Clinician Reviews

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Low-dose aspirin reduces the risk for type 2 diabetes among older adults and slows the increase in fasting glucose levels over time, new research finds.

The data come from a secondary analysis of ASPREE, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of healthy adults aged 65 years or older, showing that 100 mg of aspirin taken daily for about 5 years did not provide a cardiovascular benefit but did significantly raise the risk for bleeding.

This new analysis shows that individuals taking aspirin had a 15% lower risk for developing type 2 diabetes and that the medication slowed the rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose, compared with placebo, during follow-up.

However, lead author Sophia Zoungas, MBBS, PhD, head of the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, said: “Major prescribing guidelines now recommend older adults take daily aspirin only when there is a medical reason to do so, such as after a heart attack. ... Although these new findings are of interest, they do not change the clinical advice about aspirin use in older people at this time.”

Nonetheless, she said in an interview, “at this time, our findings are exploratory but ignite the debate of the important role that anti-inflammatory approaches may play in preventing diabetes. Further work is currently underway to understand which subpopulations may be better targeted and to understand the balance of risk versus benefit.”

The results are scheduled to be presented at the upcoming meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, taking place Oct. 2-6 in Hamburg, Germany.
 

New findings not robust enough to change current practice

Asked to comment, Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, said: “Given the post hoc secondary nature of the analysis, the findings should be considered hypothesis generating and not definitive… At this time, based on prospective randomized studies, the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits for aspirin in older adults.”

Among those studies was an ASPREE substudy showing failure of low-dose aspirin to reduce fracture risk while increasing the risk for serious falls, and two other trials, ARRIVE and ASCEND, also showing that harms of aspirin outweigh the benefits in people with cardiovascular risk but not diabetes, and in those with diabetes, respectively, said Dr. Mukherjee, professor and chair of the department of internal medicine at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center at El Paso.

And, Mukherjee noted, in 2019 the American College of Cardiology updated its practice guidelines to say that low-dose aspirin should not be administered on a routine basis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in adults over age 70. In 2021, the American Diabetes Association seconded that recommendation.

Asked whether these newest findings might change current practice for any higher-risk subgroup, such as people with prediabetes, Dr. Mukherjee replied: “Unless there is a prospective randomized trial that validates these findings in those with prediabetes, the findings should not change practice. There are also no data [showing] that another antiplatelet agent would be indicated or would be beneficial. Instead, I would recommend lifestyle changes including regular exercise and a healthy diet to minimize risk of diabetes.”

The 16,209 ASPREE participants were community dwelling and did not have diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or dementia at baseline. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive 100 mg/d of enteric-coated aspirin or placebo. Over a median follow-up of 4.7 years, the proportions developing type 2 diabetes were 5.7% with aspirin versus 6.6% with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.85; P = .01).

The annual rate of increase in fasting plasma glucose over the follow-up period was slowed by 0.006 mmol/L with aspirin, compared with placebo, also a significant difference (P = .004).

According to Dr. Zoungas, “the potential for anti-inflammatory agents like aspirin to prevent type 2 diabetes or improve glucose levels needs further study.”

The ASPREE trial was supported by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Monash University, and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Dr. Zoungas and Dr. Mukherjee have no disclosures.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Crippling symptoms, lost careers, and eroded incomes: This is the harsh reality for doctors suffering with long COVID, according to the first major survey of physicians with the condition.

The survey, conducted by the British Medical Association and the Long COVID Doctors for Action support group, sheds light on the lingering effects of long COVID on more than 600 chronically ill and disabled doctors with the condition. It also spotlights what they describe as a lack of medical and financial support from their government and employers at the National Health Service.

“We feel betrayed and abandoned,” said Kelly Fearnley, MBChB, chair and cofounder of Long COVID Doctors for Action. “At a time of national crisis, when health care workers were asked to step up, we did. When the nation needed us, we stepped up. We put our lives on the line. We put our families’ lives on the line. And now that we are injured after knowingly being unprotected and deliberately and repeatedly exposed to a level 3 biohazard, we now find ourselves in this position.”

Dr. Fearnley fell ill while working in a hospital’s COVID ward in November 2020. She is one of an estimated 2 million people in the United Kingdom – including thousands of NHS employees – with long COVID. She hasn’t been able to return to work in nearly 3 years.

Long COVID affects more than 65 million people worldwide. It is estimated that 1 in 10 people infected with the virus develop long-term symptoms. In the United Kingdom, health care and social care workers are seven times more likely to have had severe COVID-19 than other types of employees.

Doctors responding to the BMA survey reported a wide range of long COVID symptoms, including fatigue, headaches, muscular pain, nerve damage, joint pain, and respiratory problems.

Among the survey’s key findings, 60% of doctors said long COVID has affected their ability to carry out day-to-day tasks on a regular basis. Almost one in five (18%) said they were no longer able to work, while fewer than one in three (31%) were working full time. This compares with more than half (57%) of respondents working full time before the onset of their COVID illness – a decline of 46%.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents said they have experienced some form of loss of earnings as a result of long COVID, and almost half of the doctors were never referred to an NHS long COVID clinic. The survey included the following first-person accounts from doctors living with the condition.

• One doctor said: “I nearly lost my life, my home, my partner and my career. I have received little support to help keep these. The impact on my mental health nearly cost [me] my life again.”
• A senior consulting physician commented: “Life is absolutely miserable. Every day is a struggle. I wake up exhausted, the insomnia and night terrors are horrendous as I live through my worst fears every night. Any activity such as eating meals, washing, etc., will mean I have to go to bed for a few hours. I am unable to look after myself or my child, exercise or maintain social relationships. I have no financial security. Long COVID has totally destroyed my life.”
• A salaried general practitioner said: “I can no longer work, finances are ruined. I didn’t have employment protection so am now unemployed and penniless.”

Calls for action from the BMA include the following:

• Financial support for doctors and health care staff with long COVID.
• The recognition of long COVID as an occupational disease among health care workers, along with a definition of the condition that covers all of the debilitating disease’s symptoms.
• Improved access to physical and mental health services to help comprehensive assessment, investigations, and treatment.
• Greater workplace protection for health care staff who risk their lives for others.
• Better support for long COVID sufferers to return to work safely if they can, including a flexible approach to the use of workplace adjustments.

“One would think, given the circumstances under which we fell ill and current workforce shortages, NHS employers would be eager to do everything to facilitate the return to work of people with long COVID,” said Dr. Fearnley. “However, NHS employers are legally required to implement only ‘reasonable adjustments,’ and so things such as extended phased return or adjustments to shift patterns are not always being facilitated. Instead, an increasing number of employers are choosing to terminate contracts.”

Raymond Agius, the BMA’s occupational medicine committee cochair, also put the blame on inadequate safety measures for doctors. Those inadequate measures persist to this day, inasmuch as U.K. hospitals have dropped masking requirements.

