Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Individuals who are middle-aged and older and who sleep 5 hours or less a night may be at risk for an array of serious and chronic health conditions, ranging from heart disease to cancer, results of a large study show.

Researchers at University College London and Université Paris Cité found that beginning at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or fewer a night had a 30% higher risk of developing multiple chronic diseases over time than those who slept at least 7 hours a night. By the time the participants were aged 70 years, that risk had increased to 40%.

Diseases for which there was a higher risk included diabetes, cancer, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, depression, dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and arthritis.

“It is important to take care of our sleep,” lead investigator Séverine Sabia, PhD, said in an interview. Dr. Sabia is a researcher and epidemiologist at Université Paris Cité and INSERM in Paris, and the University College London.

She noted that the source of the sleep problem must be addressed, but in cases in which there is no medical reason for sleep paucity, “healthy sleep habits are a must. These include keeping a regular sleep schedule, a healthy lifestyle – physical activity and light exposure during the day, and a light dinner – and avoidance of screens for a half hour before sleep.”

The study was published online in PLOS Medicine.
 

Risk of multiple chronic diseases

Prior research suggests that sleeping for 5 hours or less or 9 hours or more is associated with cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

For the current study, Dr. Sabia and her team asked nearly 8,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom as part of the Whitehall II cohort study to report the amount of sleep they received beginning at age 50 every 4 to 5 years for the next 25 years. Study participants were free of chronic disease at age 50 and were mostly male (67.5%) and White (90%).

The investigators found that at age 50, those who slept 5 hours or less were 30% more likely to be diagnosed with multiple chronic diseases over time, (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.50; P < .001) compared with their peers who slept 7 hours.

At age 60, those who slept 5 hours or less had a 32% greater risk of developing more than one chronic disease (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.13-1.55; P < .001), and by age 70, this risk increased to 40% compared with their peers who slept 7 hours a night (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.68; P < .001).

For participants who slept 9 or more hours per night, only those aged 60 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.15-2.06; P = .003) and 70 (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.08; P = .010) were at increased risk of developing more than one chronic disease.

Dr. Sabia noted that previous studies have shown that those who slept less than 5 hours a night were more likely to develop diabetes, hypertension, CVD, or dementia. “However, chronic diseases often coexist, particularly at older ages, and it remains unclear how sleep duration may be associated with risk of multimorbidity,” she said. She noted that several biological hypotheses have been proposed as underlying the association.

“Sleep is important for the regulation of several body functions, such as metabolic, endocrine, and inflammatory regulation over the day, that in turn, when dysregulated, may contribute to increased risk of several chronic conditions.”

The authors acknowledge several study limitations, including the fact that the data were obtained via participant self-reports, which may be affected by reporting bias. There was also a lack of diversity within the study sample, as the civil servants were mostly male and White. In addition to this, the investigators note that the study population of British civil servants tended to be healthier than the general population.
 

Chicken or egg?

Commenting on the findings for this article, Charlene Gamaldo, MD, urged caution in interpreting the findings. She noted that self-reporting of sleep has been established as “potentially problematic” because it doesn’t always correlate with actual sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo, who is professor of neurology and psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the medical director of the JHU Center for Sleep and Wellness, said previous studies have shown that underestimation of sleep can occur among those suffering with insomnia and that overestimation can be seen among individuals with behaviorally based chronic, insufficient sleep.

Dr. Gamaldo also raised the issue of sleep quality.

“Getting 5 hours of high-quality sleep is less worrisome than one getting 8 hours of terrible-quality, based on untreated sleep apnea, for instance,” she noted.

In addition, she pointed out that chronic health problems can interrupt sleep. “Which is the chicken, and which is the egg?” she asked.

“For me, the take-home of current literature and supported by this paper is that individuals with sleep quality complaints, short duration, or related impact in daytime function should address them with their treating provider to assess for the underlying cause.

