Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

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

A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom has revealed an association between social media use and lower life satisfaction among children and adolescents aged 10-21 years.

“[Our] study provides evidence for age- and sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use in adolescence,” lead author Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues wrote. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the Understanding Society dataset and the Millennium Cohort Study. The cross-sectional data was used to investigate the existence of developmental windows of sensitivity to social media, while the longitudinal data was used to evaluate whether sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media were present during the adolescence period.

These two datasets comprised 84,011 participants aged 10-80 years old. After applying the modeling framework, 17,409 participants aged 10-21 years were included in the analysis.

Longitudinal analyses revealed different developmental windows of sensitivity to social media during adolescence, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction scores 1 year later (regression coefficient [beta], −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.03 to −0.01; P = .004).

Among females, the researchers observed a window of sensitivity to social media between the ages of 11 and 13, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction ratings 1 year later (age 11: beta, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.02; P = .020; age 12: beta, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.07; P < .001; age 13: beta, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P = .019).

Among males, a similar window was observed between the ages of 14 and 15 (age 14: beta, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.03; P = .005; age 15: beta, –0.18; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.08; P = .001).

Furthermore, they showed that a later increase in sensitivity to social media, which was present at age 19 for both females and males, suggested a different underlying process was present in late adolescence (females: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.07; P < .001; males: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.07; P = .001).

“Speculatively, this might be related to changes in the social environment such as a move away from home and subsequent disruptions in social networks,” the researchers wrote.

Importantly, Dr. Orben and colleagues noted that these results should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causality cannot be inferred from these findings.

“The findings reported here may enable investigation of potential mechanisms of interest, for example, in datasets with pubertal or additional social measurements,” they wrote. “One could also carry out more targeted investigations, for example, by examining the mental health measures only completed by select age ranges in the datasets.”
 

Digital literacy is important, expert says

“Digital literacy and education about social media use is warranted for all ages, starting young,” Yalda T. Uhls, MBA, PhD, of the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Attending to underlying issues for vulnerable ages, such as anxiety, as well as parental support is critical.”

“I would urge social media platforms to pay attention to what kinds of content they are making available to ensure the highest possible quality, and to embed things like suggestions for pauses and other ways to check in on someone who may be experiencing distress when on socials,” Dr. Uhls said. “We also need to increase access to mental health resources for young people and social media could help provide information for those experiencing issues.”

This study was supported by the University of Cambridge and the UK Medical Research Council. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Uhls had no relevant disclosures.

A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom has revealed an association between social media use and lower life satisfaction among children and adolescents aged 10-21 years.

“[Our] study provides evidence for age- and sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use in adolescence,” lead author Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues wrote. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the Understanding Society dataset and the Millennium Cohort Study. The cross-sectional data was used to investigate the existence of developmental windows of sensitivity to social media, while the longitudinal data was used to evaluate whether sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media were present during the adolescence period.

These two datasets comprised 84,011 participants aged 10-80 years old. After applying the modeling framework, 17,409 participants aged 10-21 years were included in the analysis.

Longitudinal analyses revealed different developmental windows of sensitivity to social media during adolescence, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction scores 1 year later (regression coefficient [beta], −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.03 to −0.01; P = .004).

Among females, the researchers observed a window of sensitivity to social media between the ages of 11 and 13, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction ratings 1 year later (age 11: beta, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.02; P = .020; age 12: beta, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.07; P < .001; age 13: beta, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P = .019).

Among males, a similar window was observed between the ages of 14 and 15 (age 14: beta, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.03; P = .005; age 15: beta, –0.18; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.08; P = .001).

Furthermore, they showed that a later increase in sensitivity to social media, which was present at age 19 for both females and males, suggested a different underlying process was present in late adolescence (females: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.07; P < .001; males: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.07; P = .001).

“Speculatively, this might be related to changes in the social environment such as a move away from home and subsequent disruptions in social networks,” the researchers wrote.

Importantly, Dr. Orben and colleagues noted that these results should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causality cannot be inferred from these findings.

“The findings reported here may enable investigation of potential mechanisms of interest, for example, in datasets with pubertal or additional social measurements,” they wrote. “One could also carry out more targeted investigations, for example, by examining the mental health measures only completed by select age ranges in the datasets.”
 

Digital literacy is important, expert says

“Digital literacy and education about social media use is warranted for all ages, starting young,” Yalda T. Uhls, MBA, PhD, of the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Attending to underlying issues for vulnerable ages, such as anxiety, as well as parental support is critical.”

“I would urge social media platforms to pay attention to what kinds of content they are making available to ensure the highest possible quality, and to embed things like suggestions for pauses and other ways to check in on someone who may be experiencing distress when on socials,” Dr. Uhls said. “We also need to increase access to mental health resources for young people and social media could help provide information for those experiencing issues.”

This study was supported by the University of Cambridge and the UK Medical Research Council. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Uhls had no relevant disclosures.

A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom has revealed an association between social media use and lower life satisfaction among children and adolescents aged 10-21 years.

“[Our] study provides evidence for age- and sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use in adolescence,” lead author Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues wrote. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the Understanding Society dataset and the Millennium Cohort Study. The cross-sectional data was used to investigate the existence of developmental windows of sensitivity to social media, while the longitudinal data was used to evaluate whether sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media were present during the adolescence period.

These two datasets comprised 84,011 participants aged 10-80 years old. After applying the modeling framework, 17,409 participants aged 10-21 years were included in the analysis.

Longitudinal analyses revealed different developmental windows of sensitivity to social media during adolescence, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction scores 1 year later (regression coefficient [beta], −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.03 to −0.01; P = .004).

Among females, the researchers observed a window of sensitivity to social media between the ages of 11 and 13, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction ratings 1 year later (age 11: beta, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.02; P = .020; age 12: beta, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.07; P < .001; age 13: beta, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P = .019).

Among males, a similar window was observed between the ages of 14 and 15 (age 14: beta, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.03; P = .005; age 15: beta, –0.18; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.08; P = .001).

Furthermore, they showed that a later increase in sensitivity to social media, which was present at age 19 for both females and males, suggested a different underlying process was present in late adolescence (females: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.07; P < .001; males: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.07; P = .001).

“Speculatively, this might be related to changes in the social environment such as a move away from home and subsequent disruptions in social networks,” the researchers wrote.

Importantly, Dr. Orben and colleagues noted that these results should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causality cannot be inferred from these findings.