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, doctors were left exposed and unprotected at work,” he said in a BMA press release. “They often did not have access to the right PPE. ... Too many risk assessments of workplaces and especially of vulnerable doctors were not undertaken.”

A small minority of doctors who were surveyed said they had access to respiratory protective equipment about the time they contracted COVID-19. Only 11% had access to an FFP2 respirator (the equivalent of an N95 mask); 16% had an FFP3 respirator (the equivalent of an N99 mask).

To date, the British government hasn’t issued much of a response to the survey, saying only that it has invested more than ₤50 million to better understand long COVID.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Researchers in France are warning against the overzealous use of acid-suppressing drugs in infants after finding that the medications are associated with an increase in risk of serious infections later in life.

The focus on the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) during infancy comes as use of the drugs in young children is rising in France, New Zealand, Scandinavia, and the United States. Much of this use is not to manage confirmed cases of gastroesophageal reflux but rather to soothe the jangled nerves of parents of babies in discomfort, according to the researchers, who have studied national prescribing patterns. In addition to concerns about infection, inappropriate or prolonged use of the acid suppressants is also associated with an increase in the risk of such conditions as hospital-acquired acute kidney injury and inflammatory bowel diseases in children.

PPIs such as omeprazole are effective at reducing gastric acid in babies with gastroesophageal reflux disease. But the researchers warned against using the drugs to manage normal spitting up and dribbling that would have resolved of itself anyway.

“In this study, increased risk of serious infections was associated with PPI use in young children, overall and for various sites and pathogens. In this population, PPIs should not be used without a clear indication,” epidemiologist Marion Lassalle, PharmD, PhD, of EPI-PHARE in Saint-Denis, France, and colleagues reported in JAMA Pediatrics.

Drawing on data from a national birth registry, Dr. Lassalle and colleagues compared infection rates among more than 1.2 million infants who received a PPI at an average age of 88 days with infection rates among children who received another kind of acid suppressant (a histamine receptor blocker or antacid) at an average age of 82 days. More than 600,000 children made up each group.

Slightly over half of the participants were boys, and the study followed children to a maximum age of 9 years. Among children who used PPIs rather than another acid suppressant, there was an overall higher rate of serious infections that required hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.36). There were higher rates of infections in the digestive tract; the ear, nose, and throat; the kidneys or urinary tract; the lower respiratory tract; and the nervous system.

Serious infections first appeared 9.7 (range, 3.9-21.3) months after a child stopped using a PPI – a date that Dr. Lassalle’s group determined on the basis of there being a delay of at least 90 days in filling a PPI prescription.
 

Possible confounders

“The study shows an association, it does not show causation,” said Rina Sanghavi, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Dr. Sanghavi noted that the children who continued taking PPIs generally were sicker in their first year of life, as shown by the higher rates of respiratory ailments and corticosteroid use. This could mean that the infections they eventually experienced had many causes and not necessarily the PPI.

Similarly, pediatric gastroenterologist Sophia Patel, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, pointed to the almost 10-month average lag time between stopping a PPI and developing a first serious infection. That interval is long enough that it is possible that the infection was caused by something else, Dr. Patel said.

Despite the limitations of the study, Dr. Sanghavi and Dr. Patel said the findings serve as a good reminder to clinicians to use PPIs only when needed and to limit their use once begun. The overall evidence base for limiting use of PPIs is strong, both physicians noted, even if this study does not show direct causation between PPI use and infection rates.

“Ask: Does this child need a PPI?” Dr. Sanghavi said. If so, she generally prescribes PPIs for a period of 2 weeks to a maximum of 2 months and she never authorizes automatic refills. Through this approach, a parent and child will come back to the clinic frequently, which in most cases allows faster tapering of the drugs.

Dr. Lassalle, Dr. Sanghavi, and Dr. Patel reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization have dubbed the BA 2.86 variant of COVID-19 as a variant to watch. 

So far, only 26 cases of “Pirola,” as the new variant is being called, have been identified: 10 in Denmark, four each in Sweden and the United States, three in South Africa, two in Portugal, and one each the United Kingdom, Israel, and Canada. BA 2.86 is a subvariant of Omicron, but according to reports from the CDC, the strain has many more mutations than the ones that came before it. 

With so many facts still unknown about this new variant, this news organization asked experts what people need to be aware of as it continues to spread.
 

What is unique about the BA 2.86 variant? 

“It is unique in that it has more than three mutations on the spike protein,” said Purvi S. Parikh, MD, an infectious disease expert at New York University’s Langone Health. The virus uses the spike proteins to enter our cells. 

This “may mean it will be more transmissible, cause more severe disease, and/or our vaccines and treatments may not work as well, as compared to other variants,” she said.
 

What do we need to watch with BA 2.86 going forward? 

“We don’t know if this variant will be associated with a change in the disease severity. We currently see increased numbers of cases in general, even though we don’t yet see the BA.2.86 in our system,” said Heba Mostafa, PhD, director of the molecular virology laboratory at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. 

“It is important to monitor BA.2.86 (and other variants) and understand how its evolution impacts the number of cases and disease outcomes,” she said. “We should all be aware of the current increase in cases, though, and try to get tested and be treated as soon as possible, as antivirals should be effective against the circulating variants.” 
 

What should doctors know?

Dr. Parikh said doctors should generally expect more COVID cases in their clinics and make sure to screen patients even if their symptoms are mild.

“We have tools that can be used – antivirals like Paxlovid are still efficacious with current dominant strains such as EG.5,” she said. “And encourage your patients to get their boosters, mask, wash hands, and social distance.”
 

How well can our vaccines fight BA 2.86?

“Vaccine coverage for the BA.2.86 is an area of uncertainty right now,” said Dr. Mostafa. 

In its report, the CDC said scientists are still figuring out how well the updated COVID vaccine works. It’s expected to be available in the fall, and for now, they believe the new shot will still make infections less severe, new variants and all. 

Prior vaccinations and infections have created antibodies in many people, and that will likely provide some protection, Dr. Mostafa said. “When we experienced the Omicron wave in December 2021, even though the variant was distant from what circulated before its emergence and was associated with a very large increase in the number of cases, vaccinations were still protective against severe disease.” 
 

What is the most important thing to keep track of when it comes to this variant?

According to Dr. Parikh, “it’s most important to monitor how transmissible [BA 2.86] is, how severe it is, and if our current treatments and vaccines work.” 

Dr. Mostafa said how well the new variants escape existing antibody protection should also be studied and watched closely. 
 

What does this stage of the virus mutation tell us about where we are in the pandemic?

The history of the coronavirus over the past few years shows that variants with many changes evolve and can spread very quickly, Dr. Mostafa said. “Now that the virus is endemic, it is essential to monitor, update vaccinations if necessary, diagnose, treat, and implement infection control measures when necessary.”