“Those sleeping under 5 hours without complaints should consider whether 5 hours really represents the amount of sleep they need to wake rested and function at their best. If answer is no, they should prioritize getting more sleep,” she concluded.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Health, the UK Research Medical Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the French National Research Agency. The investigators and Dr. Gamaldo report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for adults with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who have objective signs of inflammation and who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, AbbVie.

The indication is the sixth in the United States for the JAK inhibitor. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily is already approved in the United States for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). All these indications are for patients who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF inhibitors.

Upadacitinib is now the only JAK inhibitor that has been approved for both nr-axSpA and AS.

“Many patients living with nr-axSpA continue to experience symptoms and are unable to control disease with current treatments. In the SELECT-AXIS 2 trials, Rinvoq demonstrated efficacy in both nr-axSpA and AS with safety that was consistent across indications,” Atul Deodhar, MD, lead investigator of the trial, said in the announcement. “Today’s FDA approval offers an important new therapeutic option for patients and their caregivers to help take control of their symptoms and disease.”

Upadacitinib is also approved at a dose of 15 mg once daily for adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 40 kg and who have refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis that is not adequately controlled with other systemic drug products, including biologics, or when use of those therapies is inadvisable.

It is approved as well at 45 mg once daily for 8 weeks as an induction therapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF blockers. Following induction therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis, the recommended dose for maintenance treatment is 15 mg once daily, but a dose of 30 mg once daily may be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive disease.

The FDA’s decision is supported by data from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of upadacitinib in adults with active nr-axSpA.

Nearly half of patients treated with upadacitinib had achieved 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), the primary endpoint, at week 14, compared with placebo (44.9% vs. 22.3%). These responses were observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation of therapy. The safety profile was consistent with what’s known in patients with RA, PsA, and AS.

Upadacitinib can lower the ability to fight infections. Serious infections, some fatal, have occurred, including tuberculosis and infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. It is associated with an increased risk of death and major cardiovascular events in people aged 50 and older who have at least one heart disease risk factor, and it is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancers.

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

The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for adults with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who have objective signs of inflammation and who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, AbbVie.

The indication is the sixth in the United States for the JAK inhibitor. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily is already approved in the United States for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). All these indications are for patients who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF inhibitors.

Upadacitinib is now the only JAK inhibitor that has been approved for both nr-axSpA and AS.

“Many patients living with nr-axSpA continue to experience symptoms and are unable to control disease with current treatments. In the SELECT-AXIS 2 trials, Rinvoq demonstrated efficacy in both nr-axSpA and AS with safety that was consistent across indications,” Atul Deodhar, MD, lead investigator of the trial, said in the announcement. “Today’s FDA approval offers an important new therapeutic option for patients and their caregivers to help take control of their symptoms and disease.”

Upadacitinib is also approved at a dose of 15 mg once daily for adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 40 kg and who have refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis that is not adequately controlled with other systemic drug products, including biologics, or when use of those therapies is inadvisable.

It is approved as well at 45 mg once daily for 8 weeks as an induction therapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF blockers. Following induction therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis, the recommended dose for maintenance treatment is 15 mg once daily, but a dose of 30 mg once daily may be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive disease.

The FDA’s decision is supported by data from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of upadacitinib in adults with active nr-axSpA.

Nearly half of patients treated with upadacitinib had achieved 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), the primary endpoint, at week 14, compared with placebo (44.9% vs. 22.3%). These responses were observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation of therapy. The safety profile was consistent with what’s known in patients with RA, PsA, and AS.

Upadacitinib can lower the ability to fight infections. Serious infections, some fatal, have occurred, including tuberculosis and infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. It is associated with an increased risk of death and major cardiovascular events in people aged 50 and older who have at least one heart disease risk factor, and it is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancers.

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

The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) for adults with nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA) who have objective signs of inflammation and who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, according to an announcement from the manufacturer, AbbVie.