“The findings reported here may enable investigation of potential mechanisms of interest, for example, in datasets with pubertal or additional social measurements,” they wrote. “One could also carry out more targeted investigations, for example, by examining the mental health measures only completed by select age ranges in the datasets.”
 

Digital literacy is important, expert says

“Digital literacy and education about social media use is warranted for all ages, starting young,” Yalda T. Uhls, MBA, PhD, of the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Attending to underlying issues for vulnerable ages, such as anxiety, as well as parental support is critical.”

“I would urge social media platforms to pay attention to what kinds of content they are making available to ensure the highest possible quality, and to embed things like suggestions for pauses and other ways to check in on someone who may be experiencing distress when on socials,” Dr. Uhls said. “We also need to increase access to mental health resources for young people and social media could help provide information for those experiencing issues.”

This study was supported by the University of Cambridge and the UK Medical Research Council. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Uhls had no relevant disclosures.

There is a link between cannabis exposure during pregnancy and higher fasting glucose levels and adiposity in the offspring in early childhood, a new study suggests.

Research looking at the effect of prenatal exposure to cannabis on offspring is growing. It is known to affect childhood cognition and behavior; however, there is little work to date on how it affects metabolic outcomes, said lead author Brianna F. Moore, PhD.

“Officially, the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women do not use cannabis during pregnancy or while breastfeeding to limit the effects on offspring. There’s really a lot we don’t know, but researchers across the country are starting to look into this more, and there are signs that it isn’t great for the offspring,” Dr. Moore, assistant professor at the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora, said in an interview.

And she noted that while some women turn to cannabis to manage the challenging symptoms of pregnancy, “Clinicians should encourage pregnant women to refrain from using cannabis; it is best for these pregnant women to talk to their physicians about alternative ways of managing these symptoms.”

The findings were published online March 31 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Study of mother and 5-year-old child pairs

The researchers assessed 103 sets of mothers and children from the Healthy Start study. At 27 weeks of gestation, the investigators assessed 12 metabolites of cannabis/cannabinoids in urine samples. Results from these samples were used to categorize fetal exposure to cannabis as either not exposed or exposed. They found that about 15% of the mothers had traceable amounts of cannabinoids, suggesting fetal cannabis exposure.

At follow-up, the study team assessed fat-free mass and fat mass using air displacement plethysmography among the offspring around age 5. They used generalized linear models to approximate the relationship between fetal exposure to cannabis with metabolic measures such as insulin, glucose, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and adiposity measures such as body mass index, fat-free mass, fat mass, adiposity, and BMI z-scores.

The findings showed that, compared with nonexposed offspring, exposed offspring had greater:

• Fasting glucose (5.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-10.3).
• Fat-free mass (1.2 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.0).
• Fat mass (1.0 kg; 95% CI, 0.3-1.7).
• Adiposity (2.6%; 95% CI, 0.1-5.2).

“This finding may suggest that fetal exposure to cannabis contributes to higher fasting glucose levels via a direct effect on the pancreatic β-cells. However, we cannot draw conclusions about β-cell response to glucose because we did not perform oral glucose tolerance tests,” the study authors wrote.

Notably, however, there was no relationship between BMI z-scores, BMI, or HOMA-IR and fasting insulin, the study team found.

Study limitations include the small sample size and lack of self-report data on cannabis use to differentiate between direct use and exposure to cannabis, Dr. Moore acknowledged.

Given the small sample size, the researchers were unable to look at dose-response, which future studies will focus on, Dr. Moore noted. Future efforts will also focus on comparing the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), Dr. Moore added.

“This is a relatively new field, so there’s still work to be done. This is just one study, and we need to study this more in other cohorts to confirm our findings,” she concluded.

Dr. Moore has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a link between cannabis exposure during pregnancy and higher fasting glucose levels and adiposity in the offspring in early childhood, a new study suggests.

Research looking at the effect of prenatal exposure to cannabis on offspring is growing. It is known to affect childhood cognition and behavior; however, there is little work to date on how it affects metabolic outcomes, said lead author Brianna F. Moore, PhD.

“Officially, the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women do not use cannabis during pregnancy or while breastfeeding to limit the effects on offspring. There’s really a lot we don’t know, but researchers across the country are starting to look into this more, and there are signs that it isn’t great for the offspring,” Dr. Moore, assistant professor at the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora, said in an interview.

And she noted that while some women turn to cannabis to manage the challenging symptoms of pregnancy, “Clinicians should encourage pregnant women to refrain from using cannabis; it is best for these pregnant women to talk to their physicians about alternative ways of managing these symptoms.”

The findings were published online March 31 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Study of mother and 5-year-old child pairs

The researchers assessed 103 sets of mothers and children from the Healthy Start study. At 27 weeks of gestation, the investigators assessed 12 metabolites of cannabis/cannabinoids in urine samples. Results from these samples were used to categorize fetal exposure to cannabis as either not exposed or exposed. They found that about 15% of the mothers had traceable amounts of cannabinoids, suggesting fetal cannabis exposure.

At follow-up, the study team assessed fat-free mass and fat mass using air displacement plethysmography among the offspring around age 5. They used generalized linear models to approximate the relationship between fetal exposure to cannabis with metabolic measures such as insulin, glucose, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and adiposity measures such as body mass index, fat-free mass, fat mass, adiposity, and BMI z-scores.

The findings showed that, compared with nonexposed offspring, exposed offspring had greater:

• Fasting glucose (5.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-10.3).
• Fat-free mass (1.2 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.0).
• Fat mass (1.0 kg; 95% CI, 0.3-1.7).
• Adiposity (2.6%; 95% CI, 0.1-5.2).

“This finding may suggest that fetal exposure to cannabis contributes to higher fasting glucose levels via a direct effect on the pancreatic β-cells. However, we cannot draw conclusions about β-cell response to glucose because we did not perform oral glucose tolerance tests,” the study authors wrote.

Notably, however, there was no relationship between BMI z-scores, BMI, or HOMA-IR and fasting insulin, the study team found.

Study limitations include the small sample size and lack of self-report data on cannabis use to differentiate between direct use and exposure to cannabis, Dr. Moore acknowledged.

Given the small sample size, the researchers were unable to look at dose-response, which future studies will focus on, Dr. Moore noted. Future efforts will also focus on comparing the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), Dr. Moore added.

“This is a relatively new field, so there’s still work to be done. This is just one study, and we need to study this more in other cohorts to confirm our findings,” she concluded.

