Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

Welcome to Impact Factor, your weekly dose of commentary on a new medical study. I’m Dr F. Perry Wilson of the Yale School of Medicine.

If you’ve watched this space over the years, you’ll know that I’m not the biggest proponent of vitamin D supplementation. My basic gripe is that you’ve got all these observational studies linking lower levels of vitamin D to everything from dementia to falls to cancer to COVID infection, and then you do a big randomized trial of supplementation and don’t see an effect.

And the explanation is that vitamin D is not necessarily the thing causing these bad outcomes; it’s a bystander – a canary in the coal mine. Your vitamin D level is a marker of your lifestyle; it’s higher in people who eat healthier foods, who exercise, and who spend more time out in the sun.

And yet ... if you were to ask me whether supplementing vitamin D in children with vitamin D deficiency would help them grow better and be healthier, I probably would have been on board for the idea.

And, it looks like, I would have been wrong.

Yes, it’s another negative randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to add to the seemingly ever-growing body of literature suggesting that your money is better spent on a day at the park rather than buying D3 from your local GNC.

We are talking about this study, appearing in JAMA Pediatrics.

Briefly, 8,851 children from around Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, were randomized to receive 14,000 international units of vitamin D3 or placebo every week for 3 years.

Before we get into the results of the study, I need to point out that this part of Mongolia has a high rate of vitamin D deficiency. Beyond that, a prior observational study by these authors had shown that lower vitamin D levels were linked to the risk of acquiring latent tuberculosis infection in this area. Other studies have linked vitamin D deficiency with poorer growth metrics in children. Given the global scourge that is TB (around 2 million deaths a year) and childhood malnutrition (around 10% of children around the world), vitamin D supplementation is incredibly attractive as a public health intervention. It is relatively low on side effects and, importantly, it is cheap – and thus scalable.

Back to the study. These kids had pretty poor vitamin D levels at baseline; 95% of them were deficient, based on the accepted standard of levels less than 20 ng/mL. Over 30% were severely deficient, with levels less than 10 ng/mL.

The initial purpose of this study was to see if supplementation would prevent TB, but that analysis, which was published a few months ago, was negative. Vitamin D levels went up dramatically in the intervention group – they were taking their pills – but there was no difference in the rate of latent TB infection, active TB, other respiratory infections, or even serum interferon gamma levels.

Nothing.

But to be fair, the TB seroconversion rate was lower than expected, potentially leading to an underpowered study.

Which brings us to the just-published analysis which moves away from infectious disease to something where vitamin D should have some stronger footing: growth.

Would the kids who were randomized to vitamin D, those same kids who got their vitamin D levels into the normal range over 3 years of supplementation, grow more or grow better than the kids who didn’t?

And, unfortunately, the answer is still no.

At the end of follow-up, height z scores were not different between the groups. BMI z scores were not different between the groups. Pubertal development was not different between the groups. This was true not only overall, but across various subgroups, including analyses of those kids who had vitamin D levels less than 10 ng/mL to start with.

So, what’s going on? There are two very broad possibilities we can endorse. First, there’s the idea that vitamin D supplementation simply doesn’t do much for health. This is supported, now, by a long string of large clinical trials that show no effect across a variety of disease states and predisease states. In other words, the observational data linking low vitamin D to bad outcomes is correlation, not causation.

Or we can take the tack of some vitamin D apologists and decide that this trial just got it wrong. Perhaps the dose wasn’t given correctly, or 3 years isn’t long enough to see a real difference, or the growth metrics were wrong, or vitamin D needs to be given alongside something else to really work and so on. This is fine; no study is perfect and there is always something to criticize, believe me. But we need to be careful not to fall into the baby-and-bathwater fallacy. Just because we think a study could have done something better, or differently, doesn’t mean we can ignore all the results. And as each new randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation comes out, it’s getting harder and harder to believe that these trialists keep getting their methods wrong. Maybe they are just testing something that doesn’t work.

What to do? Well, it should be obvious. If low vitamin D levels are linked to TB rates and poor growth but supplementation doesn’t fix the problem, then we have to fix what is upstream of the problem. We need to boost vitamin D levels not through supplements, but through nutrition, exercise, activity, and getting outside. That’s a randomized trial you can sign me up for any day.

Dr. Wilson is associate professor, department of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this video transcript first appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Widely anticipated data from a phase 3 trial of the monoclonal antibody lecanemab suggest the drug “modestly” relieved cognitive impairment in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) – but at a cost.

In the CLARITY AD trial, adverse events (AEs) were common compared with placebo, including amyloid-related edema and effusions; and a recent news report linked a second death to the drug.

Moving forward, “longer trials are warranted to determine the efficacy and safety of lecanemab in early Alzheimer’s disease,” wrote Christopher H. van Dyck, MD, Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues.

The full trial findings were presented at the Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease (CTAD) conference, with simultaneous publication on Nov. 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Complications in the field

The phase 3 trial of lecanemab has been closely watched in AD circles, especially considering positive early data released in September and reported by this news organization at that time.

The Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision about possible approval of the drug in January 2023. Only one other antiamyloid treatment, the highly controversial and expensive aducanumab (Aduhelm), is currently approved by the FDA.

For the new 18-month, randomized, double-blind CLARITY AD trial, researchers enrolled 1,795 patients aged 50-90 years (average age, 71 years) with early AD. All were randomly assigned to receive either a placebo (n = 898) or intravenous lecanemab, a humanized immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that selectively targets amyloid beta (A-beta) protofibrils, at 10 mg/kg of body weight every 2 weeks (n = 897).

The study ran from 2019 to 2021. The participants (52% women, 20% non-White) were recruited in North America, Europe, and Asia. Safety data included all participants, and the modified intention-to-treat group included 1,734 participants, with 859 receiving lecanemab and 875 receiving placebo.

The primary endpoint was the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). Scores from 0.5 to 6 are signs of early AD, according to the study. The mean baseline score for both groups was 3.2. The adjusted mean change at 18 months was 1.21 for lecanemab versus 1.66 for placebo (difference, –0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.67 to –0.23; P < .001).

As Dr. van Dyck noted in his presentation at the CTAD meting, this represents a 27% slowing of the decline in the lecanemab group.

The published findings do not speculate about how this difference would affect the day-to-day life of participants who took the drug, although it does refer to “modestly less decline” of cognition/function in the lecanemab group.

Other measurements that suggest cognitive improvements in the lecanemab group versus placebo include the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale score (mean difference, –1.44; 95% CI, –2.27 to –0.61), the Alzheimer’s Disease Composite Score (mean difference, –0.05; 95% CI, –.074 to –.027,), and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living Scale for Mild Cognitive Impairment score (mean difference, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2-2.8; all, P < .001).

Overall, Dr. van Dyck said, “Lecanemab met the primary and secondary endpoints versus placebo at 18 months, with highly significant differences starting at 6 months.”

In a substudy of 698 participants, results showed that amyloid burden fell at a higher rate in the lecanemab group than in the placebo group (difference, –59.1 centiloids; 95% CI, –62.6 to –55.6).

“Lecanemab has high selectivity for soluble aggregated species of A-beta as compared with monomeric amyloid, with moderate selectivity for fibrillar amyloid; this profile is considered to target the most toxic pathologic amyloid species,” the researchers wrote.
 