With the limited data we have so far, experts seem to agree that while the variant’s makeup raises some red flags, it is too soon to jump to any conclusions about how easy it is to catch it and the ways it may change how the virus impacts those who contract it.
 

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Adolescents and young adults who smoked and vaped were more likely to report ocular problems including dryness, redness, pain, blurry vision, light sensitivity, and headaches, according to an observational study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.

Eye symptoms were significantly worse among young people who reported using both cigarettes and e-cigarettes than for those who said they used only one of the products, according to researchers. Symptoms were particularly frequent and severe among those who had used both products in the prior week. 

“In ophthalmology clinics, I’ve increasingly noticed patients, particularly adolescents and young adults, presenting with eye-related symptoms such as dryness, irritation, and even vision disturbances,” said Anne Xuan-Lan Nguyen, MDCM, an ophthalmology resident at the University of Toronto, who led the study. 

Many of these patients said they did not use contact lenses or take medications associated with eye problems, but they did report a history of using e-cigarettes and cigarettes. 

This “sparked my curiosity about the possible link between smoking or vaping and ocular symptoms,” Dr. Nguyen, who conducted the research as a medical student at McGill University in Montreal, told this news organization. 

E-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among young people. Public health data show an increasing trend toward both vaping and smoking cigarettes, known as dual use. An estimated 40% of middle- and high school–aged tobacco users report using two or more tobacco products, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cigarette use has been linked to ocular damage, but the effects of e-cigarettes on eyesight and the combined effect with cigarettes are not as well known. 

Dr. Nguyen and her colleagues surveyed more than 4,000 people aged 13-24 about their use of cigarettes or e-cigarettes in the last 30 days, the last 7 days, or ever. Half said they had never used any tobacco product and one quarter reported having used cigarettes, vapes, or both in the last month. More than 900 respondents said they had used one or both tobacco products in the last week. 

Of the respondents who had ever vaped, 55.9% said they also used cigarettes. These dual users reported more severe and frequent eye symptoms compared with users of either product alone. Up to 4% of respondents who had ever been a dual user reported daily, severe, or very severe ocular symptoms – more than in the cigarette-only or e-cigarette-only groups. 

More frequent tobacco use also was associated with more ocular symptoms. Young people who smoked or vaped in the previous week reported more symptoms than did the 30-day group, who reported more symptoms than the ever-user group (those who had taken at least a puff but not in the last month).

“All these conditions we know are worse as you get older,” said Laura B. Enyedi, MD, pediatric ophthalmologist at the Duke Eye Center in Durham, N.C., who was not associated with the study. “So if young people are having symptoms, it doesn’t bode well for them as they age.”

E-cigarette use alone did not appear to be linked to eye ailments, according to the findings. But to Dr. Nguyen’s surprise the survey results showed users of vaping products spent the most time worried about their eye health compared with all other participants. Users who smoked only cigarettes reported ocular symptoms, but not as severe or frequent as those of dual users. 

The researchers hypothesized that ocular problems caused by vapes and cigarettes could be classified as oxidative damage. The combustion of the cigarette and the e-cigarette solvent (propylene glycol) potentially generates free radicals that can cause oxidative stress, damaging the ocular surface and film, Dr. Nguyen said. 

Ophthalmologists are “always asking about contact lens use, lid hygiene, and screen time. Here’s another thing to consider when we get those common, nonspecific complaints of symptoms like dryness, redness, and burning,” Dr. Enyedi said.

Given the observational nature of the study, the researchers cannot confirm that dual use causes ocular symptoms. But given the public health challenge that tobacco use already presents for young people, the findings provide yet another reason to counsel against tobacco use and provide cessation options, Dr. Nguyen said. 

“This study is just one of many, many studies showing a significant relationship among smoking, e-cigarette use, and health outcomes,” said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD, professor of pediatrics at Stanford (Calif.) University and a coauthor of the study. “We clearly need to help young people not use at all, or quit or cut back if using.” 

This study was supported by the Taube Research Faculty Scholar Endowment; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the Food and Drug Administration Center for Tobacco Products; the National Cancer Institute; the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; and the Research to Prevent Blindness and National Eye Institute. Dr. Halpern-Felsher reported receiving personal fees as an expert scientist in litigation against some e-cigarette companies. The other study authors and Dr. Enyedi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A year after celebrating the approval of the first treatment for repigmentation of vitiligo, dermatologists describe how topical ruxolitinib has advanced the outlook for patients with the disease and what’s next in the pipeline.

The Food and Drug Administration approved the cream formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), a JAK inhibitor, for repigmentation of nonsegmental vitiligo in July 2022 for people aged 12 years and older.

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that he likes to use ruxolitinib cream in combination with other treatments.

Dr. Chovatiya

“In the real world with vitiligo patients, we’re oftentimes doing combinatorial therapy anyway. So phototherapy, specifically, narrow-band UVB, is something that we have a lot of clinical evidence for over the years, and it’s a modality that can combine with topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.”

He said trials to study combinations will yield better guidance on optimal use of ruxolitinib cream. “In general, vitiligo patients can really benefit from phototherapy,” he said in an interview. (Labeling recommends against combination with other JAK inhibitors, biologics, or potent immunosuppressants, such as azathioprine or cyclosporine.)

This first year has shown that ruxolitinib is an effective option, but counseling patients to expect slow improvement is important so that patients stick with it, he noted.

Documenting what treatments patients with vitiligo have used before is important, he said, as is counseling patients that ruxolitinib is approved only for use on up to 10% of a person’s body surface area. (Product labeling recommends that a thin layer be applied twice a day to affected areas up to 10% of body surface area.)

Ruxolitinib has brought a “louder voice” to vitiligo and has opened up options for patients with the disease, Dr. Chovatiya said. “Having the ability to topically treat people who have very extensive disease really gives us a lot more flexibility than we have had before.”
 

Good experiences with payers at safety-net hospital

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said that real-world experience with topical ruxolitinib will be more evident after its been on the market for 18-24 months.

Dr. Heath said she, too, encourages use of narrow-band UVB phototherapy in conjunction with the treatment.

From an insurance reimbursement standpoint, she said that she is glad that there have been fewer hurdles in getting ruxolitinib to patients than she has experienced with other medications.

In her safety-net hospital, she told this news organization, she sees patients with many types of insurance, but most have Medicaid. “So, I’m always expecting the step therapies, denials, pushbacks, etc.,” she said. But the path has been smoother for ruxolitinib coverage, she noted.

Her colleagues are committed to documenting everything the patient has tried, she added, and that helps with prior authorization.

Dr. Heath said that pointing out to insurers that ruxolitinib is the only approved treatment for repigmentation helps facilitate coverage.

“The science is advancing, and I’m happy to be practicing during a time when we actually have something approved for vitiligo,” she said. But she pointed out that phototherapy often is not covered for vitiligo, “which is horrible, when it is readily approved for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis.”