Dr. Moore has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a link between cannabis exposure during pregnancy and higher fasting glucose levels and adiposity in the offspring in early childhood, a new study suggests.

Research looking at the effect of prenatal exposure to cannabis on offspring is growing. It is known to affect childhood cognition and behavior; however, there is little work to date on how it affects metabolic outcomes, said lead author Brianna F. Moore, PhD.

“Officially, the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women do not use cannabis during pregnancy or while breastfeeding to limit the effects on offspring. There’s really a lot we don’t know, but researchers across the country are starting to look into this more, and there are signs that it isn’t great for the offspring,” Dr. Moore, assistant professor at the Colorado School of Public Health in Aurora, said in an interview.

And she noted that while some women turn to cannabis to manage the challenging symptoms of pregnancy, “Clinicians should encourage pregnant women to refrain from using cannabis; it is best for these pregnant women to talk to their physicians about alternative ways of managing these symptoms.”

The findings were published online March 31 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.
 

Study of mother and 5-year-old child pairs

The researchers assessed 103 sets of mothers and children from the Healthy Start study. At 27 weeks of gestation, the investigators assessed 12 metabolites of cannabis/cannabinoids in urine samples. Results from these samples were used to categorize fetal exposure to cannabis as either not exposed or exposed. They found that about 15% of the mothers had traceable amounts of cannabinoids, suggesting fetal cannabis exposure.

At follow-up, the study team assessed fat-free mass and fat mass using air displacement plethysmography among the offspring around age 5. They used generalized linear models to approximate the relationship between fetal exposure to cannabis with metabolic measures such as insulin, glucose, and homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and adiposity measures such as body mass index, fat-free mass, fat mass, adiposity, and BMI z-scores.

The findings showed that, compared with nonexposed offspring, exposed offspring had greater:

• Fasting glucose (5.6 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-10.3).
• Fat-free mass (1.2 kg; 95% CI, 0.4-2.0).
• Fat mass (1.0 kg; 95% CI, 0.3-1.7).
• Adiposity (2.6%; 95% CI, 0.1-5.2).

“This finding may suggest that fetal exposure to cannabis contributes to higher fasting glucose levels via a direct effect on the pancreatic β-cells. However, we cannot draw conclusions about β-cell response to glucose because we did not perform oral glucose tolerance tests,” the study authors wrote.

Notably, however, there was no relationship between BMI z-scores, BMI, or HOMA-IR and fasting insulin, the study team found.

Study limitations include the small sample size and lack of self-report data on cannabis use to differentiate between direct use and exposure to cannabis, Dr. Moore acknowledged.

Given the small sample size, the researchers were unable to look at dose-response, which future studies will focus on, Dr. Moore noted. Future efforts will also focus on comparing the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), Dr. Moore added.

“This is a relatively new field, so there’s still work to be done. This is just one study, and we need to study this more in other cohorts to confirm our findings,” she concluded.

Dr. Moore has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A new U.K. study shows no link between brain tumors and cell phone use, even among individuals who used their phones every day and/or had used them for over 10 years.

“These results support the accumulating evidence that mobile phone use under usual conditions does not increase brain tumor risk,” study author Kirstin Pirie, MSc, from the cancer epidemiology unit at Oxford (England) Population Health, said in a statement.

However, an important limitation of the study is that it involved only women who were middle-aged and older; these people generally use cell phones less than younger women or men, the authors noted. In this study’s cohort, mobile phone use was low, with only 18% of users talking on the phone for 30 minutes or more each week.

The results were published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

This study is a “welcome addition to the body of knowledge looking at the risk from mobile phones, and specifically in relation to certain types of tumor genesis. It is a well-designed, prospective study that identifies no causal link,” commented Malcolm Sperrin from Oxford University Hospitals, who was not involved in the research.

“There is always a need for further research work, especially as phones, wireless, etc., become ubiquitous, but this study should allay many existing concerns,” he commented on the UK Science Media Centre.

Concerns about a cancer risk, particularly brain tumors, have been circulating for decades, and to date, there have been some 30 epidemiologic studies on this issue.

In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer announced that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic.” That conclusion was based largely on the results of the large INTERPHONE international case-control study and a series of Swedish studies led by Hardell Lennart, MD.

In the latest article, the U.K. researchers suggest that a “likely explanation for the previous positive results is that for a very slow growing tumor, there may be detection bias if cellular telephone users seek medical advice because of awareness of typical symptoms of acoustic neuroma, such as unilateral hearing problems, earlier than nonusers.

“The totality of human evidence, from observational studies, time trends, and bioassays, suggests little or no increase in the risk of cellular telephone users developing a brain tumor,” the U.K. researchers concluded.

Commenting on the U.K. study, Joachim Schüz, PhD, branch head of the section of environment and radiation at the IARC, noted that “mobile technologies are improving all the time, so that the more recent generations emit substantially lower output power.

“Nevertheless, given the lack of evidence for heavy users, advising mobile phone users to reduce unnecessary exposures remains a good precautionary approach,” Dr. Schuz said in a statement.
 

Details of U.K. study

The U.K. study was conducted by researchers from Oxford Population Health and IARC, who used data from the ongoing UK Million Women Study. This study began in 1996 and has recruited 1.3 million women born from 1935 to 1950 (which amounts to 1 in every 4 women) through the U.K. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. These women complete regular postal questionnaires about sociodemographic, medical, and lifestyle factors.

Questions about cell phone use were completed by about 776,000 women in 2001 (when they were 50-65 years old). About half of these women also answered these questions about mobile phone use 10 years later, in 2011 (when they were aged 60-75).

The answers indicated that by 2011, the majority of women (75%) aged between 60 and 64 years used a mobile phone, while just under half of those aged between 75 and 79 years used one.

These women were then followed for an average of 14 years through linkage to their NHS records.

The researchers looked for any mention of brain tumors, including glioma, acoustic neuroma, meningioma, and pituitary gland tumors, as well as eye tumors.

During the 14 year follow-up period, 3,268 (0.42%) of the participants developed a brain tumor, but there was no significant difference in that risk between individuals who had never used a mobile phone and those who were mobile phone users. These included tumors in the temporal and parietal lobes, which are the most exposed areas of the brain.

There was also no difference in the risk of developing tumors between women who reported using a mobile phone daily, those who used them for at least 20 minutes a week, and those who had used a mobile phone for over 10 years.

In addition, among the individuals who did develop a tumor, the incidence of right- and left-sided tumors was similar among mobile phone users, even though mobile phone use tends to involve the right side considerably more than the left side, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK.