Concerning AE data

With respect to AEs, deaths occurred in both groups (0.7% in those who took lecanemab and 0.8% in those who took the placebo). The researchers did not attribute any deaths to the drug. However, according to a report in the journal Science published Nov. 27, a 65-year-old woman who was taking the drug as part of a clinical trial “recently died from a massive brain hemorrhage that some researchers link to the drug.”

The woman, the second person “whose death was linked to lecanemab,” died after suffering a stroke. Researchers summarized a case report as saying that the drug “contributed to her brain hemorrhage after biweekly infusions of lecanemab inflamed and weakened the blood vessels.”

Eisai, which sponsored the new trial, told Science that “all the available safety information indicates that lecanemab therapy is not associated with an increased risk of death overall or from any specific cause.”

In a CTAD presentation, study coauthor Marwan Sabbagh, MD, Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, said two hemorrhage-related deaths occurred in an open-label extension. One was in the context of a tissue plasminogen activator treatment for a stroke, which fits with the description of the case in the Science report. “Causality with lecanemab is a little difficult ...,” he said. “Patients on anticoagulation might need further consideration.”

In the CLARITY AD Trial, serious AEs occurred in 14% of the lecanemab group, leading to discontinuation 6.9% of the time, and in 11.3% of the placebo group, leading to discontinuation 2.9% of the time, the investigators reported.

They added that, in the lecanemab group, the most common AEs, defined as affecting more than 10% of participants, were infusion-related reactions (26.4% vs. 7.4% for placebo); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with cerebral microhemorrhages, cerebral macrohemorrhages, or superficial siderosis (17.3% vs. 9%, respectively); amyloid-related imaging abnormalities with edema or effusions (12.6% vs. 1.7%); headache (11.1% vs. 8.1%); and falls (10.4% vs. 9.6%).

In addition, macrohemorrhage was reported in 0.6% of the lecanemab group and 0.1% of the placebo group.
 

Cautious optimism

In separate interviews, two Alzheimer’s specialists who weren’t involved in the study praised the trial and described the findings as “exciting.” But they also highlighted its limitations.

Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and chief medical officer of Linus Health, said the study represents impressive progress after 60-plus trials examining anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies. “This is the first trial that shows a clinical benefit that can be measured,” he said.

However, it’s unclear whether the changes “are really going to make a difference in people’s lives,” he said. The drug is likely to be expensive, owing to the large investment needed for research, he added, and patients will have to undergo costly testing, such as PET scans and spinal taps.

Still, “this could be a valuable adjunct to the armamentarium we have,” which includes interventions such as lifestyle changes, he said.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, noted that the trial reached its primary and secondary endpoints and that the drug had what he called a “modest” effect on cognition.

However, the drugmaker will need to explore the adverse effects, he said, especially among patients with atrial fibrillation who take anticoagulants. And, he said, medicine is still far from the ultimate goal – fully reversing cognitive decline.

Michael Weiner, MD, president of the CTAD22 Scientific Committee, noted in a press release that there is “growing evidence” that some antiamyloid therapies, “especially lecanemab and donanemab” have shown promising results.

“Unfortunately, these treatments are also associated with abnormal differences seen in imaging, including brain swelling and bleeding in the brain,” said Dr. Weiner, professor of radiology, medicine, and neurology at the University of California, San Francisco.

“There is considerable controversy concerning the significance and impact of these findings, including whether or not governments and medical insurance will provide financial coverage for such treatments,” he added.
 

Rave reviews from the Alzheimer’s Association

In a statement, the Alzheimer’s Association raved about lecanemab and declared that the FDA should approve lecanemab on an accelerated basis. The study “confirms this treatment can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease ...” the association said, adding that “it could mean many months more of recognizing their spouse, children and grandchildren.”

The association, which is a staunch supporter of aducanumab, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to cover the drug if the FDA approves it. The association’s statement did not address the drug’s potential high cost, the adverse effects, or the two reported deaths.

The trial was supported by Eisai (regulatory sponsor) with partial funding from Biogen. Dr. van Dyck reports having received research grants from Biogen, Eisai, Biohaven, Cerevel Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Genentech, Janssen, Novartis, and UCB. He has been a consultant to Cerevel, Eisai, Ono Pharmaceutical, and Roche. Relevant financial relationships for the other investigators are fully listed in the original article.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, there have been a series of published studies in the realm of cardiovascular disease that have changed certain beliefs we’ve held in the past. I’m going to review a few of these.

The first is the TIME study. The TIME study looked at whether it matters if you give antihypertensive agents in the morning or the evening. This was a prospective, pragmatic, parallel-group study that was performed in the U.K. and published in The Lancet.

Their question was whether evening dosing of antihypertensives has benefit in cardiovascular outcomes in adults. They enrolled over 21,000 people with hypertension who were taking at least one antihypertensive medication. Patients were randomized to morning or evening dosing.

The primary outcome was death or hospitalization due to myocardial infarction or stroke. There was no difference. It doesn’t matter if you take your antihypertensive agent in the morning or the evening. I think this is important because, clinically, the simpler the regimen for the patient, the greater the adherence, leading to better outcomes.

I know I can safely ask a patient when they would rather take their medicine. For many people, that may be the morning because they’re brushing their teeth and they remember. If they want to take it in the evening, that’s fine, too. We’re no longer slave to telling a patient to take their antihypertensive medications in the evening.

At the meeting of the American Society of Nephrology, results from a study on the use of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in advanced CKD was presented, called the STOP ACEi trial. Again, another interesting trial asking a simple question. This was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in patients who had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 30, and they were randomized to stop or continue therapy with their RAS inhibitors.

The primary outcome was the eGFR at 3 years. They enrolled 411 patients with a median baseline eGFR of 18. At 3 years, there was no difference in the eGFR between the groups. In the discontinuation group, the eGFR was 12.6 versus 13.3 in the continuation group. There were no differences in complications or anything else. Their conclusion was that among patients with advanced and progressive CKD, the discontinuation of a RAS inhibitor was not associated with a significant difference in the long-term rate of decrease in eGFR.

I think this is important because it changes our paradigm a bit. You can stop the RAS inhibitor; reduce the need for excessive medication in these patients; and, hopefully, focus on some newer medications that have been shown to prevent the decline in eGFR that are now available.

Next is from a letter published in JAMA, which asks the following question: Is diabetes itself an equivalent cardiovascular risk factor to those who have had a prior cardiovascular event?

We used to put having diabetes in that same high-risk category as people who’d already had a cardiovascular disease event. Well, have we made that any different? These authors are from Canada, and they did a retrospective population-based study looking at administrative health claims from Ontario, Canada, to assess the association of diabetes and prior cardiovascular disease with cardiovascular events from 1994 to 2014.

What I think is kind of cool, because I’m a diabetologist, is that over time the magnitude of the association between diabetes and cardiovascular event rates decreased. In somebody with diabetes, they don’t have the same high risk that a person who’s already had a cardiovascular event rate does. Diabetes is less of a risk factor for cardiovascular disease than having established cardiovascular disease, which means we’re treating diabetes better and reducing the risk for cardiovascular disease.

If you look at people with diabetes and a prior cardiovascular event, that’s still the very highest risk. The risk of people having another event who have established cardiovascular disease is pretty flat. Those people didn’t get better and the people with preexisting diabetes and cardiovascular events at baseline didn’t get much better, but those who had diabetes alone did improve in terms of looking at cardiovascular event rates.