To document progress, Dr. Heath said that she always takes photographs of her patients with vitiligo because “the pictures remind us how far we have come.”
 

Data spotlight success in adolescents

Data from two trials give a clinical picture of the drug’s safety and efficacy in younger patients.

Adolescents had particularly good results in the first year with ruxolitinib, according to pooled phase 3 data from TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2, this news organization reported.

The findings, presented at the 25th World Congress of Dermatology in Singapore, indicate that more than half of the participants achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in the total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (T-VASI50) at 52 weeks.

The percentages of young patients aged 12-17 years taking twice-daily ruxolitinib who achieved T-VASI 50 at weeks 12, 24, and 52 were 11.5%, 26.9%, and 57.7%, respectively. The corresponding percentages for all in the study population were 10.7%, 22.7%, and 44.4%, respectively.

At the meeting, the presenter, Julien Seneschal, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and head of the vitiligo and pigmentary disorders clinic at the University of Bordeaux, France, said, “This suggests that younger patients can respond better to the treatment.” He noted, however, that there were few adolescents in the studies.
 

New excitement in the field

Daniel Gutierrez, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at New York University, said the treatment has brought new excitement to the field.

“Patients with vitiligo are very motivated to treat their disease,” he said, because it typically is on the face and other highly visual areas, which can affect their overall perception of self.

NYU Langone Health

Previously, he noted in an interview, the only FDA-approved treatment was monobenzone, but that was for depigmentation rather than repigmentation.

Otherwise, treatments were being used off label, and patients were receiving compounded formulations that often weren’t covered by insurance and often had shorter shelf life.

He said that he still occasionally gets denials from payers who consider vitiligo a cosmetic condition.

“I’ve had more luck with insurance, at least in the New York State area.” He added that sometimes payers require use of a topical calcineurin inhibitor for about 12 weeks before they will cover ruxolitinib.

Dr. Gutierrez also recommends using phototherapy with topical ruxolitinib “because they work on slightly different pathways.”

When he starts patients on a new therapy such as ruxolitinib, he asks them to come back in 3 months, and often by then, progress is evident. Facial areas show the most response, he said, while hands and feet are less likely to show significant improvement.

He said that it’s important for physicians and patients to know that improvements can take weeks or months to be noticeable. “I tell patients not to give up,” he added.

Showing the patients pictures from the current appointment and comparing them with pictures from previous appointments can help them better understand their progress, he said.
 

Lead investigator adds observations

David Rosmarin, MD, chair of the department of dermatology at Indiana University, Indianapolis, was the lead investigator of the pivotal TruE-V1 and TruE-V2 trials for vitiligo. In that role, he has been treating vitiligo patients with topical ruxolitinib since 2015.

In an interview, he said that many patients “don’t hit their optimal results at 3 months, 6 months, even the year mark. With continued use, many can see continued benefit.”

Other patients, he said, don’t respond within the first 6 months but with continued use may eventually respond, he said.

“Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing, based on clinical characteristics or baseline demographics, whether a patient will be a delayed responder or not or an early responder,” Dr. Rosmarin added.

He provided several observations about people who have stopped taking the medication.

“When people stop,” he said, “some maintain their response, but some start to depigment again. Again, we have no way of predicting who will be in which category.”

He said that once patients have hit their desired response, he usually advises them to taper down to maybe twice a week or to stop treatment, but if they see any recurrence, they should start reusing the medicine.

“We have some patients who have gone 6 or 7 years now before they had a recurrence, but others may start to depigment again in 2 to 3 months,” Dr. Rosmarin said.

As for phototherapy, he said, the combination with topical ruxolitinib is being studied.

“We think the combination is synergistic and better than either alone, but we’re still waiting for data to prove that,” he said.

In his practice, he offers patients the option either to use just ruxolitinib cream or the combination early on. Many patients, because of convenience, say they’ll first try the cream to see if that works.

“The challenge with light [therapy] is that it can be very inconvenient,” he said. Patients have to live close to a phototherapy unit to receive therapy 2-3 times a week or have a phototherapy product in their home.
 

Next in the pipeline

Experts say the progress doesn’t stop with ruxolitinib cream. Current trials of several medications show there’s more to come for patients with vitiligo.

Dr. Chovatiya said that next up may be oral ritlecitinib (Litfulo), a JAK inhibitor that was approved for severe alopecia areata in June for people aged 12 years and older. Phase 2 results have been published for its use with vitiligo.

“This would be an oral medication that may be able to help people with much more extensive disease as far as vitiligo goes,” he said, adding that he expects approval for a vitiligo indication within a few years.

He pointed out that longer-term safety data will be available because it is already on the market for alopecia.

Upadacitinib (Rinvoq), an oral JAK inhibitor, is approved for atopic dermatitis but is being studied for vitiligo as well, he noted. “I’m very excited to see what that holds for patients as well,” Dr. Chovatiya said.

Dr. Gutierrez said that he is excited about oral JAK inhibitors but sees potential in finding new ways to transplant melanocytes into areas where there are none.

The pigmentation field has seen new energy since last year’s approval, he said, particularly among people of color.

“We have new options for vitiligo that were lacking compared with other conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis,” he said. “Hopefully, there will be more promising breakthroughs.”

Dr. Rosmarin is the chief investigator for the pivotal trials that led to FDA approval of ruxolitinib. He disclosed ties with AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Galderma, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and Viela Bio. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed ties with AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Argenx, Beiersdorf, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EPI Health, Incyte, LEO Pharma, L’Oréal, National Eczema Association, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB. Dr. Heath and Dr. Gutierrez report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The glucose-lowering drug class sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors appear to reduce the risk for recurrent gout flares in people with gout and type 2 diabetes, and to lessen excess mortality in those individuals, compared with those who initiated other types of glucose-lowering medications, new data suggest.

Among nearly 6,000 adults with both type 2 diabetes and gout from a U.K. primary care database, initiation of SGLT2 inhibitor treatment was associated with 19% fewer recurrent gout flares and 29% lower mortality.

Moreover, unlike other urate-lowering therapies, there were no apparent transient increases in the risk of gout flares after initiating therapy, Jie Wei, PhD, of Health Management Center, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and colleagues reported in JAMA Network Open.

These results are important because current management of gout is suboptimal. Many patients either don’t receive adequate urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol or stop taking them, Dr. Wei and colleagues said.

In addition to lowering glucose, SGLT2 inhibitors also reduce the risk for major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in people regardless of their diabetes status. Previous studies have also found that SGLT2 inhibitors reduce the risk for developing gout and of gout flares.

Asked to comment, gout specialist John D. FitzGerald, MD, PhD, clinical chief of rheumatology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview: “I think it’s a well-done paper, with a large dataset. I think it just reinforces the findings from the other papers. Mostly anything that lowers uric acid levels is going to lower recurrent gout attacks, so it all makes sense.”