The indication is the sixth in the United States for the JAK inhibitor. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily is already approved in the United States for adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, active psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and active ankylosing spondylitis (AS). All these indications are for patients who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF inhibitors.

Upadacitinib is now the only JAK inhibitor that has been approved for both nr-axSpA and AS.

“Many patients living with nr-axSpA continue to experience symptoms and are unable to control disease with current treatments. In the SELECT-AXIS 2 trials, Rinvoq demonstrated efficacy in both nr-axSpA and AS with safety that was consistent across indications,” Atul Deodhar, MD, lead investigator of the trial, said in the announcement. “Today’s FDA approval offers an important new therapeutic option for patients and their caregivers to help take control of their symptoms and disease.”

Upadacitinib is also approved at a dose of 15 mg once daily for adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 40 kg and who have refractory, moderate to severe atopic dermatitis that is not adequately controlled with other systemic drug products, including biologics, or when use of those therapies is inadvisable.

It is approved as well at 45 mg once daily for 8 weeks as an induction therapy for adult patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis who have had an inadequate response to or are intolerant of one or more TNF blockers. Following induction therapy for patients with ulcerative colitis, the recommended dose for maintenance treatment is 15 mg once daily, but a dose of 30 mg once daily may be considered for patients with refractory, severe, or extensive disease.

The FDA’s decision is supported by data from the phase 3 SELECT-AXIS 2 clinical trial, which assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of upadacitinib in adults with active nr-axSpA.

Nearly half of patients treated with upadacitinib had achieved 40% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 40), the primary endpoint, at week 14, compared with placebo (44.9% vs. 22.3%). These responses were observed as early as 2 weeks after initiation of therapy. The safety profile was consistent with what’s known in patients with RA, PsA, and AS.

Upadacitinib can lower the ability to fight infections. Serious infections, some fatal, have occurred, including tuberculosis and infections caused by bacteria, fungi, or viruses. It is associated with an increased risk of death and major cardiovascular events in people aged 50 and older who have at least one heart disease risk factor, and it is associated with an increased risk of some cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancers.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Most adolescents with gender dysphoria who took puberty-blocking drugs for at least 3 months and then progressed to cross-sex hormone treatment were still taking hormones as they entered adulthood, new research of patients at a pioneering Dutch clinic shows.

The study negates past findings that large numbers of youth regret transitioning, say Maria Anna Theodora Catharina van der Loos, MD, and colleagues from the Centre of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam, in their article published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. They believe the difference between their findings and those of other studies lies in proper diagnostic evaluation.

“The study aims to demonstrate, with a methodology that is more than adequate, that transgender people who begin their transition in childhood-adolescence do not give up,” Adrián Carrasco Munera, MD, a specialist in family and community medicine and member of the LGTBIQ+ Health Group of the Madrid Society of Family and Community Medicine told the UK Science Media Centre.

The cohort included 720 youth: 220 (31%) were assigned male at birth (AMAB) and 500 (69%) were assigned female at birth (AFAB). At the start of puberty-blocking treatment with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist, the median age of patients was 14.1 years for AMAB and 16.0 years for AFAB.

Of that cohort, 704 (98%) continued hormone therapy to the end of data collection (Dec. 31, 2018), at which point the median age of patients was 20 years for AMAB and 19 years for AFAB.

Careful consideration of patient needs

All the patients received care at the “Dutch Clinic,” which more than 20 years ago pioneered the approach of giving puberty-blocking drugs to children looking to transition, followed by cross-sex hormones. The study includes the “complete adolescent population” at the facility who met the inclusion criteria.

A similar U.S. study published earlier this year found that 74.4% of individuals who had started gender-affirming hormones before age 18 were still on them 4 years after starting medical treatment.

“However, it is unclear how many of these adolescents [in the U.S. study] used puberty-suppressing treatment before gender-affirming hormone treatment and to what extent they underwent diagnostic evaluation before initiation of medical treatment,” say Dr. van der Loos and colleagues.