I think this is good news because diabetes itself isn’t as high a cardiovascular risk factor as we once thought. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a cardiovascular risk factor, but I think we’ve done better at mitigating the risk.

Finally, there is a relatively small study that was presented at the American Heart Association and published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, which asks whether supplements that are often used to lower LDL cholesterol are equivalent to a statin.

They compared six supplements with a placebo and with rosuvastatin, and looked to see what happened. This is not an outcome study, but a very short study, at 28 days, that used a placebo. They included 190 people with no history of cardiovascular disease but an increased 10-year risk for sclerotic cardiovascular disease.

The agents studied were rosuvastatin, placebo, fish oil, cinnamon, garlic, turmeric, plant sterols, and red yeast rice. Well, not surprisingly, rosuvastatin worked. It showed a 35% reduction in LDL cholesterol, and there was no significant impact on cholesterol levels with any of the other agents. The supplements yielded a similar response, as did the placebo. Side effects were similar, but they were most common with plant sterols and red yeast rice.

Clearly, a statin is better if you want to lower cholesterol levels. My approach, when patients want to take supplements, is to tell them what I know factually, which basically is that they don’t really cause much in the way of LDL cholesterol lowering. If I think the supplement isn’t going to hurt someone, I don’t tell them not to use it. I certainly tell them that they need to use agents that we know can actually reduce cardiovascular risk.

I think these studies really go through the gamut of asking questions. When can we stop an agent? What time of day do we need to give an agent? What, really, is the risk for type 2 diabetes with regard to cardiovascular events? What’s the value of supplements?

I think this is interesting, because I really encourage researchers to ask and answer these kinds of questions because it helps us clinically decide what’s best for treating our patients.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She reported conflicts of interest with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

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

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Using buprenorphine for opioid use disorder in pregnancy was linked with a lower risk of neonatal side effects than using methadone, but the risk of adverse maternal outcomes was similar between the two treatments, according to new research.

Elizabeth A. Suarez, PhD, MPH, with Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led the study published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Opioid use disorder in pregnant women has increased steadily in the United States since 2000, the authors write. As of 2017, about 8.2 per 1,000 deliveries were estimated to be affected by the disorder. The numbers were particularly high in people insured by Medicaid. In that group, an estimated 14.6 per 1,000 deliveries were affected.

Researchers studied pregnant women enrolled in public insurance programs in the United States from 2000 through 2018 in a dataset of 2,548,372 pregnancies that ended in live births. They analyzed outcomes in those who received buprenorphine as compared with those who received methadone.

They looked at different periods of exposure to the two medications: early pregnancy (through gestational week 19); late pregnancy (week 20 through the day before delivery); and the 30 days before delivery.

Highlighted differences in infants included:

• Neonatal abstinence syndrome in 52% of the infants who were exposed to buprenorphine in the 30 days before delivery as compared with 69.2% of those exposed to methadone (adjusted relative risk, 0.73).
• Preterm birth in 14.4% of infants exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and in 24.9% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 0.58).
• Small size for gestational age in 12.1% (buprenorphine) and 15.3% (methadone) (ARR, 0.72).
• Low birth weight in 8.3% (buprenorphine) and 14.9% (methadone) (ARR, 0.56).
• Delivery by cesarean section occurred in 33.6% of pregnant women exposed to buprenorphine in early pregnancy and 33.1% of those exposed to methadone (ARR, 1.02.).

Severe maternal complications developed in 3.3% of the women exposed to buprenorphine and 3.5% of those on methadone (ARR, 0.91.) Exposures in late pregnancy and early pregnancy yielded similar results, the authors say.

Michael Caucci, MD, of the department of psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn. who also runs the Women’s Mental Health Clinic at the university, said this paper supports preliminary findings from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research (MOTHER) study that suggested infants exposed to buprenorphine (compared with methadone) appeared to have lower rates of neonatal complications.

“It also supports buprenorphine as a relatively safe option for treatment of opioid use disorder during pregnancy,” said Dr. Caucci, who was not part of the study by Dr. Suarez and associates. “Reducing the fear of harming the fetus or neonate will help eliminate this barrier to perinatal substance use disorder treatment.”

But he cautions against concluding that, because buprenorphine has lower risks of fetal/neonatal complications, it is safer and therefore better than methadone in pregnancy. 

“Some women do not tolerate buprenorphine and do much better on methadone, Dr. Caucci said. “Current recommendations are that both buprenorphine and methadone are relatively safe options for treatment of OUD [opioid use disorder] in pregnancy.”

Among the differences between the treatments is that while methadone is administered daily during in-person visits to federally regulated opioid treatment programs, buprenorphine can be prescribed by approved providers, which allows patients to administer buprenorphine themselves.

Dr. Caucci said he was intrigued by the finding that there was no difference in pregnancy, neonatal, and maternal outcomes depending on the time of exposure to the agents.  

“I would have expected higher rates of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) or poor fetal growth in those exposed later in pregnancy vs. those with early exposure,” he said. 

The work was supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Caucci reports no relevant financial relationships. The authors’ disclosures are available with the full text.

Reports of respiratory illness continued to rise as the 2022-23 flu season maintained its early surge through mid-November, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. 

Nationally, 6% of all outpatient visits were because of flu or flu-like illness for the week of Nov. 13-19, up from 5.8% the previous week, the CDC’s Influenza Division said in its weekly FluView report.

Those figures are the highest recorded in November since 2009, but the peak of the 2009-10 flu season occurred even earlier – the week of Oct. 18-24 – and the rate of flu-like illness had already dropped to just over 4.0% by Nov. 15-21 that year and continued to drop thereafter.

Although COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are included in the data from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the agency did note that “seasonal influenza activity is elevated across the country” and estimated that “there have been at least 6.2 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and 2,900 deaths from flu” during the 2022-23 season.

Total flu deaths include 11 reported in children as of Nov. 19, and children ages 0-4 had a higher proportion of visits for flu like-illness than other age groups.

The agency also said the cumulative hospitalization rate of 11.3 per 100,000 population “is higher than the rate observed in [the corresponding week of] every previous season since 2010-2011.” Adults 65 years and older have the highest cumulative rate, 25.9 per 100,000, for this year, compared with 20.7 for children 0-4; 11.1 for adults 50-64; 10.3 for children 5-17; and 5.6 for adults 18-49 years old, the CDC said.

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

Reports of respiratory illness continued to rise as the 2022-23 flu season maintained its early surge through mid-November, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. 

Nationally, 6% of all outpatient visits were because of flu or flu-like illness for the week of Nov. 13-19, up from 5.8% the previous week, the CDC’s Influenza Division said in its weekly FluView report.

Those figures are the highest recorded in November since 2009, but the peak of the 2009-10 flu season occurred even earlier – the week of Oct. 18-24 – and the rate of flu-like illness had already dropped to just over 4.0% by Nov. 15-21 that year and continued to drop thereafter.

Although COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are included in the data from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the agency did note that “seasonal influenza activity is elevated across the country” and estimated that “there have been at least 6.2 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and 2,900 deaths from flu” during the 2022-23 season.

Total flu deaths include 11 reported in children as of Nov. 19, and children ages 0-4 had a higher proportion of visits for flu like-illness than other age groups.