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

A prospective study that followed more than 110,000 men and women for more than 30 years suggests that eating two servings of avocado a week reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Researchers also found that replacing half a serving of butter, cheese, bacon, or other animal product with an equivalent amount of avocado was associated with up to 22% lower risk for CVD events.

tookapic/Pixabay

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Outcomes for patients with bacteremic Streptococcus pneumoniae were significantly worse than those for patients with Legionnaires disease (LD), based on data from 106 individuals.

Reported cases of LD in the United States have increased in recent decades, but they are likely under-reported, wrote Sima Salahie, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, and Central Michigan University College of Medicine, Grosse Pointe Woods, and colleagues.

Clinical presentations may be similar for both conditions, but different antimicrobial therapies are needed; therefore, identifying distinguishing factors can promote better management of hospitalized patients, they reported.

In a retrospective case companion study published in the American Journal of the Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from 51 adults with LD and 55 with bacteremic S. pneumoniae pneumonia (SP) who were hospitalized at a single center between 2013 and 2018. Diagnoses were confirmed by laboratory and radiology results. In addition, data were collected on clinical features including body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate, and temperature.

Overall, patients with SP were significantly more likely than those with LD to require mechanical ventilation (P = .04), intensive care unit stay (P = .004), and to die (P = .002). Patients with SP also had higher rates of septic shock compared to LD patients, although this difference fell short of statistical significance (49.1% vs. 30.4%; P = .06).

In a multivariate analysis, male sex, diarrhea, higher body mass index, hyponatremia, and lower Charleston Weighted Index of Comorbidity (CWIC) score were significant independent predictors of LD, with odds ratios of 21.6, 4.5, 1.13, 5.6, and 0.61, respectively.

The incidence of LD peaked in summer, while the incidence of SP peaked in the winter, the researchers noted. “Seasonality is a variable that has not always been included in previous scoring systems but should be considered in future modeling,” they said.

“Noteworthy is that LD represented almost as many cases as documented bacteremic pneumococcal pneumonia,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “This occurred at a time when there was no outbreak of L. pneumophila in our community, and as these were all community acquired, there was no evidence of a nosocomial outbreak in our institution,” they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible underestimation of SP because of the requirement for positive blood cultures and the lack of other methods of diagnosing SP, the researchers noted.

“However, the data suggest variables to distinguish LD from SP,” they said. “Establishing reliable clinical and laboratory parameters embedded in a simple diagnostic score that can accurately identify patients with LD may be helpful in aiding physicians’ early diagnosis in distinguishing LD from SP but will need to be defined.”

The study received no outside funding. The researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Antidopaminergic antiemetics (ADAs) that are widely used for nausea and vomiting, including that related to chemotherapy, have been associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in a new study from France.

The authors found that ADA users could be at a threefold increased risk of stroke shortly after the initiation of treatment.

Further analysis showed that all three ADAs studied (domperidone, metopimazine, and metoclopramide) were associated with an increased risk, especially in the first days of use, but the highest increase was found for metopimazine and metoclopramide.

The study was published online March 23, 2022, in the BMJ.

“Our results show that the risk of ischemic stroke appears to be associated with ADA use,” wrote the authors, led by Anne Bénard-Laribière, PharmD, MS, of the University of Bordeaux (France). They emphasized, however, that this is an observational study and cannot therefore establish causation.

One important note about this study is that patients with a history of cancer were specifically excluded. The authors did not elaborate on what the ADAs were being used for, other than to say that ADAs are used for nausea and vomiting of “variable origins,” and a press release noted that these drugs are often used by patients with migraine.

Hence it is not clear what relevance these findings have for patients with cancer, suggested an expert unrelated to the study, Ian Olver, MD, PhD, professorial research fellow, faculty of health and medical sciences, University of Adelaide.

“So the best that can be said, from my viewpoint, is that the ADAs studied have been associated with an increased risk of stroke in patients other than cancer patients,” he told this news organization.

In addition, he also emphasized that an observational study cannot establish causation.

For their study, the authors used data from the nationwide reimbursement database. Hence, they “needed to make the assumption that the date of reimbursement approximated to the date of administration, and that would not be the case for drugs used prophylactically prior to chemotherapy or radiotherapy,” Dr. Olver commented.

The authors were also unable to make any statement about dose and schedule. “Certainly chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting would require more intermittent dosing compared to noncancer uses,” Dr. Olver said. In addition, “metoclopramide in conventional doses is not very effective for this purpose and metopimazine is mainly used in Europe.”

Most patients with cancer would not be receiving these drugs, he suggested: “These days they would be receiving 5HT3 receptor antagonists and NK1 receptor antagonists and steroids.”
 

Study details

The French study investigated the risk of ischemic stroke associated with ADA use in a real-world setting. The authors conducted a case-time-control study using data from the nationwide French reimbursement health care system database Système National des Données de Santé.

They identified 2,612 patients from the database who had experienced a first ischemic stroke between 2012 and 2016 and had also received at least one reimbursement for domperidone, metopimazine, or metoclopramide during the 70-day period prior to their stroke.

The frequency of reimbursements for ADAs was compared with a risk period (1-14 days before a stroke) and three matched reference periods (57-70 days, 43-56 days, and 29-42 days before stroke).

Patients who had experienced a stroke were matched to a control group of 21,859 randomly selected healthy people who also received an ADA in the same time period.

Within the stroke cohort, 1,250 patients received an ADA at least once during the designated risk period and 1,060 in the reference periods. Among the controls, 5,128 and 13,165 received an ADA at least one time in the risk and reference periods, respectively.

This yielded a case-time-control ratio of adjusted odds ratios of 3.12, of a risk of stroke among new users. Stratification by age (<70 years and ≥70 years), sex, history of dementia, and gastroenteritis epidemic periods revealed similar results, although the highest case-time-control ratio observed in men(aOR, 3.59).

The risk of stroke appeared to increase for all ADAs, but the highest was for metopimazine (3.62-fold increase) and metoclopramide (a 3.53-fold increase), which are both drugs that have the ability to cross the blood-brain barrier.