She told this news organization that her clinic provides “a thorough diagnostic and mental health assessment” and discussion of fertility preservation prior to any youth being prescribed puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.

About 40% of adolescents assessed by the gender clinic in Amsterdam go on to receive hormonal treatment.

“The gender identity unit of the Amsterdam UMC is a world leader in all aspects of transgender medicine and is governed by protocolized actions. This is reflected in the quality of the data and methodology of the study, and therefore of its conclusions,” endocrinologist Gilberto Pérez López, MD, Gregorio Marañón General University Hospital, Madrid, told the UK Science Media Centre.

“These findings can and should help and guide the current public and legal debate on the initiation of medical treatment in transgender minors.”

However, he cautioned the study is limited by the fact that the data come from a registry and they looked at only prescriptions issued and not compliance.

Another interesting thing to note in the research is that almost 70% of patients were born girls and they presented at the gender clinics later in adolescence than the natal boys.

“We don’t have a sound reason for this,” Dr. van der Loos noted.

Study limitations

She also acknowledges that the short follow-up data in some individuals make it difficult to draw conclusions about regret, to some extent.

The average use of cross-sex hormones in their study was 3.5 years for males transitioning to females and 2.3 years for females transitioning to males, so on average, this wouldn’t be long enough to see regret, she acknowledged.

Prior research shows that if youth decide to detransition to their natal sex, this can take, on average, 5 years from the start of medical therapy among born females and 7 years among born males.

However, some born males in the study had been taking hormones for 20 years and some natal females for 15 years, said Dr. van der Loos.

Another limitation is that the research only followed individuals until the end of 2018 while some government data estimate that the number of teens identifying as transgender has nearly doubled over the past 5 years.

The authors, Dr. Munera, and Dr. Lopez have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

VIENNA – Prescription drugs designed to boost cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders do not increase overall cognitive performance in healthy individuals – and may even reduce productivity, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.

While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.

The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.

This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.

“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.

He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Past evidence ambiguous

Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.

He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”

However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.

Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.

All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.

“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.

The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.

‘Surprising’ findings

Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).

Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.

He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.

When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.

“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”

Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.

This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.

“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.

“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.

While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).

“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
 

Time to rethink, rewind?

Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”

Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.

Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”

However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.

“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”

He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.

Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”

If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words. 

“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.

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

VIENNA – Prescription drugs designed to boost cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders do not increase overall cognitive performance in healthy individuals – and may even reduce productivity, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.

While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.

The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.

This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.

“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.

He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Past evidence ambiguous

Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.

He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”

However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.

Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.

All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.

“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.

The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.

‘Surprising’ findings

Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).

Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.

He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.

When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.

“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”

Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.

This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.

“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.

“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.

While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).

“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
 

Time to rethink, rewind?

Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”

Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.

Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”

However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.

“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”

He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.

Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”

If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words. 

“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.

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

VIENNA – Prescription drugs designed to boost cognition in neurodevelopmental disorders do not increase overall cognitive performance in healthy individuals – and may even reduce productivity, new research suggests.

In a randomized controlled trial, 40 healthy adults were given the attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments methylphenidate or dexamphetamine or the wakefulness-promoting drug modafinil vs. placebo.

While receiving the so-called “smart drugs,” participants spent more time and made more moves more quickly while solving each problem on a complex cognitive task than when given the placebo. But with no significant improvement in overall performance, all drugs were associated with a significant reduction in efficiency.

The findings “reinforce the idea that, while the drugs administered were motivational, the resulting increase in effort came at a cost in the loss of productivity,” said study presenter David Coghill, MD, PhD, chair of developmental mental health, the University of Melbourne.

This was especially true for individuals who scored high when receiving placebo, “who ended up producing below average productivity when on the drugs,” he noted.