The agency also said the cumulative hospitalization rate of 11.3 per 100,000 population “is higher than the rate observed in [the corresponding week of] every previous season since 2010-2011.” Adults 65 years and older have the highest cumulative rate, 25.9 per 100,000, for this year, compared with 20.7 for children 0-4; 11.1 for adults 50-64; 10.3 for children 5-17; and 5.6 for adults 18-49 years old, the CDC said.

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

Reports of respiratory illness continued to rise as the 2022-23 flu season maintained its early surge through mid-November, according to the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. 

Nationally, 6% of all outpatient visits were because of flu or flu-like illness for the week of Nov. 13-19, up from 5.8% the previous week, the CDC’s Influenza Division said in its weekly FluView report.

Those figures are the highest recorded in November since 2009, but the peak of the 2009-10 flu season occurred even earlier – the week of Oct. 18-24 – and the rate of flu-like illness had already dropped to just over 4.0% by Nov. 15-21 that year and continued to drop thereafter.

Although COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) are included in the data from the CDC’s Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network, the agency did note that “seasonal influenza activity is elevated across the country” and estimated that “there have been at least 6.2 million illnesses, 53,000 hospitalizations, and 2,900 deaths from flu” during the 2022-23 season.

Total flu deaths include 11 reported in children as of Nov. 19, and children ages 0-4 had a higher proportion of visits for flu like-illness than other age groups.

The agency also said the cumulative hospitalization rate of 11.3 per 100,000 population “is higher than the rate observed in [the corresponding week of] every previous season since 2010-2011.” Adults 65 years and older have the highest cumulative rate, 25.9 per 100,000, for this year, compared with 20.7 for children 0-4; 11.1 for adults 50-64; 10.3 for children 5-17; and 5.6 for adults 18-49 years old, the CDC said.

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

The Diagnosis: Solitary Sclerotic Fibroma

Based on the clinical and histologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with solitary sclerotic fibroma (SF). Sclerotic fibroma is a rare benign tumor that first was described in 1972 by Weary et al¹ in the oral mucosa of a patient with Cowden syndrome, a genodermatosis associated with multiple benign and malignant tumors. Rapini and Golitz² reported solitary SF in 11 otherwise-healthy individuals with no signs of multiple hamartoma syndrome. Solitary SF is a sporadic benign condition, whereas multiple lesions are suggestive of Cowden syndrome. Solitary SF most commonly appears as an asymptomatic white-yellow papule or nodule on the head or neck, though larger tumors have been reported on the trunk and extremities.³ Histologic features of solitary SF include a well-circumscribed dermal nodule composed of eosinophilic dense collagen bundles arranged in a plywoodlike pattern (Figure). Immunohistochemistry is positive for CD34 and vimentin but negative for S-100, epithelial membrane antigen, and neuron-specific enolase.⁴

The differential diagnosis of solitary SF of the head and neck includes sebaceous adenoma, pilar cyst, nodular basal cell carcinoma, and giant molluscum contagiosum. Sebaceous adenomas usually are solitary yellow nodules less than 1 cm in diameter and located on the head and neck. They are the most common sebaceous neoplasm associated with Muir-Torre syndrome, an autosomal-dominant disorder characterized by sebaceous adenoma or carcinoma and colorectal cancer. Histopathology demonstrates well-circumscribed, round aggregations of mature lipid-filled sebocytes with a rim of basaloid germinative cells at the periphery. Pilar cysts typically are flesh-colored subcutaneous nodules on the scalp that are freely mobile over underlying tissue. Histopathology shows stratified squamous epithelium lining and trichilemmal keratinization. Nodular basal cell carcinoma has a pearly translucent appearance and arborizing telangiectases. Histopathology demonstrates nests of basaloid cells with palisading of the cells at the periphery. Giant solitary molluscum contagiosum is a dome-shaped, flesh-colored nodule with central umbilication. Histopathology reveals hyperplastic squamous epithelium with characteristic eosinophilic inclusion bodies above the basal layer.

Solitary SF can be difficult to diagnose based solely on the clinical presentation; thus biopsy with histologic evaluation is recommended. If SF is confirmed, the clinician should inquire about a family history of Cowden syndrome and then perform a total-body skin examination to check for multiple SF and other clinical hamartomas of Cowden syndrome such as trichilemmomas, acral keratosis, and oral papillomas.

The Diagnosis: Solitary Sclerotic Fibroma

Based on the clinical and histologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with solitary sclerotic fibroma (SF). Sclerotic fibroma is a rare benign tumor that first was described in 1972 by Weary et al¹ in the oral mucosa of a patient with Cowden syndrome, a genodermatosis associated with multiple benign and malignant tumors. Rapini and Golitz² reported solitary SF in 11 otherwise-healthy individuals with no signs of multiple hamartoma syndrome. Solitary SF is a sporadic benign condition, whereas multiple lesions are suggestive of Cowden syndrome. Solitary SF most commonly appears as an asymptomatic white-yellow papule or nodule on the head or neck, though larger tumors have been reported on the trunk and extremities.³ Histologic features of solitary SF include a well-circumscribed dermal nodule composed of eosinophilic dense collagen bundles arranged in a plywoodlike pattern (Figure). Immunohistochemistry is positive for CD34 and vimentin but negative for S-100, epithelial membrane antigen, and neuron-specific enolase.⁴

The differential diagnosis of solitary SF of the head and neck includes sebaceous adenoma, pilar cyst, nodular basal cell carcinoma, and giant molluscum contagiosum. Sebaceous adenomas usually are solitary yellow nodules less than 1 cm in diameter and located on the head and neck. They are the most common sebaceous neoplasm associated with Muir-Torre syndrome, an autosomal-dominant disorder characterized by sebaceous adenoma or carcinoma and colorectal cancer. Histopathology demonstrates well-circumscribed, round aggregations of mature lipid-filled sebocytes with a rim of basaloid germinative cells at the periphery. Pilar cysts typically are flesh-colored subcutaneous nodules on the scalp that are freely mobile over underlying tissue. Histopathology shows stratified squamous epithelium lining and trichilemmal keratinization. Nodular basal cell carcinoma has a pearly translucent appearance and arborizing telangiectases. Histopathology demonstrates nests of basaloid cells with palisading of the cells at the periphery. Giant solitary molluscum contagiosum is a dome-shaped, flesh-colored nodule with central umbilication. Histopathology reveals hyperplastic squamous epithelium with characteristic eosinophilic inclusion bodies above the basal layer.

Solitary SF can be difficult to diagnose based solely on the clinical presentation; thus biopsy with histologic evaluation is recommended. If SF is confirmed, the clinician should inquire about a family history of Cowden syndrome and then perform a total-body skin examination to check for multiple SF and other clinical hamartomas of Cowden syndrome such as trichilemmomas, acral keratosis, and oral papillomas.