The study was funded by Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé through a partnership with the Health Product Epidemiology Scientific Interest Group. All authors had financial support from ANSM for the submitted work; one coauthor disclosed relationships with Pfizer and Roche. Dr. Olver disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Dietary supplements that contain omega-3 fatty acids have been widely consumed for years. Researchers have been investigating the benefits of such preparations for cardiovascular, neurologic, and psychological conditions. A recently published study on omega-3 fatty acids and depression inspired neurologist Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of the Institute for Epidemiology at the University Duisburg-Essen (Germany), to examine scientific publications concerning omega-3 fatty acids or fish-oil capsules in more detail.

Prevention of depression

Dr. Diener told the story of how he stumbled upon an interesting article in JAMA  in December 2021. It was about a placebo-controlled study that investigated whether omega-3 fatty acids can prevent incident depression.

As the study authors reported, treatment with omega-3 preparations in adults aged 50 years or older without clinically relevant symptoms of depression at study initiation was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the risk for depression or clinically relevant symptoms of depression. There was no difference in mood scale value, however, over a median follow-up of 5.3 years. According to the study authors, these results did not support the administration of omega-3 preparations for the prevention of depression.

This study was, as Dr. Diener said, somewhat negative, but it did arouse his interest in questions such as what biological effects omega-3 fatty acids have and what is known “about this topic with regard to neurology,” he said. When reviewing the literature, he noticed that there “were association studies, i.e., studies that describe that the intake of omega-3 fatty acids may possibly be associated with a lower risk of certain diseases.”
 

Beginning with the Inuit

It all started “with observations of the Inuit [population] in Greenland and Alaska after World War II, because it was remarked upon that these people ate a lot of fish and seal meat and had a very low incidence of cardiovascular diseases.” Over the years, a large number of association studies have been published, which may have encouraged the assumption that omega-3 fatty acids have positive health effects on various conditions, such as cardiovascular diseases, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, various malignancies, cognitive impairments, Alzheimer’s disease, depression and anxiety disorders, heart failure, slipped disks, ADHD, symptoms of menopause, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, periodontitis, epilepsy, chemotherapy tolerance, premenstrual syndrome, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.

Dr. Diener believes that the problem is that these are association studies. But association does not mean that there is a causal relationship.
 

Disappointing study results

On the contrary, the results from the randomized placebo-controlled studies are truly frustrating, according to the neurologist. A meta-analysis of the use of omega-3 fatty acids in cardiovascular diseases included 86 studies with over 162,000 patients. According to Dr. Diener, it did not reveal any benefit for overall and cardiovascular mortality, nor any benefit for the reduction of myocardial infarction and stroke.

The results did indicate a trend, however, for reduced mortality in coronary heart disease. Even so, the number needed to treat for this was 334, which means that 334 people would have to take omega-3 fatty acids for years to prevent one fatal cardiac event.

Aside from this study, Dr. Diener found six studies on Alzheimer’s disease and three studies on dementia with patient populations between 600 and 800. In these studies, too, a positive effect of omega-3 fatty acids could not be identified. Then he discovered another 31 placebo-controlled studies of omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment or prevention of depression and anxiety disorder. Despite including 50,000 patients, these studies also did not show any positive effect.

“I see a significant discrepancy between the promotion of omega-3 fatty acids, whether it’s on television, in the ‘yellow’ [journalism] press, or in advertisements, and the actual scientific evidence,” said Dr. Diener. “At least from a neurological perspective, there is no evidence that omega-3 fatty acids have any benefit. This is true for strokes, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and anxiety disorders.”
 

Potential adverse effects

Omega-3 fatty acids also have potentially adverse effects. The VITAL Rhythm study recently provided evidence that, depending on the dose, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids may increase the risk for atrial fibrillation. As the authors wrote, the results do not support taking omega-3 fatty acids to prevent atrial fibrillation.

In 2019, the global market for omega-3 fatty acids reached a value of $4.1 billion. This value is expected to double by 2025, according to a comment by Gregory Curfman, MD, deputy editor of JAMA and lecturer in health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

As Dr. Curfman wrote, this impressive amount of expenditure shows how beloved these products are and how strongly many people believe that omega-3 fatty acids are beneficial for their health. It is therefore important to know the potential risks of such preparations. One such example for this would be the risk for atrial fibrillation.

According to Dr. Curfman, in the last 2 years, four randomized clinical studies have provided data on the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids. In the STRENGTH study, 13,078 high-risk patients with cardiovascular diseases were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The subjects received either a high dose (4 g/day) of a combination of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) or corn oil. After a median of 42 months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint, but more frequent atrial fibrillation in the omega-3 fatty acid group, compared with the corn oil group (2.2% vs. 1.3%; hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-2.21; P < .001).

In the REDUCE-IT study, 8179 subjects were randomly assigned to a high dose (4 g/day, as in STRENGTH) of an omega-3 fatty acid preparation consisting of a purified EPA (icosapent ethyl) or mineral oil. After a median observation period of 4.9 years, icosapent ethyl was associated with a relative reduction of the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint by 25%, compared with mineral oil. As in the STRENGTH study, this study found that the risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, compared with mineral oil, was significantly higher (5.3% vs. 3.9%; P = .003).

In a third study (OMEMI), as Dr. Curfman reported, 1027 elderly patients who had recently had a myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive either a median dose of 1.8 g/day of omega-3 fatty acids (a combination of EPA and DHA) or corn oil. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between the two groups in primary composite cardiovascular endpoints, but 7.2% of the patients taking omega-3 fatty acids developed atrial fibrillation. In the corn oil group, this proportion was 4% (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 0.98-3.45; P = .06).

The data from the four studies together indicate a potential dose-dependent risk for atrial fibrillation associated with omega-3 fatty acids, according to Dr. Curfman. At a dose of 4.0 g/day, there is a highly significant risk increase (almost double). With a median dose of 1.8 g/day, the risk increase (HR, 1.84) did not reach statistical significance. At a daily standard dose of 840 mg/day, an increase in risk could not be determined.

Dr. Curfman’s recommendation is that patients who take, or want to take, preparations with omega-3 fatty acids be informed of the potential development of arrhythmia at higher dosages. These patients also should undergo cardiological monitoring.

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

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence in the United States over the last few decades, but is this a true increase? Or is this a case of overdiagnosis, fueled by screening?

A new study argues the case for overdiagnosis.

“The incidence of melanoma has risen sixfold in the past 40 years in the U.S., while mortality has remained largely flat, an epidemiological signature consistent with overdiagnosis,” commented lead author lead author Adewole Adamson, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine, division of dermatology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

He posted this conclusion on Twitter after the study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The discrepancies in incidence and mortality trends found in this cohort study suggest considerable overdiagnosis of melanoma occurring among White patients in the U.S.,” the authors concluded.

