changes.

Treatment of poroma is optional. Deeper lesions can be treated with surgical excision, and superficial lesions may be treated with electrosurgical destruction. Our patient was treated with surgical excision followed by repair of the surgical defect with a double V-Y flap.

The Diagnosis: Eccrine Poroma

Histopathology demonstrated epidermal thickening, epidermal protrusions, a well-defined mass of tumor cells that extended from the epidermis down to the dermis, and luminal structures. Poroid cells and ovoid nuclei with basophilic cytoplasm also were evident (Figure 1). Dermoscopy showed papillomatous growth, milky-red areas, and dotted vessels (Figure 2). Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) at the spinous layer showed hyporefractile, dark, roundish lumina surrounded by keratinocytes (Figure 3). Based on the histologic, dermoscopic, and RCM findings, our patient was diagnosed with eccrine poroma.

Goldman et al¹ first described poroma in 1956. Poromas, which include eccrine poroma, are a group of benign cutaneous neoplasms arising from the terminal eccrine or apocrine sweat gland ducts.² Histologically, poroid cells appear as cuboidal keratinocytes with monomorphous ovoid nuclei and discrete nucleoli.³ They usually appear as nodules or plaques with colors varying from flesh colored to red, brown, or bluish, and they clinically mimic several benign and malignant skin tumors. The differential diagnosis may include keratoacanthoma, plantar wart, verrucous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. Poromas can be of eccrine or apocrine origin.⁴ They also belong to a broad group of neoplasms, including nodular hidradenomas, clear cell hidradenomas, hidroacanthoma simplex, dermal duct tumors, and hidradenomas.⁵ Four subtypes—poroma, poroid hidradenoma, hidroacanthoma simplex, and dermal duct tumor—have been documented.⁶ Because poromas have nonspecific and variable clinical presentations, they often are misdiagnosed as other skin neoplasms, and differentiation may be difficult. For example, some cases of poroma present with follicular, sebaceous, and/or apocrine differentiation, leading to difficulty in diagnosis.

Characteristic features of eccrine poroma seen on dermoscopy and RCM have the potential to aid in the diagnosis compared to histopathology. Marchetti et al⁷ proposed 4 patterns of characteristic dermoscopic findings. Pattern 1 refers to the classic description with bleeding spots, a structureless yellow appearance, milkyred globules, and branched vessels. Patterns 2 and 3 simulate basal cell carcinoma, dermal nevus, or vascular tumors. Pattern 4 refers to tumors that are large in size and resemble keratinizing neoplasms.⁷ Brugués et al⁸ described poromas with the following RCM findings: an atypical honeycomb shape that was well separated from the normal epithelium, hyporefractile nests with atypical cells, lack of palisading, and dark holes. One study described RCM parameters as cords without palisading, dark holes, prominent vascularization, and abundant stroma—findings that were positively associated with poroma in a univariate analysis. These findings assist in distinguishing poromas from other conditions in the differential diagnosis.⁹

There is a substantial overlap in clinical appearance with malignant conditions, including basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous metastases, and Paget disease; therefore, the use of dermoscopy and RCM may be helpful in the diagnosis and recognition of specific features, as well as the corresponding patterns of poroma. Poromas commonly display vascularized features due to the variability of dermoscopic patterns of eccrine poroma, and further studies are required to establish the specificity of vascularized features.

Acral lesions are more likely to show the classic clinical features of erythema and exophytic growth. A case of a collision tumor with the verrucous changes of poroma, seborrheic keratosis, and viral wart has been described.10 The verrucous changes may lead to misdiagnosis as plantar warts or other neoplasms. Clinicians also should consider conditions that are induced by friction or trauma. In our patient, dermoscopy and RCM aided in the diagnosis of eccrine poroma due to the interference of prominent overlying verrucous changes.

Treatment of poroma is optional. Deeper lesions can be treated with surgical excision, and superficial lesions may be treated with electrosurgical destruction. Our patient was treated with surgical excision followed by repair of the surgical defect with a double V-Y flap.