The Diagnosis: Solitary Sclerotic Fibroma

Based on the clinical and histologic findings, the patient was diagnosed with solitary sclerotic fibroma (SF). Sclerotic fibroma is a rare benign tumor that first was described in 1972 by Weary et al¹ in the oral mucosa of a patient with Cowden syndrome, a genodermatosis associated with multiple benign and malignant tumors. Rapini and Golitz² reported solitary SF in 11 otherwise-healthy individuals with no signs of multiple hamartoma syndrome. Solitary SF is a sporadic benign condition, whereas multiple lesions are suggestive of Cowden syndrome. Solitary SF most commonly appears as an asymptomatic white-yellow papule or nodule on the head or neck, though larger tumors have been reported on the trunk and extremities.³ Histologic features of solitary SF include a well-circumscribed dermal nodule composed of eosinophilic dense collagen bundles arranged in a plywoodlike pattern (Figure). Immunohistochemistry is positive for CD34 and vimentin but negative for S-100, epithelial membrane antigen, and neuron-specific enolase.⁴

The differential diagnosis of solitary SF of the head and neck includes sebaceous adenoma, pilar cyst, nodular basal cell carcinoma, and giant molluscum contagiosum. Sebaceous adenomas usually are solitary yellow nodules less than 1 cm in diameter and located on the head and neck. They are the most common sebaceous neoplasm associated with Muir-Torre syndrome, an autosomal-dominant disorder characterized by sebaceous adenoma or carcinoma and colorectal cancer. Histopathology demonstrates well-circumscribed, round aggregations of mature lipid-filled sebocytes with a rim of basaloid germinative cells at the periphery. Pilar cysts typically are flesh-colored subcutaneous nodules on the scalp that are freely mobile over underlying tissue. Histopathology shows stratified squamous epithelium lining and trichilemmal keratinization. Nodular basal cell carcinoma has a pearly translucent appearance and arborizing telangiectases. Histopathology demonstrates nests of basaloid cells with palisading of the cells at the periphery. Giant solitary molluscum contagiosum is a dome-shaped, flesh-colored nodule with central umbilication. Histopathology reveals hyperplastic squamous epithelium with characteristic eosinophilic inclusion bodies above the basal layer.

Solitary SF can be difficult to diagnose based solely on the clinical presentation; thus biopsy with histologic evaluation is recommended. If SF is confirmed, the clinician should inquire about a family history of Cowden syndrome and then perform a total-body skin examination to check for multiple SF and other clinical hamartomas of Cowden syndrome such as trichilemmomas, acral keratosis, and oral papillomas.

Despite recent efforts to improve the landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion in medicine, advances in the field of dermatology have been unremarkable to date, results from two cross-sectional studies recently published in JAMA Dermatology suggest.

To evaluate diversity and career goals of graduating allopathic medical students pursuing careers in dermatology, corresponding author Matthew Mansh, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues drew from the 2016-2019 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire for their study. The main outcome measures were the proportion of female students, students from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URM), and sexual minority (SM) students pursuing dermatology versus those pursuing other specialties, as well as the proportions and multivariable adjusted odds of intended career goals between students pursuing dermatology and those pursuing other specialties, and by sex, race, and ethnicity, and sexual orientation among students pursuing dermatology.

Of the 58,077 graduating students, 49% were women, 15% were URM, and 6% were SM. The researchers found that women pursuing dermatology were significantly less likely than women pursuing other specialties to identify as URM (11.6% vs. 17.2%; P < .001) or SM (1.9% vs. 5.7%; P < .001).

In multivariable-adjusted analyses of all students, those pursuing dermatology compared with other specialties had decreased odds of intending to care for underserved populations (18.3% vs. 34%; adjusted odd ratio, 0.40; P < .001), practice in underserved areas (12.7% vs. 25.9%; aOR, 0.40; P < .001), and practice public health (17% vs. 30.2%; aOR, 0.44; P < .001). The odds for pursuing research in their careers was greater among those pursuing dermatology (64.7% vs. 51.7%; aOR, 1.76; P < .001).

“Addressing health inequities and improving care for underserved patients is the responsibility of all dermatologists, and efforts are needed to increase diversity and interest in careers focused on underserved care among trainees in the dermatology workforce pipeline,” the authors concluded. They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including lack of data delineating sex, sex assigned at birth, and gender identity, and lack of intersectional analyses between multiple minority identities and multiple career goals. “Importantly, diversity factors and their relationship to underserved care is likely multidimensional, and many students pursuing dermatology identified with multiple minority identities, highlighting the need for future studies focused on intersectionality,” they wrote.
 

Trends over 15 years

In a separate study, Jazzmin C. Williams, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors drew from an Association of American Medical Colleges report of trainees’ and applicants’ self-reported race and ethnicity by specialty from 2005 to 2020 to evaluate diversity trends over the 15-year period. They found that Black and Latinx trainees were underrepresented in all specialties, but even more so in dermatology (mean annual rate ratios of 0.32 and 0.14, respectively), compared with those in primary care (mean annual RRs of 0.54 and 0.23) and those in specialty care (mean annual RRs of 0.39 and 0.18).

In other findings, the annual representation of Black trainees remained unchanged in dermatology between 2005 and 2020, but down-trended for primary (P < .001) and specialty care (P = .001). At the same time, representation of Latinx trainees remained unchanged in dermatology and specialty care but increased in primary care (P < .001). Finally, Black and Latinx race and ethnicity comprised a lower mean proportion of matriculating dermatology trainees (postgraduate year-2s) compared with annual dermatology applicants (4.01% vs. 5.97%, respectively, and 2.06% vs. 6.37% among Latinx; P < .001 for all associations).

“Much of these disparities can be attributed to the leaky pipeline – the disproportionate, stepwise reduction in racial and ethnic minority representation along the path to medicine,” the authors wrote. “This leaky pipeline is the direct result of structural racism, which includes, but is not limited to, historical and contemporary economic disinvestment from majority-minority schools, kindergarten through grade 12.” They concluded by stating that “dermatologists must intervene throughout the educational pipeline, including residency selection and mentorship, to effectively increase diversity.”

Solutions to address diversity

In an editorial accompanying the two studies published in the same issue of JAMA Dermatology, Ellen N. Pritchett, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, and Andrew J. Park, MD, MBA, and Rebecca Vasquez, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, offered several solutions to address diversity in the dermatology work force. They include:

Go beyond individual bias in recruitment. “A residency selection framework that meaningfully incorporates diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) will require more than strategies that address individual bias,” they wrote. “Departmental recruitment committees must become familiar with systems that serve to perpetuate individual bias, like institutional racism or practices that disproportionately favor non-URM versus URM individuals.”

Challenge the myth of meritocracy. “The inaccurate notion of meritocracy – that success purely derives from individual effort has become the foundation of residency selection,” the authors wrote. “Unfortunately, this view ignores the inequitably distributed sociostructural resources that limit the rewards of individual effort.”

Avoid tokenism in retention strategies. Tokenism, which they defined as “a symbolic addition of members from a marginalized group to give the impression of social inclusiveness and diversity without meaningful incorporation of DEI in the policies, processes, and culture,” can lead to depression, burnout, and attrition, they wrote. They advise leaders of dermatology departments to “review their residency selection framework to ensure that it allows for meaningful representation, inclusion, and equity among trainees and faculty to better support URM individuals at all levels.”

Omar N. Qutub, MD, a Portland, Ore.–based dermatologist who was asked to comment on the studies, characterized the findings by Dr. Mansh and colleagues as sobering. “It appears that there is work to do as far as improving diversity in the dermatology workforce that will likely benefit greatly from an honest and steadfast approach to equitable application standards as well as mentorship during all stages of the application process,” such as medical school and residency, said Dr. Qutub, who is the director of equity, diversity, and inclusion of the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “With a focused attempt, we are likely to matriculate more racial minorities into our residency programs, maximizing patient outcomes.”