However, while Dr. FitzGerald thinks the drug class is a good option for people with diabetes or cardiorenal indications for them who also have gout, he doesn’t envision it as first-line for most other patients with gout. “The current treatments are very effective. Allopurinol brings down uric acid levels by 5-7 points. There are patients who fail allopurinol, but those are less than 5%.”

The most common reason patients stop taking allopurinol is the frequent initial gout flare. But that’s preventable, Dr. FitzGerald said, either by titrating up slowly, or by adding colchicine along with it. “By going slowly, you can avoid that flare risk. I think that’s what’s going on with the SGLT2 inhibitor. It’s not a dramatic urate-lowering drug, but it is clinically meaningful. I think that’s what this paper is showing.”

But, he noted, “I think there are so many reasons to start the SGLT2 inhibitors that if somebody also has gout, all the better. And, if somebody is on the margin with diabetes and gout control and can’t go with allopurinol, it would be great to add for both conditions.”

Less gout recurrence, lower mortality

The retrospective study was conducted from Jan. 1, 2013, to March 31, 2022. Among 5,931 patients with both type 2 diabetes and gout, 1,548 (26.1%) initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin, empagliflozin, or canagliflozin), while 4,383 (73.9%) initiated treatment with other active comparators, mostly (92.6%) dipeptidyl peptidase–4 inhibitors.

Gout flares were identified in the charts for a total of 86% of the participants. The weighted incidence rates for the first recurrent flare were 32.4 versus 41.2 per 1,000 person-years in the SGLT2 inhibitor versus comparator groups, with a weighted absolute rate difference of –8.8/1,000 and weighted hazard ratio of 0.81, a significant difference.

All-cause mortality was 18.8 versus 24.9 per 1,000 person-years, respectively, giving an HR of 0.71 at 5-year follow-up.

Dr. FitzGerald, who chaired the American College of Rheumatology’s 2020 gout guidelines, said he anticipates that the SGLT2 inhibitors will be mentioned in the next update to the ACR’s now “living” guidelines, although he was not speaking on the organization’s behalf.

“We talk about losartan in the current [ACR guidelines], about its specific uric acid–lowering effect. Drugs can make uric acid worse or better. For example, thiazides make it higher. I think the SGLT2 [inhibitors] are important, but I don’t think they’re huge. The study is great, and I think the drugs are great, but I don’t think they will change the way gout is managed.”

This work was supported by grants from the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, and from the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province. Dr. Wei reported receiving grant funding from Xiangya Hospital Central South University Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders and the Science and Technology Department of Hunan Province, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, during the conduct of the study. Dr. FitzGerald reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea specifically predicted Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a new study.

Early detection of these conditions might help identify patients at risk for PD, potentially prompting preventive strategies, the researchers suggest.

The results of previous experimental studies by the team supported the Braak hypothesis, which states that idiopathic PD originates in the gut in a subset of patients. However, no previous study had investigated a broad range of gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes that might occur prior to a PD diagnosis.

Given their preclinical work, the authors were not surprised to find that certain GI syndromes were specifically associated with PD, even when compared with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), principal author Pankaj Jay Pasricha, MBBS, MD, of Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, said in an interview. However, they were “impressed by the strength of the associations.”

“Experts have known for a very long time that constipation is a potential risk factor for PD, so this study adds to the list of GI conditions that could potentially be risk factors,” he said.

The study was published online in Gut.
 

Studies converge

To determine the incidence of GI syndromes and interventions preceding PD, the investigators performed a combined case-control and cohort study using a U.S.-based nationwide medical record network.

First, they compared 24,624 individuals with new-onset idiopathic PD with the same number of matched negative controls (NCs), as well as 19,046 people with AD and 23,942 with CVD to investigate the presence of preexisting GI conditions, which the researchers referred to as “exposures.” Overall, the mean age was about 70, and about half of those studied were women.

Eighteen conditions covering the entire GI tract were investigated. These included achalasia, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, paralytic ileus, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with and without diarrhea, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fecal incontinence, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and microscopic colitis, as well as appendectomy and vagotomy.

All GI syndromes were significantly increased in the PD group, compared with NCs (odds ratio > 1). However, only preexisting dysphagia (OR, 3.58), gastroparesis (OR, 4.64), functional dyspepsia (OR, 3.39), intestinal pseudo-obstruction (OR, 3.01), diarrhea (OR, 2.85), constipation (OR, 3.32), IBS with constipation (OR, 4.11), IBS with diarrhea (OR, 4.31), IBS without diarrhea (OR, 3.53), and fecal incontinence (OR, 3.76) produced ORs that were numerically greater than the upper limit of the negative exposures.

In addition, only gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS with constipation, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation were specific for PD, compared with the AD and CVD groups (OR > 1). After correction for false discovery rate, though, gastroparesis and constipation did not remain significantly different, compared with the AD and CVD groups.

Other preexisting GI conditions not only were significantly associated with PD but also showed strong associations with the AD and CVD groups.

To validate the case-control analyses, the team set up a complementary cohort study. Eighteen cohorts – each diagnosed with one of the GI conditions in the case-control analysis – were compared with their respective NC cohorts for the prospective risk of developing PD, AD, or CVD within 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation showed specific associations with PD versus NCs, AD, and CVD in the cohort analysis. Their relative risks versus NCs were 2.43, 2.27, 1.17, and 2.38, respectively.

Functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not PD specific, but IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed PD specificity in both the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort analyses (RR, 1.84).

Appendectomy decreased the risk for PD in the cohort analysis (RR, 0.48), but neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with PD.

“This study is the first to establish substantial observational evidence that the clinical diagnosis of not only constipation but also dysphagia, gastroparesis, and IBS without diarrhea might specifically predict the development of PD, whereas other exposures were less specific,” the researchers wrote.

However, Dr. Pasricha said, “there is no need for alarm.” Clinicians should reassure patients that “the overall risk for developing PD is low. The overwhelming majority of patients with these GI conditions will never develop PD.”

His team will be doing experimental work on the biological mechanisms that might explain the current study’s findings. “In addition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has issued a call for proposals to perform research in patients that could help understand these associations better,” he said.
 

Body or brain?

The Parkinson’s Foundation’s National Medical Advisor, Michael S. Okun, MD, called the study “fascinating.”

The findings “confirm many other studies showing that GI symptoms can precede a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Although the study was designed to test the Braak hypothesis, “the dataset really cannot confirm or refute Braak pathology, which can only be accomplished with comparison to postmortem samples,” he added.

“The raging debate in the field of body-first versus brain-first Parkinson’s may be somewhat artificial, especially if we consider that Parkinson’s is not one disease,” Dr. Okun noted. “It will take clinical data, pathology, and the collaboration of many researchers to solve the puzzle.”

“The Foundation continues to monitor all the advancements in the ‘gut’ Parkinson field,” he said. “We do not recommend at this time changing the approach to clinical care based on this data.”