They estimated that an estimated 59% of White women and 60% of White men with melanoma were overdiagnosed in 2014.

These results are similar to those from a recent study from Australia, which used a different method of assessing overdiagnosis. Those findings estimated that 54%-58% of melanoma cases represented overdiagnosis in Australia, Dr. Adamson noted.

“Our estimates shed light on the HUGE scope of this problem in the United States that we need to address,” Dr. Adamson commented on Twitter. “Calls for screening for melanoma in the general public will only push these numbers higher, and make patients out of healthy people.”

“Screening the general population for melanoma has never been shown to save lives and likely is responsible for the increase in melanoma overdiagnosis,” Dr. Adamson said in an interview. “Screening average- and/or low-risk patients is of low value and the harms may outweigh the theoretical benefits.”

Screening programs should be directed to those who may derive the most benefit. “Screening should be limited to high-risk patients such as older White men, patients with a lot of atypical nevi, heavy sun exposure, fair skin, and red hair,” he said. “Just like for other cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal, there should be clear guidelines as to which populations to screen, as well as when to start and when to stop screening.”

Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of cancer that would never have caused any symptoms or problems in a patient’s lifetime. But therein lies the problem, explained Dr. Adamson. “Because we do not know which early, screen-detected skin cancers would be destined to progress, we are obligated to treat all of them.” There is evidence to suggest that melanoma in situ is not an obligate precursor lesion to invasive melanoma, similar to the situation in which not all ductal carcinoma in situ leads to invasive breast cancer. “It is possible that less aggressive management strategies could be the subject of future studies,” he said.
 

Patients out of healthy people

For their study, Dr. Adamson and colleagues compared rates of melanoma among White and Black patients. Melanoma is much less common among Black individuals, and they are also less likely to be screened. Additionally, screening rates among Black patients have remained more or less the same over the last decades, whereas screening has increased in White patients. 

The team used trends in mortality as a result of melanoma in Black patients as a marker for improvements in medical care. From this, they estimated the expected mortality trends in White patients if medical care had not improved. This served as a marker for the change in true cancer occurrence. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between observed incidence and estimated true cancer occurrence.

The incidence of melanoma rose dramatically among White patients from 1975 to 2014, increasing about fourfold in White women (incidence rate ratio, 4.01) and sixfold in White men (IRR, 5.97).

At the same time, there was much smaller increase (of less than 25%) in the incidence of melanoma in both Black women and Black men.

In that time period, melanoma-related mortality decreased approximately 25% in Black women and men; it remained stable in White women, but increased almost 50% in White men.

Had medical care not improved, estimated mortality would have increased 60% in White women and more than doubled in White men, the authors assert.
 

Guidelines needed

“Recognizing and addressing overdiagnosis is important,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment on the paper.

That said, Dr. Olszanski noted that this particular study has important limitations. “It is, by nature, a retrospective study using data from the [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database registry, limited to patients only in the U.S., and uses a control group of Black patients to estimate overdiagnosis in White patients. These important factors can certainly influence their findings. However, the paper also notes that White men have realized a true increase in diagnosis, backed by a notable increase in mortality.”

The findings should and do raise a number of provocative questions, Dr. Olszanski emphasized. “Should we curtail public screening? Should we mandate revised guidelines for biopsies or pathologic diagnosis?

“As a medical oncologist,” he continued, “I treat patients who clearly do not have benign disease and so it is easy for me to be biased toward aggressive screening. However, it is my opinion that we should develop guidelines aimed at lessening this apparent overdiagnosis.”

These guidelines should be based on prospective studies and would better define which lesions are most suspect and should be biopsied, which are rational for ongoing surveillance, and what pathologic features are most consistent with melanoma, he noted. “We also need to continue to educate the public, as all too often I see the patient who ignored a lesion that was changing over time. A changing lesion requires medical attention. Importantly, we likewise need to improve our commitment in educating the public about the risks of excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and how to avoid it, as prevention continues to be a most prudent course.”
 

Screening catches disease early

Another expert approached for comment emphasized that identifying melanomas early on may prevent the need for aggressive therapy. “Many primary melanomas in the U.S. are diagnosed now at an early stage and are cured with surgery, and that hardly constitutes overdiagnosis,” said Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and codirector of the melanoma research program, New York University Langone Health.

“In addition, the death rate from melanoma is likely decreased due to the advent of more effective therapies for metastatic disease, and the increasing use of adjuvant immune and targeted therapies that are highly effective at preventing relapse and undoubtedly at prolonging survival, but they have been approved only since 2017-2018,” he added.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Adamson and Dr. Olszanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies and holds equity in CytoMx, Biond, Neximmune, and Immunimax.

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

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence in the United States over the last few decades, but is this a true increase? Or is this a case of overdiagnosis, fueled by screening?

A new study argues the case for overdiagnosis.

“The incidence of melanoma has risen sixfold in the past 40 years in the U.S., while mortality has remained largely flat, an epidemiological signature consistent with overdiagnosis,” commented lead author lead author Adewole Adamson, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine, division of dermatology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

He posted this conclusion on Twitter after the study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The discrepancies in incidence and mortality trends found in this cohort study suggest considerable overdiagnosis of melanoma occurring among White patients in the U.S.,” the authors concluded.

They estimated that an estimated 59% of White women and 60% of White men with melanoma were overdiagnosed in 2014.

These results are similar to those from a recent study from Australia, which used a different method of assessing overdiagnosis. Those findings estimated that 54%-58% of melanoma cases represented overdiagnosis in Australia, Dr. Adamson noted.

“Our estimates shed light on the HUGE scope of this problem in the United States that we need to address,” Dr. Adamson commented on Twitter. “Calls for screening for melanoma in the general public will only push these numbers higher, and make patients out of healthy people.”

“Screening the general population for melanoma has never been shown to save lives and likely is responsible for the increase in melanoma overdiagnosis,” Dr. Adamson said in an interview. “Screening average- and/or low-risk patients is of low value and the harms may outweigh the theoretical benefits.”

Screening programs should be directed to those who may derive the most benefit. “Screening should be limited to high-risk patients such as older White men, patients with a lot of atypical nevi, heavy sun exposure, fair skin, and red hair,” he said. “Just like for other cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal, there should be clear guidelines as to which populations to screen, as well as when to start and when to stop screening.”

Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of cancer that would never have caused any symptoms or problems in a patient’s lifetime. But therein lies the problem, explained Dr. Adamson. “Because we do not know which early, screen-detected skin cancers would be destined to progress, we are obligated to treat all of them.” There is evidence to suggest that melanoma in situ is not an obligate precursor lesion to invasive melanoma, similar to the situation in which not all ductal carcinoma in situ leads to invasive breast cancer. “It is possible that less aggressive management strategies could be the subject of future studies,” he said.
 

Patients out of healthy people

For their study, Dr. Adamson and colleagues compared rates of melanoma among White and Black patients. Melanoma is much less common among Black individuals, and they are also less likely to be screened. Additionally, screening rates among Black patients have remained more or less the same over the last decades, whereas screening has increased in White patients. 

The team used trends in mortality as a result of melanoma in Black patients as a marker for improvements in medical care. From this, they estimated the expected mortality trends in White patients if medical care had not improved. This served as a marker for the change in true cancer occurrence. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between observed incidence and estimated true cancer occurrence.

The incidence of melanoma rose dramatically among White patients from 1975 to 2014, increasing about fourfold in White women (incidence rate ratio, 4.01) and sixfold in White men (IRR, 5.97).

At the same time, there was much smaller increase (of less than 25%) in the incidence of melanoma in both Black women and Black men.

In that time period, melanoma-related mortality decreased approximately 25% in Black women and men; it remained stable in White women, but increased almost 50% in White men.

Had medical care not improved, estimated mortality would have increased 60% in White women and more than doubled in White men, the authors assert.
 

Guidelines needed

“Recognizing and addressing overdiagnosis is important,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment on the paper.

That said, Dr. Olszanski noted that this particular study has important limitations. “It is, by nature, a retrospective study using data from the [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database registry, limited to patients only in the U.S., and uses a control group of Black patients to estimate overdiagnosis in White patients. These important factors can certainly influence their findings. However, the paper also notes that White men have realized a true increase in diagnosis, backed by a notable increase in mortality.”

The findings should and do raise a number of provocative questions, Dr. Olszanski emphasized. “Should we curtail public screening? Should we mandate revised guidelines for biopsies or pathologic diagnosis?

“As a medical oncologist,” he continued, “I treat patients who clearly do not have benign disease and so it is easy for me to be biased toward aggressive screening. However, it is my opinion that we should develop guidelines aimed at lessening this apparent overdiagnosis.”

These guidelines should be based on prospective studies and would better define which lesions are most suspect and should be biopsied, which are rational for ongoing surveillance, and what pathologic features are most consistent with melanoma, he noted. “We also need to continue to educate the public, as all too often I see the patient who ignored a lesion that was changing over time. A changing lesion requires medical attention. Importantly, we likewise need to improve our commitment in educating the public about the risks of excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and how to avoid it, as prevention continues to be a most prudent course.”
 

Screening catches disease early

Another expert approached for comment emphasized that identifying melanomas early on may prevent the need for aggressive therapy. “Many primary melanomas in the U.S. are diagnosed now at an early stage and are cured with surgery, and that hardly constitutes overdiagnosis,” said Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and codirector of the melanoma research program, New York University Langone Health.

“In addition, the death rate from melanoma is likely decreased due to the advent of more effective therapies for metastatic disease, and the increasing use of adjuvant immune and targeted therapies that are highly effective at preventing relapse and undoubtedly at prolonging survival, but they have been approved only since 2017-2018,” he added.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Adamson and Dr. Olszanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies and holds equity in CytoMx, Biond, Neximmune, and Immunimax.

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

Melanoma has been increasing in incidence in the United States over the last few decades, but is this a true increase? Or is this a case of overdiagnosis, fueled by screening?

A new study argues the case for overdiagnosis.

“The incidence of melanoma has risen sixfold in the past 40 years in the U.S., while mortality has remained largely flat, an epidemiological signature consistent with overdiagnosis,” commented lead author lead author Adewole Adamson, MD, an assistant professor of internal medicine, division of dermatology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

He posted this conclusion on Twitter after the study was published in JAMA Dermatology.

“The discrepancies in incidence and mortality trends found in this cohort study suggest considerable overdiagnosis of melanoma occurring among White patients in the U.S.,” the authors concluded.

They estimated that an estimated 59% of White women and 60% of White men with melanoma were overdiagnosed in 2014.

These results are similar to those from a recent study from Australia, which used a different method of assessing overdiagnosis. Those findings estimated that 54%-58% of melanoma cases represented overdiagnosis in Australia, Dr. Adamson noted.

“Our estimates shed light on the HUGE scope of this problem in the United States that we need to address,” Dr. Adamson commented on Twitter. “Calls for screening for melanoma in the general public will only push these numbers higher, and make patients out of healthy people.”

“Screening the general population for melanoma has never been shown to save lives and likely is responsible for the increase in melanoma overdiagnosis,” Dr. Adamson said in an interview. “Screening average- and/or low-risk patients is of low value and the harms may outweigh the theoretical benefits.”

Screening programs should be directed to those who may derive the most benefit. “Screening should be limited to high-risk patients such as older White men, patients with a lot of atypical nevi, heavy sun exposure, fair skin, and red hair,” he said. “Just like for other cancers, such as breast, prostate, and colorectal, there should be clear guidelines as to which populations to screen, as well as when to start and when to stop screening.”

Overdiagnosis is defined as the diagnosis of cancer that would never have caused any symptoms or problems in a patient’s lifetime. But therein lies the problem, explained Dr. Adamson. “Because we do not know which early, screen-detected skin cancers would be destined to progress, we are obligated to treat all of them.” There is evidence to suggest that melanoma in situ is not an obligate precursor lesion to invasive melanoma, similar to the situation in which not all ductal carcinoma in situ leads to invasive breast cancer. “It is possible that less aggressive management strategies could be the subject of future studies,” he said.
 

Patients out of healthy people

For their study, Dr. Adamson and colleagues compared rates of melanoma among White and Black patients. Melanoma is much less common among Black individuals, and they are also less likely to be screened. Additionally, screening rates among Black patients have remained more or less the same over the last decades, whereas screening has increased in White patients. 

The team used trends in mortality as a result of melanoma in Black patients as a marker for improvements in medical care. From this, they estimated the expected mortality trends in White patients if medical care had not improved. This served as a marker for the change in true cancer occurrence. Overdiagnosis was calculated as the difference between observed incidence and estimated true cancer occurrence.