As for the study by Ms. Williams and colleagues, he told this news organization that efforts toward recruiting URM students as well as sexual minority students “is likely to not only improve health inequities in underserved areas, but will also enrich the specialty as a whole, allowing for better understanding of our diverse patient population and [for us to] to deliver quality care more readily for people and in areas where the focus has often been limited.”

In an interview, Chesahna Kindred, MD, a Columbia, Md.–based dermatologist and immediate past chair of the National Medical Association dermatology section, pointed out that the number of Black physicians in the United States has increased by only 4% in the last 120 years. The study by Dr. Mansh and colleagues, she commented, “underscores what I’ve recognized in the last couple of years: Where are the Black male dermatologists? NMA Derm started recruiting this demographic aggressively about a year ago and started the Black Men in Derm events. Black male members of NMA Derm travel to the Student National Medical Association and NMA conference and hold a panel to expose Black male students into dermatology. This article provides the numbers needed to measure how successful this and other programs are to closing the equity gap.”

Ms. Williams reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Mansh reported receiving grants from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Pritchett and colleagues reported having no relevant financial disclosures, as did Dr. Qutub and Dr. Kindred.

Despite recent efforts to improve the landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion in medicine, advances in the field of dermatology have been unremarkable to date, results from two cross-sectional studies recently published in JAMA Dermatology suggest.

To evaluate diversity and career goals of graduating allopathic medical students pursuing careers in dermatology, corresponding author Matthew Mansh, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues drew from the 2016-2019 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire for their study. The main outcome measures were the proportion of female students, students from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URM), and sexual minority (SM) students pursuing dermatology versus those pursuing other specialties, as well as the proportions and multivariable adjusted odds of intended career goals between students pursuing dermatology and those pursuing other specialties, and by sex, race, and ethnicity, and sexual orientation among students pursuing dermatology.

Of the 58,077 graduating students, 49% were women, 15% were URM, and 6% were SM. The researchers found that women pursuing dermatology were significantly less likely than women pursuing other specialties to identify as URM (11.6% vs. 17.2%; P < .001) or SM (1.9% vs. 5.7%; P < .001).

In multivariable-adjusted analyses of all students, those pursuing dermatology compared with other specialties had decreased odds of intending to care for underserved populations (18.3% vs. 34%; adjusted odd ratio, 0.40; P < .001), practice in underserved areas (12.7% vs. 25.9%; aOR, 0.40; P < .001), and practice public health (17% vs. 30.2%; aOR, 0.44; P < .001). The odds for pursuing research in their careers was greater among those pursuing dermatology (64.7% vs. 51.7%; aOR, 1.76; P < .001).

“Addressing health inequities and improving care for underserved patients is the responsibility of all dermatologists, and efforts are needed to increase diversity and interest in careers focused on underserved care among trainees in the dermatology workforce pipeline,” the authors concluded. They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including lack of data delineating sex, sex assigned at birth, and gender identity, and lack of intersectional analyses between multiple minority identities and multiple career goals. “Importantly, diversity factors and their relationship to underserved care is likely multidimensional, and many students pursuing dermatology identified with multiple minority identities, highlighting the need for future studies focused on intersectionality,” they wrote.
 

Trends over 15 years

In a separate study, Jazzmin C. Williams, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors drew from an Association of American Medical Colleges report of trainees’ and applicants’ self-reported race and ethnicity by specialty from 2005 to 2020 to evaluate diversity trends over the 15-year period. They found that Black and Latinx trainees were underrepresented in all specialties, but even more so in dermatology (mean annual rate ratios of 0.32 and 0.14, respectively), compared with those in primary care (mean annual RRs of 0.54 and 0.23) and those in specialty care (mean annual RRs of 0.39 and 0.18).

In other findings, the annual representation of Black trainees remained unchanged in dermatology between 2005 and 2020, but down-trended for primary (P < .001) and specialty care (P = .001). At the same time, representation of Latinx trainees remained unchanged in dermatology and specialty care but increased in primary care (P < .001). Finally, Black and Latinx race and ethnicity comprised a lower mean proportion of matriculating dermatology trainees (postgraduate year-2s) compared with annual dermatology applicants (4.01% vs. 5.97%, respectively, and 2.06% vs. 6.37% among Latinx; P < .001 for all associations).

“Much of these disparities can be attributed to the leaky pipeline – the disproportionate, stepwise reduction in racial and ethnic minority representation along the path to medicine,” the authors wrote. “This leaky pipeline is the direct result of structural racism, which includes, but is not limited to, historical and contemporary economic disinvestment from majority-minority schools, kindergarten through grade 12.” They concluded by stating that “dermatologists must intervene throughout the educational pipeline, including residency selection and mentorship, to effectively increase diversity.”

Solutions to address diversity

In an editorial accompanying the two studies published in the same issue of JAMA Dermatology, Ellen N. Pritchett, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, and Andrew J. Park, MD, MBA, and Rebecca Vasquez, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, offered several solutions to address diversity in the dermatology work force. They include:

Go beyond individual bias in recruitment. “A residency selection framework that meaningfully incorporates diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) will require more than strategies that address individual bias,” they wrote. “Departmental recruitment committees must become familiar with systems that serve to perpetuate individual bias, like institutional racism or practices that disproportionately favor non-URM versus URM individuals.”

Challenge the myth of meritocracy. “The inaccurate notion of meritocracy – that success purely derives from individual effort has become the foundation of residency selection,” the authors wrote. “Unfortunately, this view ignores the inequitably distributed sociostructural resources that limit the rewards of individual effort.”

Avoid tokenism in retention strategies. Tokenism, which they defined as “a symbolic addition of members from a marginalized group to give the impression of social inclusiveness and diversity without meaningful incorporation of DEI in the policies, processes, and culture,” can lead to depression, burnout, and attrition, they wrote. They advise leaders of dermatology departments to “review their residency selection framework to ensure that it allows for meaningful representation, inclusion, and equity among trainees and faculty to better support URM individuals at all levels.”

Omar N. Qutub, MD, a Portland, Ore.–based dermatologist who was asked to comment on the studies, characterized the findings by Dr. Mansh and colleagues as sobering. “It appears that there is work to do as far as improving diversity in the dermatology workforce that will likely benefit greatly from an honest and steadfast approach to equitable application standards as well as mentorship during all stages of the application process,” such as medical school and residency, said Dr. Qutub, who is the director of equity, diversity, and inclusion of the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “With a focused attempt, we are likely to matriculate more racial minorities into our residency programs, maximizing patient outcomes.”

As for the study by Ms. Williams and colleagues, he told this news organization that efforts toward recruiting URM students as well as sexual minority students “is likely to not only improve health inequities in underserved areas, but will also enrich the specialty as a whole, allowing for better understanding of our diverse patient population and [for us to] to deliver quality care more readily for people and in areas where the focus has often been limited.”

In an interview, Chesahna Kindred, MD, a Columbia, Md.–based dermatologist and immediate past chair of the National Medical Association dermatology section, pointed out that the number of Black physicians in the United States has increased by only 4% in the last 120 years. The study by Dr. Mansh and colleagues, she commented, “underscores what I’ve recognized in the last couple of years: Where are the Black male dermatologists? NMA Derm started recruiting this demographic aggressively about a year ago and started the Black Men in Derm events. Black male members of NMA Derm travel to the Student National Medical Association and NMA conference and hold a panel to expose Black male students into dermatology. This article provides the numbers needed to measure how successful this and other programs are to closing the equity gap.”