The Diagnosis: Eccrine Poroma

Histopathology demonstrated epidermal thickening, epidermal protrusions, a well-defined mass of tumor cells that extended from the epidermis down to the dermis, and luminal structures. Poroid cells and ovoid nuclei with basophilic cytoplasm also were evident (Figure 1). Dermoscopy showed papillomatous growth, milky-red areas, and dotted vessels (Figure 2). Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) at the spinous layer showed hyporefractile, dark, roundish lumina surrounded by keratinocytes (Figure 3). Based on the histologic, dermoscopic, and RCM findings, our patient was diagnosed with eccrine poroma.

Goldman et al¹ first described poroma in 1956. Poromas, which include eccrine poroma, are a group of benign cutaneous neoplasms arising from the terminal eccrine or apocrine sweat gland ducts.² Histologically, poroid cells appear as cuboidal keratinocytes with monomorphous ovoid nuclei and discrete nucleoli.³ They usually appear as nodules or plaques with colors varying from flesh colored to red, brown, or bluish, and they clinically mimic several benign and malignant skin tumors. The differential diagnosis may include keratoacanthoma, plantar wart, verrucous carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma. Poromas can be of eccrine or apocrine origin.⁴ They also belong to a broad group of neoplasms, including nodular hidradenomas, clear cell hidradenomas, hidroacanthoma simplex, dermal duct tumors, and hidradenomas.⁵ Four subtypes—poroma, poroid hidradenoma, hidroacanthoma simplex, and dermal duct tumor—have been documented.⁶ Because poromas have nonspecific and variable clinical presentations, they often are misdiagnosed as other skin neoplasms, and differentiation may be difficult. For example, some cases of poroma present with follicular, sebaceous, and/or apocrine differentiation, leading to difficulty in diagnosis.

Characteristic features of eccrine poroma seen on dermoscopy and RCM have the potential to aid in the diagnosis compared to histopathology. Marchetti et al⁷ proposed 4 patterns of characteristic dermoscopic findings. Pattern 1 refers to the classic description with bleeding spots, a structureless yellow appearance, milkyred globules, and branched vessels. Patterns 2 and 3 simulate basal cell carcinoma, dermal nevus, or vascular tumors. Pattern 4 refers to tumors that are large in size and resemble keratinizing neoplasms.⁷ Brugués et al⁸ described poromas with the following RCM findings: an atypical honeycomb shape that was well separated from the normal epithelium, hyporefractile nests with atypical cells, lack of palisading, and dark holes. One study described RCM parameters as cords without palisading, dark holes, prominent vascularization, and abundant stroma—findings that were positively associated with poroma in a univariate analysis. These findings assist in distinguishing poromas from other conditions in the differential diagnosis.⁹

There is a substantial overlap in clinical appearance with malignant conditions, including basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, cutaneous metastases, and Paget disease; therefore, the use of dermoscopy and RCM may be helpful in the diagnosis and recognition of specific features, as well as the corresponding patterns of poroma. Poromas commonly display vascularized features due to the variability of dermoscopic patterns of eccrine poroma, and further studies are required to establish the specificity of vascularized features.

Acral lesions are more likely to show the classic clinical features of erythema and exophytic growth. A case of a collision tumor with the verrucous changes of poroma, seborrheic keratosis, and viral wart has been described.10 The verrucous changes may lead to misdiagnosis as plantar warts or other neoplasms. Clinicians also should consider conditions that are induced by friction or trauma. In our patient, dermoscopy and RCM aided in the diagnosis of eccrine poroma due to the interference of prominent overlying verrucous changes.

Treatment of poroma is optional. Deeper lesions can be treated with surgical excision, and superficial lesions may be treated with electrosurgical destruction. Our patient was treated with surgical excision followed by repair of the surgical defect with a double V-Y flap.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Use of A1c levels for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in women younger than 50 years may lead to underdiagnosis, owing to the effects of menstrual blood loss on A1c readings, shows the first study of its kind.

The analysis estimates that an additional 17% of undiagnosed women younger than 50 years could be reclassified as having T2D, and that women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was markedly lower than that of men under 50, by a mean of 1.6 mmol/mol.

In a study that will be presented at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), the researchers wanted to investigate whether a contributing factor to late diagnosis of T2D in women under 50 may be the difference in A1c levels due to hemoglobin replacement linked to menstrual blood loss.

The study was published online in Diabetes Therapy. “If the threshold for diagnosis of diabetes ... was lowered by 2 mmol/mol in women under the age of 50, an additional 17% of these women (approximately equivalent to 35,000 women in England and Wales) would be diagnosed with diabetes ... which may contribute to up to 64% of the difference in mortality rates between men/women with diabetes mellitus aged 16-50 years,” the researchers noted.