“Overall, these drugs don’t increase the performance. Instead, they cause a regression to the mean, and appear to have a more negative effect on those who performed best at baseline,” Dr. Coghill added.

He presented the findings at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Past evidence ambiguous

Dr. Coghill noted that prescription-only stimulant drugs are increasingly used by employees and students as “smart drugs” to enhance workplace or academic productivity.

He conducted the study with colleagues from the department of economics at his institution, because of “their interest in people using cognitive enhancers within the financial industry, in the hope that that would increase their productivity in what is a very competitive industry on the floor of the trading rooms.”

However, while “there’s a subjective belief” that these drugs are effective as cognitive enhancers, the evidence to actually demonstrate that in healthy individuals “is, at best, ambiguous,” he told meeting attendees.

Improvements in cognitive capacities, such as working memory and improved planning, are most evident in clinical populations such as those with ADHD, which could be due to a “ceiling effect” of the cognitive tasks in healthy individuals, Dr. Coghill noted.

To investigate further, the researchers conducted a randomized, double-blinded trial of standard adult doses of methylphenidate (30 mg), dexamphetamine (15 mg), and modafinil (200 mg) vs. placebo. The healthy participants (n = 40), all of whom were aged 18-35 years, crossed to each of the other treatment groups over the course of four intervention sessions.

All were asked to solve eight instances of the knapsack task, the aim of which is to place theoretical objects in a knapsack to achieve the maximum value within a certain weight limit.

“This looks very simple but as the number of items increases, it becomes incredibly complex to compute, and actually is not computable using standard approaches. You have to deal with trial and error,” Dr. Coghill said.

The participants also completed several CANTAB cognitive tasks.

‘Surprising’ findings

Results showed that, overall, the drugs did not have a significant effect on task performance (slope = –0.16; P = .011).

Moreover, the drugs, both individually and collectively, had a significant negative effect on the value attained during any one attempt at the knapsack task (slope = –0.003; P = .02), an effect that extended “across the whole range” of task complexity, Dr. Coghill reported.

He went on to show that “participants actually looked as if they were working harder” when they took the three active drugs than when they were given a placebo. They also “spent more time solving each problem,” he added.

When taking the active drugs, participants made more moves during each task than when taking placebo, and made their moves more quickly.

“So these medications increased motivation,” Dr. Coghill said. “If you were sitting [and] watching this person, you would think that they were working harder.”

Yet their productivity, defined as the average gain in value per move on the knapsack task, was lower. Regression analysis identified a “significant and sizable drop in productivity” vs. placebo, Dr. Coghill noted.

This was the case for methylphenidate (P < .001), dexamphetamine (P < .001), and modafinil (P < .05), “whether you looked at the mean or median performance,” he said.

“Breaking it down a little bit more, when you looked at the individual participant level, you find substantial heterogeneity across participants,” noted Dr. Coghill.

“More than that, we found a significant negative correlation between productivity under methylphenidate compared to productivity under placebo, and this suggests a regression to the mean,” with participants who performed better under placebo performing worse with methylphenidate, he explained.

While the relationship was “exactly the same with modafinil,” it was not found with dexamphetamine, with a strong negative correlation between the productivity effects between dexamphetamine and methylphenidate (slope = –0.29; P < .0001).

“This is surprising because we assume that methylphenidate and dexamphetamine are working in very similar ways,” Dr. Coghill said.
 

Time to rethink, rewind?

Commenting for this article, session chair John F. Cryan, PhD, department of anatomy and neuroscience, University College Cork, Ireland, said that, based on the current data, “we might need to rethink [how] ‘smart’ psychopharmacological agents are.”

Dr. Cryan, chair of the ECNP Scientific Program Committee, added that there may be a need to revisit the difficulty of different types of cognitive tasks used in studies assessing the abilities of cognitive enhancing drugs and to “rewind conventional wisdom” around them.

Also commenting, Andrew Westbrook, PhD, of the department of cognitive linguistics and psychological sciences, Brown University, Providence, R.I., said the results seem “reasonable” and are “consistent with my own perspective.”