No funding or competing interests were declared. Dr. Okun declared no relevant disclosures.

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

Dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea specifically predicted Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a new study.

Early detection of these conditions might help identify patients at risk for PD, potentially prompting preventive strategies, the researchers suggest.

The results of previous experimental studies by the team supported the Braak hypothesis, which states that idiopathic PD originates in the gut in a subset of patients. However, no previous study had investigated a broad range of gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes that might occur prior to a PD diagnosis.

Given their preclinical work, the authors were not surprised to find that certain GI syndromes were specifically associated with PD, even when compared with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), principal author Pankaj Jay Pasricha, MBBS, MD, of Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, said in an interview. However, they were “impressed by the strength of the associations.”

“Experts have known for a very long time that constipation is a potential risk factor for PD, so this study adds to the list of GI conditions that could potentially be risk factors,” he said.

The study was published online in Gut.
 

Studies converge

To determine the incidence of GI syndromes and interventions preceding PD, the investigators performed a combined case-control and cohort study using a U.S.-based nationwide medical record network.

First, they compared 24,624 individuals with new-onset idiopathic PD with the same number of matched negative controls (NCs), as well as 19,046 people with AD and 23,942 with CVD to investigate the presence of preexisting GI conditions, which the researchers referred to as “exposures.” Overall, the mean age was about 70, and about half of those studied were women.

Eighteen conditions covering the entire GI tract were investigated. These included achalasia, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, paralytic ileus, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with and without diarrhea, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fecal incontinence, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and microscopic colitis, as well as appendectomy and vagotomy.

All GI syndromes were significantly increased in the PD group, compared with NCs (odds ratio > 1). However, only preexisting dysphagia (OR, 3.58), gastroparesis (OR, 4.64), functional dyspepsia (OR, 3.39), intestinal pseudo-obstruction (OR, 3.01), diarrhea (OR, 2.85), constipation (OR, 3.32), IBS with constipation (OR, 4.11), IBS with diarrhea (OR, 4.31), IBS without diarrhea (OR, 3.53), and fecal incontinence (OR, 3.76) produced ORs that were numerically greater than the upper limit of the negative exposures.

In addition, only gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS with constipation, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation were specific for PD, compared with the AD and CVD groups (OR > 1). After correction for false discovery rate, though, gastroparesis and constipation did not remain significantly different, compared with the AD and CVD groups.

Other preexisting GI conditions not only were significantly associated with PD but also showed strong associations with the AD and CVD groups.

To validate the case-control analyses, the team set up a complementary cohort study. Eighteen cohorts – each diagnosed with one of the GI conditions in the case-control analysis – were compared with their respective NC cohorts for the prospective risk of developing PD, AD, or CVD within 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation showed specific associations with PD versus NCs, AD, and CVD in the cohort analysis. Their relative risks versus NCs were 2.43, 2.27, 1.17, and 2.38, respectively.

Functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not PD specific, but IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed PD specificity in both the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort analyses (RR, 1.84).

Appendectomy decreased the risk for PD in the cohort analysis (RR, 0.48), but neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with PD.

“This study is the first to establish substantial observational evidence that the clinical diagnosis of not only constipation but also dysphagia, gastroparesis, and IBS without diarrhea might specifically predict the development of PD, whereas other exposures were less specific,” the researchers wrote.

However, Dr. Pasricha said, “there is no need for alarm.” Clinicians should reassure patients that “the overall risk for developing PD is low. The overwhelming majority of patients with these GI conditions will never develop PD.”

His team will be doing experimental work on the biological mechanisms that might explain the current study’s findings. “In addition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has issued a call for proposals to perform research in patients that could help understand these associations better,” he said.
 

Body or brain?

The Parkinson’s Foundation’s National Medical Advisor, Michael S. Okun, MD, called the study “fascinating.”

The findings “confirm many other studies showing that GI symptoms can precede a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Although the study was designed to test the Braak hypothesis, “the dataset really cannot confirm or refute Braak pathology, which can only be accomplished with comparison to postmortem samples,” he added.

“The raging debate in the field of body-first versus brain-first Parkinson’s may be somewhat artificial, especially if we consider that Parkinson’s is not one disease,” Dr. Okun noted. “It will take clinical data, pathology, and the collaboration of many researchers to solve the puzzle.”

“The Foundation continues to monitor all the advancements in the ‘gut’ Parkinson field,” he said. “We do not recommend at this time changing the approach to clinical care based on this data.”

No funding or competing interests were declared. Dr. Okun declared no relevant disclosures.

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

Dysphagia, gastroparesis, constipation, and irritable bowel syndrome without diarrhea specifically predicted Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a new study.

Early detection of these conditions might help identify patients at risk for PD, potentially prompting preventive strategies, the researchers suggest.

The results of previous experimental studies by the team supported the Braak hypothesis, which states that idiopathic PD originates in the gut in a subset of patients. However, no previous study had investigated a broad range of gastrointestinal symptoms and syndromes that might occur prior to a PD diagnosis.

Given their preclinical work, the authors were not surprised to find that certain GI syndromes were specifically associated with PD, even when compared with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD), principal author Pankaj Jay Pasricha, MBBS, MD, of Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, said in an interview. However, they were “impressed by the strength of the associations.”

“Experts have known for a very long time that constipation is a potential risk factor for PD, so this study adds to the list of GI conditions that could potentially be risk factors,” he said.

The study was published online in Gut.
 

Studies converge

To determine the incidence of GI syndromes and interventions preceding PD, the investigators performed a combined case-control and cohort study using a U.S.-based nationwide medical record network.

First, they compared 24,624 individuals with new-onset idiopathic PD with the same number of matched negative controls (NCs), as well as 19,046 people with AD and 23,942 with CVD to investigate the presence of preexisting GI conditions, which the researchers referred to as “exposures.” Overall, the mean age was about 70, and about half of those studied were women.

Eighteen conditions covering the entire GI tract were investigated. These included achalasia, dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, paralytic ileus, diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with and without diarrhea, intestinal pseudo-obstruction, fecal incontinence, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and microscopic colitis, as well as appendectomy and vagotomy.

All GI syndromes were significantly increased in the PD group, compared with NCs (odds ratio > 1). However, only preexisting dysphagia (OR, 3.58), gastroparesis (OR, 4.64), functional dyspepsia (OR, 3.39), intestinal pseudo-obstruction (OR, 3.01), diarrhea (OR, 2.85), constipation (OR, 3.32), IBS with constipation (OR, 4.11), IBS with diarrhea (OR, 4.31), IBS without diarrhea (OR, 3.53), and fecal incontinence (OR, 3.76) produced ORs that were numerically greater than the upper limit of the negative exposures.

In addition, only gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS with constipation, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation were specific for PD, compared with the AD and CVD groups (OR > 1). After correction for false discovery rate, though, gastroparesis and constipation did not remain significantly different, compared with the AD and CVD groups.