Ms. Williams reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Mansh reported receiving grants from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Pritchett and colleagues reported having no relevant financial disclosures, as did Dr. Qutub and Dr. Kindred.

Despite recent efforts to improve the landscape of diversity, equity, and inclusion in medicine, advances in the field of dermatology have been unremarkable to date, results from two cross-sectional studies recently published in JAMA Dermatology suggest.

To evaluate diversity and career goals of graduating allopathic medical students pursuing careers in dermatology, corresponding author Matthew Mansh, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and colleagues drew from the 2016-2019 Association of American Medical Colleges Graduation Questionnaire for their study. The main outcome measures were the proportion of female students, students from racial and ethnic groups underrepresented in medicine (URM), and sexual minority (SM) students pursuing dermatology versus those pursuing other specialties, as well as the proportions and multivariable adjusted odds of intended career goals between students pursuing dermatology and those pursuing other specialties, and by sex, race, and ethnicity, and sexual orientation among students pursuing dermatology.

Of the 58,077 graduating students, 49% were women, 15% were URM, and 6% were SM. The researchers found that women pursuing dermatology were significantly less likely than women pursuing other specialties to identify as URM (11.6% vs. 17.2%; P < .001) or SM (1.9% vs. 5.7%; P < .001).

In multivariable-adjusted analyses of all students, those pursuing dermatology compared with other specialties had decreased odds of intending to care for underserved populations (18.3% vs. 34%; adjusted odd ratio, 0.40; P < .001), practice in underserved areas (12.7% vs. 25.9%; aOR, 0.40; P < .001), and practice public health (17% vs. 30.2%; aOR, 0.44; P < .001). The odds for pursuing research in their careers was greater among those pursuing dermatology (64.7% vs. 51.7%; aOR, 1.76; P < .001).

“Addressing health inequities and improving care for underserved patients is the responsibility of all dermatologists, and efforts are needed to increase diversity and interest in careers focused on underserved care among trainees in the dermatology workforce pipeline,” the authors concluded. They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including lack of data delineating sex, sex assigned at birth, and gender identity, and lack of intersectional analyses between multiple minority identities and multiple career goals. “Importantly, diversity factors and their relationship to underserved care is likely multidimensional, and many students pursuing dermatology identified with multiple minority identities, highlighting the need for future studies focused on intersectionality,” they wrote.
 

Trends over 15 years

In a separate study, Jazzmin C. Williams, a medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, and coauthors drew from an Association of American Medical Colleges report of trainees’ and applicants’ self-reported race and ethnicity by specialty from 2005 to 2020 to evaluate diversity trends over the 15-year period. They found that Black and Latinx trainees were underrepresented in all specialties, but even more so in dermatology (mean annual rate ratios of 0.32 and 0.14, respectively), compared with those in primary care (mean annual RRs of 0.54 and 0.23) and those in specialty care (mean annual RRs of 0.39 and 0.18).

In other findings, the annual representation of Black trainees remained unchanged in dermatology between 2005 and 2020, but down-trended for primary (P < .001) and specialty care (P = .001). At the same time, representation of Latinx trainees remained unchanged in dermatology and specialty care but increased in primary care (P < .001). Finally, Black and Latinx race and ethnicity comprised a lower mean proportion of matriculating dermatology trainees (postgraduate year-2s) compared with annual dermatology applicants (4.01% vs. 5.97%, respectively, and 2.06% vs. 6.37% among Latinx; P < .001 for all associations).

“Much of these disparities can be attributed to the leaky pipeline – the disproportionate, stepwise reduction in racial and ethnic minority representation along the path to medicine,” the authors wrote. “This leaky pipeline is the direct result of structural racism, which includes, but is not limited to, historical and contemporary economic disinvestment from majority-minority schools, kindergarten through grade 12.” They concluded by stating that “dermatologists must intervene throughout the educational pipeline, including residency selection and mentorship, to effectively increase diversity.”

Solutions to address diversity

In an editorial accompanying the two studies published in the same issue of JAMA Dermatology, Ellen N. Pritchett, MD, MPH, of the department of dermatology at Howard University, Washington, and Andrew J. Park, MD, MBA, and Rebecca Vasquez, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, offered several solutions to address diversity in the dermatology work force. They include:

Go beyond individual bias in recruitment. “A residency selection framework that meaningfully incorporates diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) will require more than strategies that address individual bias,” they wrote. “Departmental recruitment committees must become familiar with systems that serve to perpetuate individual bias, like institutional racism or practices that disproportionately favor non-URM versus URM individuals.”

Challenge the myth of meritocracy. “The inaccurate notion of meritocracy – that success purely derives from individual effort has become the foundation of residency selection,” the authors wrote. “Unfortunately, this view ignores the inequitably distributed sociostructural resources that limit the rewards of individual effort.”

Avoid tokenism in retention strategies. Tokenism, which they defined as “a symbolic addition of members from a marginalized group to give the impression of social inclusiveness and diversity without meaningful incorporation of DEI in the policies, processes, and culture,” can lead to depression, burnout, and attrition, they wrote. They advise leaders of dermatology departments to “review their residency selection framework to ensure that it allows for meaningful representation, inclusion, and equity among trainees and faculty to better support URM individuals at all levels.”

Omar N. Qutub, MD, a Portland, Ore.–based dermatologist who was asked to comment on the studies, characterized the findings by Dr. Mansh and colleagues as sobering. “It appears that there is work to do as far as improving diversity in the dermatology workforce that will likely benefit greatly from an honest and steadfast approach to equitable application standards as well as mentorship during all stages of the application process,” such as medical school and residency, said Dr. Qutub, who is the director of equity, diversity, and inclusion of the ODAC Dermatology, Aesthetic & Surgical Conference. “With a focused attempt, we are likely to matriculate more racial minorities into our residency programs, maximizing patient outcomes.”

As for the study by Ms. Williams and colleagues, he told this news organization that efforts toward recruiting URM students as well as sexual minority students “is likely to not only improve health inequities in underserved areas, but will also enrich the specialty as a whole, allowing for better understanding of our diverse patient population and [for us to] to deliver quality care more readily for people and in areas where the focus has often been limited.”

In an interview, Chesahna Kindred, MD, a Columbia, Md.–based dermatologist and immediate past chair of the National Medical Association dermatology section, pointed out that the number of Black physicians in the United States has increased by only 4% in the last 120 years. The study by Dr. Mansh and colleagues, she commented, “underscores what I’ve recognized in the last couple of years: Where are the Black male dermatologists? NMA Derm started recruiting this demographic aggressively about a year ago and started the Black Men in Derm events. Black male members of NMA Derm travel to the Student National Medical Association and NMA conference and hold a panel to expose Black male students into dermatology. This article provides the numbers needed to measure how successful this and other programs are to closing the equity gap.”

Ms. Williams reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Mansh reported receiving grants from National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Pritchett and colleagues reported having no relevant financial disclosures, as did Dr. Qutub and Dr. Kindred.

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Primary care physicians, and especially pediatricians, should consider telling their patients about the long-term oral health problems associated with vaping. 

A new study found that patients who use vapes were at a higher risk of developing tooth decay and periodontal disease. 

Vapes were introduced to the U.S. market in 2006 as an alternative to conventional cigarettes and have become widely popular among youth. According to a 2022 survey from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2.55 million middle and high school students in this country reported using the devices in the previous 30 days.