However, he told this news organization, “some caveats are warranted,” not least that the context of the task can have an impact on the results it obtains.

“We have hypothesized that pharmacologically-enhanced striatal dopamine signaling can boost a kind of cognitive impulsivity, leading to errors and diminished performance, especially for people who already have high striatal dopamine functioning.”

He added that this impulsivity can also lead to errors “in situations where there are highly likely actions, thoughts, or behaviors” in a task, “which they would have to override to be successful” in performing it.

Dr. Westbrook gave the example of the “Stroop task where you are presented with words presented in some color ink and your job is to name the color of the ink but not read the word.”

If the word “green,” for example, was presented in green ink, “you may have no trouble naming the ink color,” but if it was presented in red ink “then you may impulsively read the word, because that is what we normally do with words. 

“Overriding this kind of habitual action can be particularly slippery business when striatal dopamine signaling is pharmacologically enhanced,” Dr. Westbrook said.

No funding for the study was reported. Dr. Coghill reported relationships with Medice, Novartis, Servier, Takeda/Shire Cambridge University Press, and Oxford University Press.

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

MONTREAL – Daily use of full-body emollients from birth to age 1 year in infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD) was not more effective at preventing the condition than standard skin-care advice alone, according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.

At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.

“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”

The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.

“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.

“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.

“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”

Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”

He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Daily use of full-body emollients from birth to age 1 year in infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD) was not more effective at preventing the condition than standard skin-care advice alone, according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.

At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.

“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”

The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.

“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.

“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.

“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”

Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”

He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Daily use of full-body emollients from birth to age 1 year in infants at high risk for developing atopic dermatitis (AD) was not more effective at preventing the condition than standard skin-care advice alone, according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.

“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).

The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.

At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.

“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”

The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.

“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.

“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.

“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”

Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”

He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.

To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.¹ Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.¹ Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.

Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.² Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.²

Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.² There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.

Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.³ While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.³

How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.³ For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.⁴

While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.³

Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.³

There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.⁵ For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.⁵ If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.

Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.

2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.

4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.

5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.

The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.

To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.¹ Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.¹ Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.

Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.² Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.²

Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.² There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.

Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.³ While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.³

How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.³ For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.⁴

While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.³

Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.³

There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.⁵ For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.⁵ If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.

Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.

2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.

4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.

5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.

The elderly transgender population is rapidly expanding and remains significantly overlooked. Although emerging evidence provides some guidance for medical and surgical treatment for transgender youth, there is still a paucity of research directed at the management of gender-diverse elders.

To a large extent, the challenges that transgender elders face are no different from those experienced by the general elder population. Irrespective of gender identity, patients begin to undergo cognitive and physical changes, encounter difficulties with activities of daily living, suffer the loss of social networks and friends, and face end-of-life issues.¹ Attributes that contribute to successful aging in the general population include good health, social engagement and support, and having a positive outlook on life.¹ Yet, stigma surrounding gender identity and sexual orientation continues to negatively affect elder transgender people.

Many members of the LGBTQIA+ population have higher rates of obesity, sedentary lifestyle, smoking, cardiovascular disease, substance abuse, depression, suicide, and intimate partner violence than the general same-age cohort.² Compared with lesbian, gay, and bisexual elders of age-matched cohorts, transgender elders have significantly poorer overall physical health, disability, depressive symptoms, and perceived stress.²

Rates of sexually transmitted infections are also rising in the aging general population and increased by 30% between 2014 and 2017.² There have been no current studies examining these rates in the LGBTQIA+ population. As providers interact more frequently with these patients, it’s not only essential to screen for conditions such as diabetes, lipid disorders, and sexually transmitted infections, but also to evaluate current gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) regimens and order appropriate screening tests.