The incidence of melanoma rose dramatically among White patients from 1975 to 2014, increasing about fourfold in White women (incidence rate ratio, 4.01) and sixfold in White men (IRR, 5.97).

At the same time, there was much smaller increase (of less than 25%) in the incidence of melanoma in both Black women and Black men.

In that time period, melanoma-related mortality decreased approximately 25% in Black women and men; it remained stable in White women, but increased almost 50% in White men.

Had medical care not improved, estimated mortality would have increased 60% in White women and more than doubled in White men, the authors assert.
 

Guidelines needed

“Recognizing and addressing overdiagnosis is important,” said Anthony J. Olszanski, MD, RPh, associate professor, department of hematology/oncology at Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, who was approached for comment on the paper.

That said, Dr. Olszanski noted that this particular study has important limitations. “It is, by nature, a retrospective study using data from the [Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results] database registry, limited to patients only in the U.S., and uses a control group of Black patients to estimate overdiagnosis in White patients. These important factors can certainly influence their findings. However, the paper also notes that White men have realized a true increase in diagnosis, backed by a notable increase in mortality.”

The findings should and do raise a number of provocative questions, Dr. Olszanski emphasized. “Should we curtail public screening? Should we mandate revised guidelines for biopsies or pathologic diagnosis?

“As a medical oncologist,” he continued, “I treat patients who clearly do not have benign disease and so it is easy for me to be biased toward aggressive screening. However, it is my opinion that we should develop guidelines aimed at lessening this apparent overdiagnosis.”

These guidelines should be based on prospective studies and would better define which lesions are most suspect and should be biopsied, which are rational for ongoing surveillance, and what pathologic features are most consistent with melanoma, he noted. “We also need to continue to educate the public, as all too often I see the patient who ignored a lesion that was changing over time. A changing lesion requires medical attention. Importantly, we likewise need to improve our commitment in educating the public about the risks of excessive ultraviolet radiation exposure and how to avoid it, as prevention continues to be a most prudent course.”
 

Screening catches disease early

Another expert approached for comment emphasized that identifying melanomas early on may prevent the need for aggressive therapy. “Many primary melanomas in the U.S. are diagnosed now at an early stage and are cured with surgery, and that hardly constitutes overdiagnosis,” said Jeffrey S. Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director of the Perlmutter Cancer Center and codirector of the melanoma research program, New York University Langone Health.

“In addition, the death rate from melanoma is likely decreased due to the advent of more effective therapies for metastatic disease, and the increasing use of adjuvant immune and targeted therapies that are highly effective at preventing relapse and undoubtedly at prolonging survival, but they have been approved only since 2017-2018,” he added.

This study was supported in part by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Adamson and Dr. Olszanski disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies and holds equity in CytoMx, Biond, Neximmune, and Immunimax.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older adults taking psychotropic medication before contracting COVID-19 are at increased risk of dementia in the year following the illness, new research suggests.

Results from a large study of more than 1,700 patients who had been hospitalized with COVID showed a greater than twofold increased risk for post-COVID dementia in those taking antipsychotics and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants – medications often used to treat schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorder, and seizures.

“We know that pre-existing psychiatric illness is associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, but our study is the first to show an association with certain psychiatric medications and dementia,” co-investigator Liron Sinvani, MD, the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.

Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research

‘Striking’ dementia rate

Using electronic health records, the researchers evaluated pre-COVID psychotropic medication use and post-COVID dementia onset in 1,755 adults aged 65 and older. All were hospitalized with COVID-19 at Northwell Health between March 1 and April 20, 2020.

A “striking” 13% of the participants (n = 223) developed dementia within 1-year of follow-up, the investigators report.

Among the 438 patients (25%) exposed to at least one psychotropic medication before COVID-19, 105 (24%) developed dementia in the year following COVID versus 118 of 1,317 (9%) patients with no pre-COVID exposure to psychotropic medication (odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-4.32).

Both pre-COVID psychotropic medication use (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0, P < .001) and delirium (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.6, P < .001) were significantly associated with post-COVID dementia at 1 year.

In a sensitivity analysis in the subset of 423 patients with at least one documented neurologic or psychiatric diagnosis at the time of COVID admission, and after adjusting for confounding factors, pre-COVID psychotropic medication use remained significantly linked to post-COVID dementia onset (OR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.5-6.6, P = .002).

Drug classes most strongly associated with 1-year post-COVID dementia onset were antipsychotics (OR, 2.8, 95% CI, 1.7-4.4, P < .001) and mood stabilizers/anticonvulsants (OR, 2.4, 95% CI, 1.39-4.02, P = .001).

In a further exploratory analysis, the psychotropics valproic acid (multiple brands) and haloperidol (Haldol) had the largest association with post-COVID dementia.

Antidepressants as a class were not associated with post-COVID dementia, but the potential effects of two commonly prescribed antidepressants in older adults, mirtazapine (Remeron) and escitalopram (Lexapro), “warrant further investigation,” the researchers note.
 

Predictive risk marker?

“This research shows that psychotropic medications can be considered a predictive risk marker for post-COVID dementia. In patients taking psychotropic medications, COVID-19 could have accelerated progression of dementia after hospitalization,” lead author Yun Freudenberg-Hua, MD, the Feinstein Institutes, said in a news release.

It is unclear why psychotropic medications may raise the risk for dementia onset after COVID, the investigators note.

“It is intuitive that psychotropic medications indicate pre-existing neuropsychiatric conditions in which COVID-19 occurs. It is possible that psychotropic medications may potentiate the neurostructural changes that have been found in the brain of those who have recovered from COVID-19,” they write.

The sensitivity analysis in patients with documented neurologic and psychiatric diagnoses supports this interpretation. 

COVID-19 may also accelerate the underlying brain disorders for which psychotropic medications were prescribed, leading to the greater incidence of post-COVID dementia, the researchers write.

“It is important to note that this study is in no way recommending people should stop taking antipsychotics but simply that clinicians need to factor in a patient’s medication history while considering post-COVID aftereffects,” Dr. Freudenberg-Hua said.

“Given that the number of patients with dementia is projected to triple in the next 30 years, these findings have significant public health implications,” Dr. Sinvani added.

She noted that “care partners and health care professionals” should look for early signs of dementia, such as forgetfulness and depressive symptoms, in their patients.

“Future studies must continue to evaluate these associations, which are key for potential future interventions to prevent dementia,” Dr. Sinvani said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Freudenberg-Hua co-owns stock and stock options from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Sinvani has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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