The new study, published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, expands on an initial case series published in 2020 of patients who reported use of vapes and who had severe dental decay. Karina Irusa, BDS, assistant professor of comprehensive care at Tufts University, Boston, and lead author of the case series, wanted to investigate whether her initial findings would apply to a large population of vape users. 

For the new study, Dr. Irusa and colleagues collected data on 13,216 patients aged 16-40 who attended Tufts dental clinics between 2019 and 2021. All patients had received a diagnosis of tooth decay, had a tooth decay risk assessment on record, and had answered “yes” or “no” to use of vapes in a health history questionnaire. 

Patients had records on file of varying types of dental lesions, cavities filled within the previous 3 years, heavy plaque on teeth, inadequate brushing and flushing, and a self-report of recreational drug use and frequent snacking. If patients had these factors on their file, they were at high risk of developing decay that leads to cavities. 

The study found that 79% of patients who responded “yes” to being a current user of vapes were at high risk for dental decay, compared with 60% of those who did not report using the devices.  

Materials in the vaping liquids further cause an inflammatory response that disrupts an individual’s internal microbiome, according to numerous studies. 

“All the ingredients of vaping are surely a recipe for overgrowth of cavities causing bacteria,” said Jennifer Genuardi, MD, an internist and pediatrician at federally qualified community health center Urban Health Plan, in New York, who was not involved in the study. 

Dr. Irusa said information on patient’s vaping habits should be included in routine dental and medical history questionnaires as part of their overall electronic health record.

“Decay in its severe form not only affects one’s ability to eat but affects facial aesthetics and self-esteem as well,” Dr. Irusa said. 

Dr. Genuardi called the findings unsurprising. 

“We are learning daily more and more about the dangers of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. “There’s a focus of today’s research on the effect of actions on our microbiome and the subsequent effects on our health.”

Dr. Genuardi also said many of her teenage patients do not enjoy dental visits or having cavities filled, which could serve as a useful deterrent to vaping for a demographic that has been targeted with marketing from vape manufacturers. 

“Cavity formation and the experience of having cavities filled is an experience teens can identify with, so this to me seems like perhaps an even more effective angle to try to curb this unhealthy behavior of vaping,” Dr. Genuardi said. 

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

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

Women who conceived within 6 months of having a miscarriage or an induced abortion did not appear to be at an increased risk of a problematic pregnancy, a new study of more than 70,000 live births in Norway has found.

The findings, published online in PLOS Medicine, should help women and clinicians navigate conflicting guidance over how soon it is safe to conceive again after a pregnancy loss, said Gizachew Tessema, PhD, senior research fellow at Curtin University, Perth, Australia, and the lead author of the research.

“Especially after a miscarriage, women want to conceive again,” Dr. Tessema told this news organization. “Why should they wait if there’s no increased risk?”

On the international front, the World Health Organization advises patients not to attempt to become pregnant until a minimum of 6 months after an abortion or miscarriage. Those 2007 recommendations spurred Dr. Tessema and his colleagues to take a deeper dive into risk factors associated with pregnancies following a shorter interval. 

Two-thirds of women in the study conceived again within 6 months of having a miscarriage. Only a quarter of women who had an induced abortion were pregnant again within that same timeframe.

Using Norway’s national health registries, the researchers examined the outcomes of 49,058 births following a miscarriage and 23,707 births after an induced abortion between 2008 and 2016. The birth registry includes information on livebirths, stillbirths, miscarriages, and induced abortions, with detailed descriptions provided around how a miscarriage or abortion is identified. The study included only miscarriages reported through the health care system.

Expanding on other studies that have shown no adverse outcomes with those pregnancy intervals, Dr. Tessema and colleagues found that women who became pregnant shortly after a miscarriage or abortion were not at a higher risk for delivering preterm, having newborns that were small for gestational age (SGA) or large for gestational age (LGA), or developing preeclampsia or gestational diabetes.

Dr. Tessema and his colleagues found a slightly smaller percentage of women who conceived within 3 months, compared with those who became pregnant within 6-11 months after a miscarriage (8.6% to 10.1%). Women who conceived within 3 months of an induced abortion had a slightly, but statistically nonsignificant (P = .07), increased risk for SGA, compared with those who conceived between 6 and 11 months (11.5% to 10%).

No greater risk was shown for the other adverse outcomes – preterm births, LGA, preeclampsia, and GDM – for women who became pregnant within 6 months of an abortion or miscarriage.

The results should reassure women who want to get pregnant again soon after abortions or miscarriage, according to Scott Sullivan, MD, the director of high-risk ob.gyn. at Inova Health, Fairfax, Va.

Often, patients hear conflicting advice from doctors, friends, or medical associations about the best time to try for a baby following a miscarriage or abortion, in part because there are differences in various guidelines. Adding to the confusion is a lack of robust research and data on pregnancy loss, especially in the United States, he said.

“The entire topic of pregnancy loss is underappreciated by the public at large – how painful this is for people, how common it is,” Dr. Sullivan said in an interview. “We need research and resources on it. It’s not even tracked routinely in the United States like it is in other countries.”

Dr. Sullivan said he typically tells patients they can try to get pregnant again right away, following recommendations from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which say that patients can conceive as quickly as 2 weeks after an early pregnancy loss.

But he cautions that not all patients are mentally ready to make another attempt that soon, especially if they are still grieving their pregnancy loss.

“Even if you’re physically ready, a lot of people are not emotionally ready, because there’s a grieving process,” Dr. Sullivan said. “That’s very different for people.”
 

The WHO’s guidelines for developed countries

The WHO developed its guidelines based on research from lower income countries, including one study across Latin America that concluded pregnancy outcomes were worse for women who waited less than 6 months to conceive following an abortion or miscarriage.

Dr. Tessema noted his research is limited because it focused on Norway, a high-income country where women have guaranteed access to health care. Outcomes may be worse in developing countries where incomes are lower and health care inequality is greater, he said.

“The issue is when this international guideline was developed, most of the evidence is from low- and middle-income countries,” Dr. Tessema said. “No studies were conducted from high income cities. We said: ‘This is a different context.’ These recommendations may not be appropriate for this setting.”

The study was supported with funding by the Research Council of Norway through its Centres of Excellence funding program, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Raine Medical Research Foundation, and the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. None of the authors report relevant financial relationships.

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

Sleeve gastrectomy may have an advantage over gastric bypass in terms of postprocedure health care use, according to a study of Medicaid-insured adolescents with severe obesity.

Researchers found significantly lower rates of both emergency department (ED) use and hospitalization 5 years after sleeve gastrectomy compared with gastric bypass, and similarly low rates of adverse events.

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

Sleeve gastrectomy may have an advantage over gastric bypass in terms of postprocedure health care use, according to a study of Medicaid-insured adolescents with severe obesity.

Researchers found significantly lower rates of both emergency department (ED) use and hospitalization 5 years after sleeve gastrectomy compared with gastric bypass, and similarly low rates of adverse events.

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

Sleeve gastrectomy may have an advantage over gastric bypass in terms of postprocedure health care use, according to a study of Medicaid-insured adolescents with severe obesity.

Researchers found significantly lower rates of both emergency department (ED) use and hospitalization 5 years after sleeve gastrectomy compared with gastric bypass, and similarly low rates of adverse events.

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