Hormonal therapy for transfeminine patients should be continued as patients age. One of the biggest concerns providers have in continuing hormone therapy is the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and increasing thromboembolic risk, both of which tend to occur naturally as patients age. Overall, studies on the prevalence of CVD or stroke in gender-diverse individuals indicate an elevated risk independent of GAHT.³ While the overall rates of thromboembolic events are low in transfeminine populations, estrogen therapy does confer an increased risk. However, most transgender women who have experienced cardiac events or stroke were over the age of 50, had one or more CVD risk factors, or were using synthetic estrogens.³

How these studies affect screening is unclear. Current guidelines recommend using tailored risk-based calculators, which take into consideration the patient’s sex assigned at birth, hormone regimen, length of hormone usage, and additional modifiable risk factors, such as diabetes, obesity, and smoking.³ For transfeminine patients who want to continue GAHT but either develop a venous thromboembolism on estrogen or have increased risk for VTE, providers should consider transitioning them to a transdermal application. Patients who stay on GAHT should be counseled accordingly on the heightened risk of VTE recurrence. It is not unreasonable to consider life-long anticoagulation for patients who remain on estrogen therapy after a VTE.⁴

While exogenous estrogen exposure is one risk factor for the development of breast cancer in cisgender females, the role of GAHT in breast cancer in transgender women is ambiguous. Therefore, breast screening guidelines should follow current recommendations for cisgender female patients with some caveats. The provider must also take into consideration current estrogen dosage, the age at which hormones were initiated, and whether a patient has undergone an augmentation mammaplasty.³

Both estrogen and testosterone play an important role in bone formation and health. Patients who undergo either medical or surgical interventions that alter sex hormone production, such as GAHT, orchiectomy, or androgen blockade, may be at elevated risk for osteoporosis. Providers should take a thorough medical history to determine patients who may be at risk for osteoporosis and treat them accordingly. Overall, GAHT has a positive effect on bone mineral density. Conversely, gonadectomy, particularly if a patient is not taking GAHT, can decrease bone density. Generally, transgender women, like cisgender women, should undergo DEXA scans starting at the age of 65, with earlier screening considered if they have undergone an orchiectomy and are not currently taking GAHT.³

There is no evidence that GAHT or surgery increases the rate of prostate cancer. Providers should note that the prostate is not removed at the time of gender-affirming surgery and that malignancy or benign prostatic hypertrophy can still occur. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that clinicians have a discussion with cisgender men between the ages of 55 and 69 about the risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening.⁵ For cisgender men aged 70 and older, the USPSTF recommends against PSA-based screening.⁵ If digital examination of the prostate is warranted for transfeminine patients, the examination is performed through the neovaginal canal.

Caring for elderly transgender patients is complex. Even though evidence guiding the management of elderly transgender patients is improving, there are still not enough definitive long-term data on this dynamic demographic. Like clinical approaches with hormonal or surgical treatments, caring for transgender elders is also multidisciplinary. Providers should be prepared to work with social workers, geriatric care physicians, endocrinologists, surgeons, and other relevant specialists to assist with potential knowledge gaps. The goals for the aging transgender population are the same as those for cisgender patients – preventing preventable diseases and reducing overall mortality so our patients can enjoy their golden years.
 

Dr. Brandt is an ob.gyn. and fellowship-trained gender-affirming surgeon in West Reading, Pa. Contact her at [email protected].

References

1. Carroll L. Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;40:127-40.

2. Selix NW et al. Clinical care of the aging LGBT population. J Nurse Pract. 2020;16(7):349-54.

3. World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transgender and gender diverse people. 2022;8th version.

4. Shatzel JJ et al. Am J Hematol. 2017;92(2):204-8.

5. Wolf-Gould CS and Wolf-Gould CH. Primary and preventative care for transgender patients. In: Ferrando CA, ed. Comprehensive Care of the Transgender Patient. Philadelphia: Elsevier, 2020, p. 114-30.

Florida is seeing a spike in deadly infections caused by the “flesh-eating” bacteria Vibrio vulnificus following Hurricane Ian. 