They added that A1c levels in women under 50 years were found to be consistently lower than those in men, and with A1c levels in women reaching the equivalent of those in men up to 10 years later, this “may result in delayed diagnosis of diabetes mellitus in premenopausal women.”

Noting that the study was observational, senior author Adrian Heald, MD, consultant endocrinologist, Salford (England) Royal NHS Foundation Trust, said that it “may be the case that prediabetes and type 2 diabetes in women are not being spotted because the set point needs to be slightly lower, but a systematic study sampling from the population of at-risk individuals is needed further to our findings.

“We also need to refer back to use of the glucose tolerance test, because A1c has been used for the past 15 years but it is not the gold standard,” added Dr. Heald. “Clinicians have often wondered if patients might be missed with A1c measurement, or even overdiagnosed.”

Lucy Chambers, PhD, from Diabetes UK, acknowledged that the research was valuable but added: “More research on sex differences in thresholds for a type 2 diagnosis is needed to inform any changes to clinical practice. In the meantime, we encourage clinicians to follow the current guidance of not ruling out type 2 diabetes based on a one-off A1c below the diagnostic threshold.”

But in support of greater understanding around the sex differences in A1c diagnostic thresholds, Dr. Chambers added: “Receiving an accurate and timely diagnosis ensures that women get the treatment and support needed to manage their type 2 diabetes and avoid long-term complications, including heart disease, where sex-based inequalities in care already contribute to poorer outcomes for women.” 
 

Effect of A1c reference range on T2D diagnosis and associated CVD

Compared with men, women with T2D have poorer glycemic control; a higher risk for cardiovascular (CV) complications; reduced life expectancy (5.3 years shorter vs. 4.5 years shorter); and a higher risk factor burden, such as obesity and hypertension at diagnosis.

In addition, T2D is a stronger risk factor for CV disease (CVD) in women than in men, and those aged 35-59 years who receive a diagnosis have the highest relative CV death risk across all age and sex groups.

The researchers pointed out that previous studies have observed differences in A1c relative to menopause, and they too found that “A1c levels rose after the age of 50 in women.”

However, they noted that the implication of differing A1c reference ranges on delayed diabetes diagnosis with worsening CV risk profile had not been previously recognized and that their study “[h]ighlights for the first time that, while 1.6 mmol/mol may appear only a small difference in terms of laboratory measurement, at population level this has implications for significant number of premenopausal women.”

The researchers initially observed the trend in local data in Salford, in the northwest of England. “These ... data highlighted that women seemed to be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at an older age, so we wanted to examine what the source of that might be,” study author Mike Stedman, BSc, director, Res Consortium, Andover, England, said in an interview.

Dr. Stedman and his colleagues assessed the sex and age differences of A1c in individuals who had not been diagnosed with diabetes (A1c ≤ 48 mmol/mol [≤ 6.5%]). “We looked at data from other labs [in addition to those in Salford, totaling 938,678 people] to see if this was a local phenomenon. They could only provide more recent data, but these also showed a similar pattern,” he added.

Finally, Dr. Stedman, Dr. Heald, and their colleagues estimated the possible national impact by extrapolating findings based on population data from the UK Office of National Statistics and on National Diabetes Audit data for type 2 diabetes prevalence and related excess mortality. This brought them to the conclusion that T2D would be diagnosed in an additional 17% of women if the threshold were lowered by 2 mmol/mol, to 46 mmol/mol, in women under 50 years.
 

Lower A1c in women under 50 may delay T2D diagnosis by up to 10 years

The analysis found that the median A1c increased with age, with values in women younger than 50 years consistently being 1 mmol/mol lower than values in men. In contrast, A1c values in women over 50 years were equivalent to those in men.

However, at age 50 years, compared with men, A1c in women was found to lag by approximately 5 years. Women under 50 had an A1c distribution that was lower than that of men by an average of 1.6 mmol/mol (4.7% of mean; P < .0001), whereas this difference in individuals aged 50 years or older was less pronounced (P < .0001).

The authors wrote that “an undermeasurement of approximately 1.6 mmol/mol A1c in women may delay their diabetes ... diagnosis by up to 10 years.”