Other preexisting GI conditions not only were significantly associated with PD but also showed strong associations with the AD and CVD groups.

To validate the case-control analyses, the team set up a complementary cohort study. Eighteen cohorts – each diagnosed with one of the GI conditions in the case-control analysis – were compared with their respective NC cohorts for the prospective risk of developing PD, AD, or CVD within 5 years.

Gastroparesis, dysphagia, IBS without diarrhea, and constipation showed specific associations with PD versus NCs, AD, and CVD in the cohort analysis. Their relative risks versus NCs were 2.43, 2.27, 1.17, and 2.38, respectively.

Functional dyspepsia, IBS with diarrhea, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence were not PD specific, but IBS with constipation and intestinal pseudo-obstruction showed PD specificity in both the case-control (OR, 4.11) and cohort analyses (RR, 1.84).

Appendectomy decreased the risk for PD in the cohort analysis (RR, 0.48), but neither inflammatory bowel disease nor vagotomy was associated with PD.

“This study is the first to establish substantial observational evidence that the clinical diagnosis of not only constipation but also dysphagia, gastroparesis, and IBS without diarrhea might specifically predict the development of PD, whereas other exposures were less specific,” the researchers wrote.

However, Dr. Pasricha said, “there is no need for alarm.” Clinicians should reassure patients that “the overall risk for developing PD is low. The overwhelming majority of patients with these GI conditions will never develop PD.”

His team will be doing experimental work on the biological mechanisms that might explain the current study’s findings. “In addition, the U.S. National Institutes of Health has issued a call for proposals to perform research in patients that could help understand these associations better,” he said.
 

Body or brain?

The Parkinson’s Foundation’s National Medical Advisor, Michael S. Okun, MD, called the study “fascinating.”

The findings “confirm many other studies showing that GI symptoms can precede a Parkinson’s disease diagnosis,” he said in an interview.

Although the study was designed to test the Braak hypothesis, “the dataset really cannot confirm or refute Braak pathology, which can only be accomplished with comparison to postmortem samples,” he added.

“The raging debate in the field of body-first versus brain-first Parkinson’s may be somewhat artificial, especially if we consider that Parkinson’s is not one disease,” Dr. Okun noted. “It will take clinical data, pathology, and the collaboration of many researchers to solve the puzzle.”

“The Foundation continues to monitor all the advancements in the ‘gut’ Parkinson field,” he said. “We do not recommend at this time changing the approach to clinical care based on this data.”

No funding or competing interests were declared. Dr. Okun declared no relevant disclosures.

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

COVID-19 hospitalizations have been on the rise for weeks as summer nears its end, but how concerned should you be? SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID, continues to evolve and surprise us. So COVID transmission, hospitalization, and death rates can be difficult to predict. 

This news organization turned to the experts for their take on the current circulating virus, asking them to predict if we’ll be masking up again anytime soon, and what this fall and winter might look like, especially now that testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge.
 

Question 1: Are you expecting an end-of-summer COVID wave to be substantial?

Eric Topol, MD: “This wave won’t likely be substantial and could be more of a ‘wavelet.’ I’m not thinking that physicians are too concerned,” said Dr. Topol, founder and director of Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif. 

Thomas Gut, DO: “It’s always impossible to predict the severity of COVID waves. Although the virus has generally mutated in ways that favor easier transmission and milder illness, there have been a handful of surprising mutations that were more dangerous and deadly than the preceding strain,” said Dr. Gut, associate chair of medicine at Staten Island University Hospital/Northwell Health in New York.

Robert Atmar, MD: “I’ll start with the caveat that prognosticating for SARS-CoV-2 is a bit hazardous as we remain in unknown territory for some aspects of its epidemiology and evolution,” said Dr. Atmar, a professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. “It depends on your definition of substantial. We, at least in Houston, are already in the midst of a substantial surge in the burden of infection, at least as monitored through wastewater surveillance. The amount of virus in the wastewater already exceeds the peak level we saw last winter. That said, the increased infection burden has not translated into large increases in hospitalizations for COVID-19. Most persons hospitalized in our hospital are admitted with infection, not for the consequences of infection.”

Stuart Campbell Ray, MD: “It looks like there is a rise in infections, but the proportional rise in hospitalizations from severe cases is lower than in the past, suggesting that folks are protected by the immunity we’ve gained over the past few years through vaccination and prior infections. Of course, we should be thinking about how that applies to each of us – how recently we had a vaccine or COVID-19, and whether we might see more severe infections as immunity wanes,” said Dr. Ray, who is a professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. 

Question 2: Is a return to masks or mask mandates coming this fall or winter?

Dr. Topol: “Mandating masks doesn’t work very well, but we may see wide use again if a descendant of [variant] BA.2.86 takes off.”

Dr. Gut: “It’s difficult to predict if there are any mask mandates returning at any point. Ever since the Omicron strains emerged, COVID has been relatively mild, compared to previous strains, so there probably won’t be any plan to start masking in public unless a more deadly strain appears.”

Dr. Atmar: “I do not think we will see a return to mask mandates this fall or winter for a variety of reasons. The primary one is that I don’t think the public will accept mask mandates. However, I think masking can continue to be an adjunctive measure to enhance protection from infection, along with booster vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “Some people will choose to wear masks during a surge, particularly in situations like commuting where they don’t interfere with what they’re doing. They will wear masks particularly if they want to avoid infection due to concerns about others they care about, disruption of work or travel plans, or concerns about long-term consequences of repeated COVID-19.”

Question 3: Now that COVID testing and vaccinations are no longer free of charge, how might that affect their use?

Dr. Topol: “It was already low, and this will undoubtedly further compromise their uptake.”

Dr. Gut: “I do expect that testing will become less common now that tests are no longer free. I’m sure there will be a lower amount of detection in patients with milder or asymptomatic disease compared to what we had previously.”

Dr. Atmar: “If there are out-of-pocket costs for the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, or if the administrative paperwork attached to getting a vaccine is increased, the uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines will likely decrease. It will be important to communicate to the populations targeted for vaccination the potential benefits of such vaccination.”

Dr. Ray: “A challenge with COVID-19, all along, has been disparities in access to care, and this will be worse without public support for prevention and testing. This applies to everyone but is especially burdensome for those who are often marginalized in our health care system and society in general. I hope that we’ll find ways to ensure that people who need tests and vaccinations are able to access them, as good health is in everyone’s interest.”

Question 4: Will the new vaccines against COVID work for the currently circulating variants?

Dr. Topol: “The XBB.1.5 boosters will be out Sept. 14. They should help versus EG.5.1 and FL.1.5.1. The FL.1.5.1 variant is gaining now.”

Dr. Gut: “In the next several weeks, we expect the newer monovalent XBB-based vaccines to be offered that offer good protection against current circulating COVID variants along with the new Eris variant.”