Further analysis showed that, at an A1c of 48 mmol/mol, 50% fewer women than men under the age of 50 could be diagnosed with T2D, whereas only 20% fewer women than men aged 50 years or older could be diagnosed with T2D.

Lowering the A1c threshold for diagnosis of T2D from 48 mmol/mol to 46 mmol/mol in women under 50 led to an estimate that an additional 35,345 undiagnosed women in England could be reclassified as having a T2D diagnosis.

The authors pointed out that “gender difference in adverse cardiovascular risk factors are known to be present prior to the development of [type 2] diabetes” and that “once diagnosed, atherosclerotic CVD prevalence is twice as high in patients with diabetes ... compared to those without a diagnosis.”

Dr. Heald added that there is always the possibility that other factors might be at play and that the work posed questions rather than presented answers.

Taking a pragmatic view, the researchers suggested that “one alternative approach may be to offer further assessment using fasting plasma glucose or oral glucose tolerance testing in those with A1c values of 46 or 47 mmol/mol.”

“In anyone with an early diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, in addition to dietary modification and especially if there is cardiovascular risk, then one might start them on metformin due to the cardiovascular benefits as well as the sugar-lowering effects,” said Dr. Heald, adding that “we certainly don’t want women missing out on metformin that could have huge benefits in the longer term.”

Dr. Stedman and Dr. Heald declared no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Dr. Chambers has declared no conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a striking convergence of veterinary biology and medical science, researchers from the University of Sheffield (England) have unveiled findings that could potentially advance the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers, a condition affecting an estimated 18.6 million people worldwide. The unexpected ingredient in this potentially transformative therapy? Feces from endangered species, sourced from Yorkshire Wildlife Park, Doncaster, England.

The scourge of antibiotic resistance

Diabetic foot ulcers are a significant challenge in health care, not only because of their prevalence but also because of the alarming rise of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Current antibiotic treatments frequently fail, leading to life-altering consequences like amputations and significant health care costs – estimated at one-third of the total direct costs of diabetes care. The critical need for alternative therapies has propelled scientists into a pressing search for novel antimicrobial agents.

A pioneering approach: zoo poo as bioactive goldmine

Led by Professor Graham Stafford, chair of molecular microbiology at the University of Sheffield, the research team began to explore a rather unorthodox resource: the fecal matter of endangered animals like Guinea baboons, lemurs, and Visayan pigs. While such a source might seem surprising at first glance, the rationale becomes clear when considering the nature of bacteriophages.

What are bacteriophages?

Bacteriophages, commonly known as phages, are viruses that selectively target and kill bacteria. Despite being the most prevalent biological entities on Earth, their therapeutic potential has remained largely untapped. What makes bacteriophages particularly interesting is their ability to kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria – a feature making them prime candidates for treating otherwise unmanageable diabetic foot ulcers. (Armstrong DG, et al; Fish R, et al).

Findings and future directions

Professor Stafford and his team discovered that the feces of several endangered animals harbored bacteriophages capable of killing bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics. The findings not only hold promise for a groundbreaking treatment but also provide another compelling reason to conserve endangered species: Their inherent biodiversity might contain cures for a range of infectious diseases.

While research is ongoing and clinical trials have not yet begun, the preliminary results are overwhelmingly promising. Phages isolated from the feces could potentially be incorporated into dressings for ulcers, creating a novel treatment modality that is both effective and cost-saving.

We often look to complex technologies and synthetic materials for medical science breakthroughs, yet sometimes the most innovative solutions can be found in the most overlooked places. In this case, the feces of endangered species could turn out to be a vital asset in battling antibiotic resistance, thus affecting diabetic foot care in ways we never imagined possible.

The research conducted at the University of Sheffield also serves as a powerful argument for a One Health approach – a multidisciplinary field focusing on the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health.

This intriguing work reaffirms the need for an interdisciplinary approach in tackling the world’s pressing health care challenges. The collaborative efforts between the University of Sheffield and Yorkshire Wildlife Park exemplify how academic research and conservation can come together to yield solutions for some of the most devastating and costly health conditions, while also underscoring the invaluable role that biodiversity plays in our collective well-being. Here’s to teaming up to act against amputation worldwide.

Dr. Armstrong is professor of surgery and director of limb preservation at University of Southern California, Los Angeles. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.