Dr. Atmar: “The vaccines are expected to induce immune responses to the currently circulating variants, most of which are strains that evolved from the vaccine strain. The vaccine is expected to be most effective in preventing severe illness and will likely be less effective in preventing infection and mild illness.”

Dr. Ray: “Yes, the updated vaccine design has a spike antigen (XBB.1.5) nearly identical to the current dominant variant (EG.5). Even as variants change, the boosters stimulate B cells and T cells to help protect in a way that is safer than getting COVID-19 infection.”

Question 5: Is there anything we should watch out for regarding the BA.2.86 variant in particular?

Dr. Topol: “The scenario could change if there are new functional mutations added to it.”

Dr. Gut: “BA.2.86 is still fairly uncommon and does not have much data to directly make any informed guesses. However, in general, people that have been exposed to more recent mutations of the COVID virus have been shown to have more protection from newer upcoming mutations. It’s fair to guess that people that have not had recent infection from COVID, or have not had a recent booster, are at higher risk for being infected by any XBB- or BA.2-based strains.”

Dr. Atmar: BA.2.86 has been designated as a variant under monitoring. We will want to see whether it becomes more common and if there are any unexpected characteristics associated with infection by this variant.”

Dr. Ray: “It’s still rare, but it’s been seen in geographically dispersed places, so it’s got legs. The question is how effectively it will bypass some of the immunity we’ve gained. T cells are likely to remain protective, because they target so many parts of the virus that change more slowly, but antibodies from B cells to spike protein may have more trouble recognizing BA.2.86, whether those antibodies were made to a vaccine or a prior variant.”

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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

U.S. regulators this year will begin to demand reports from cosmetics manufacturers about the ingredients used in their products. They are also preparing to assess potential risks of so-called forever chemicals in these products.

The Food and Drug Administration last year gained new authority over cosmetics when Congress passed the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA) by adding this bill to a December budget package.

Yulia Lisitsa/iStock/Getty Images Plus

“On average, consumers in the U.S. use six to 12 cosmetics products daily. But, until recently the FDA didn’t have the authority to require manufacturers to submit cosmetic product listings, including a list of ingredients used in these products, or register the facilities where they were produced,” Namandjé Bumpus, PhD, FDA’s chief scientist, said in a press release.

In the statement, the FDA announced the release of a draft guidance document that is intended to help companies comply with the transparency requirements slated to kick in this December. The agency is accepting comments on this draft guidance through Sept. 7.

“Later this year, registration and listing of cosmetic product facilities and products will become a requirement, making information about cosmetic products, including the ingredients used in products and the facilities where they are produced, readily available to the agency,” Dr. Bumpus said.

The products, according to the FDA statement, include makeup, nail polishes, shaving creams, other grooming products, perfumes, face and body cleansers, hair products, moisturizers, and other skin care items.

MoCRA “represents a sea change in how FDA regulates the cosmetics industry,” attorneys Frederick R. Ball, Alyson Walker Lotman, and Kelly A. Bonner, wrote in an article for the Food and Drug Law Institute published in spring 2023.

The FDA has called the MoCRA law “the most significant expansion” of its authority to regulate cosmetics since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was passed in 1938.

The agency is in the process of expanding its staff to carry out newly authorized duties, including the tracking of adverse events. The FDA budget request for fiscal 2024, which begins Oct. 1, seeks $5 million for work needed to implement MoCRA.

PFAS, or ‘forever chemicals’

Some of the requested FDA funding is intended to prepare the agency to assess the use of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics.

MoCRA sets a 3-year deadline for the FDA to issue an assessment of the use and potential risks of PFAS in cosmetics products. PFAS are sometimes added as ingredients in some cosmetic products, including lotions, cleansers, nail polish, shaving cream, foundation, lipstick, eyeliner, eyeshadow, and mascara, according to the FDA. Sometimes the presence of PFAS in cosmetics is unintentional and is the result of impurities in raw materials or is due to the breakdown of ingredients, the FDA said.

The FDA’s website says that so far, the available research doesn’t allow for “definitive conclusions about the potential health risks of PFAS in cosmetics.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that research has suggested potential links between high levels of certain PFAS, in general, with increased cholesterol levels, changes in liver enzyme levels, increased risk of hypertension or preeclampsia in pregnant women, and increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer.

PFAS compounds often are used to resist grease, oil, water, and heat in industrial settings. They are used in thousands of products, from nonstick cookware to firefighting foams and protective gear, because they can reduce friction, according to a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on PFAS that was issued last year.

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they contain a carbon-fluorine bond, which does not break naturally. Even when PFAS are transformed in the body, they can assume other forms of PFAS that preserve the troublesome carbon-fluorine bond. With PFAS, the human body is confronted with a substance it doesn’t have the tools to process.

This is in contrast to proteins and carbohydrates, which are in a sense prepackaged for relatively easy disassembly in the human body. Many of these compounds have weak links that enzymes and stomach acid can take apart, such as sulfur-to-sulfur (disulfide) bonds. That’s why protein-based biotech drugs are injected instead of administered as pills. The ultimate goal of this digestion is for the body to gain energy from these compounds.

But with PFAS, the body faces the challenge of carbon-fluorine bonds that are very hard to break down, and there is no payoff for these efforts, Graham F. Peaslee, PhD, professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame (Indiana), told this news organization.

“Nothing will naturally eat it because when you break the bond, it’s like eating celery,” he said. “You use more calories to eat the celery than you gain back from it.”
 

Interest from a U.S. senator

Dr. Peaslee was one of the authors of a 2021 article about PFAS in cosmetics that appeared in the journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters.

In the article, Dr. Peaslee and colleagues reported on their screening of 231 cosmetic products purchased in the United States and Canada using particle-induced gamma-ray emission spectroscopy. They found cases of undisclosed PFAS in cosmetic products. Foundations, mascaras, and lip products were noted as being especially problematic.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) cited Dr. Peaslee’s article in a 2021 floor speech as she argued for having the FDA ban the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics.

“The findings of this study are particularly alarming, as many of these products are subject to direct human exposure,” Sen. Collins said. “For example, lipstick is often inadvertently ingested, and mascara is sometimes absorbed through tear ducts.”

In addition, workers at cosmetics plants may be exposed to PFAS and discarded cosmetics that have these compounds, which could potentially contaminate drinking water, Sen. Collins said. In 2021, she introduced legislation seeking a ban on PFAS that are intentionally added to cosmetics. That legislation did not advance through the Senate.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. Collins is the ranking Republican, wants the FDA to keep a ban on PFAS in mind.

The Senate Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee, which oversees the FDA’s budget, raised the issue of PFAS and cosmetics in a June report. The FDA should develop a plan outlining research needed to inform “regulatory decision making, including potential development of a proposed rule to ban intentionally added PFAS substances in cosmetics,” the subcommittee said.
 

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