At least 4 people have died and 29 have been infected in Lee County after the hurricane, Florida health officials said in a news release. 

Vibrio vulnificus bacteria is found in warm, brackish seawater, according to the Florida Department of Health. Anyone with open wounds or cuts should avoid standing water, floodwater, or seawater in the area, health officials said. 

“Sewage spills in coastal waters, like those caused by Hurricane Ian, may increase bacteria levels,” the department advised in a news release. “People with open wounds, cuts, or scratches can be exposed to Vibrio vulnificus through direct contact with sea water or brackish water … Vibrio vulnificus can also cause disease in those who eat raw or undercooked oysters and shellfish.”

Infection can cause severe illness or death. Symptoms include fever, chills, decreased blood pressure, and blistering skin lesions. The bacteria does not spread person to person.

“If someone is concerned that they may have been exposed to Vibrio vulnificus and are experiencing the above symptoms, they should seek medical attention immediately,” officials said in the statement.  “Individuals with wound infections should also seek care promptly.”

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

Florida is seeing a spike in deadly infections caused by the “flesh-eating” bacteria Vibrio vulnificus following Hurricane Ian. 

At least 4 people have died and 29 have been infected in Lee County after the hurricane, Florida health officials said in a news release. 

Vibrio vulnificus bacteria is found in warm, brackish seawater, according to the Florida Department of Health. Anyone with open wounds or cuts should avoid standing water, floodwater, or seawater in the area, health officials said. 

“Sewage spills in coastal waters, like those caused by Hurricane Ian, may increase bacteria levels,” the department advised in a news release. “People with open wounds, cuts, or scratches can be exposed to Vibrio vulnificus through direct contact with sea water or brackish water … Vibrio vulnificus can also cause disease in those who eat raw or undercooked oysters and shellfish.”

Infection can cause severe illness or death. Symptoms include fever, chills, decreased blood pressure, and blistering skin lesions. The bacteria does not spread person to person.

“If someone is concerned that they may have been exposed to Vibrio vulnificus and are experiencing the above symptoms, they should seek medical attention immediately,” officials said in the statement.  “Individuals with wound infections should also seek care promptly.”

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

Florida is seeing a spike in deadly infections caused by the “flesh-eating” bacteria Vibrio vulnificus following Hurricane Ian. 

At least 4 people have died and 29 have been infected in Lee County after the hurricane, Florida health officials said in a news release. 

Vibrio vulnificus bacteria is found in warm, brackish seawater, according to the Florida Department of Health. Anyone with open wounds or cuts should avoid standing water, floodwater, or seawater in the area, health officials said. 

“Sewage spills in coastal waters, like those caused by Hurricane Ian, may increase bacteria levels,” the department advised in a news release. “People with open wounds, cuts, or scratches can be exposed to Vibrio vulnificus through direct contact with sea water or brackish water … Vibrio vulnificus can also cause disease in those who eat raw or undercooked oysters and shellfish.”

Infection can cause severe illness or death. Symptoms include fever, chills, decreased blood pressure, and blistering skin lesions. The bacteria does not spread person to person.

“If someone is concerned that they may have been exposed to Vibrio vulnificus and are experiencing the above symptoms, they should seek medical attention immediately,” officials said in the statement.  “Individuals with wound infections should also seek care promptly.”

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

Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience a higher disease burden than that of men with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life, based on data from a cross-sectional survey of more than 2,000 individuals and their rheumatologists and dermatologists.

Although PsA affects men and women in equal numbers, previous research suggests differences in clinical manifestations based on gender that may manifest in many ways, including quality of life, but data on sex differences in PsA are limited, wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and dermatologists and their patients with PsA during June-August 2018. The study population included 2,270 adults from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The mean age of the patients was 48.6 years, the mean duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 46% (1,047 patients) were women.

The survey data included information on demographics, treatment, and clinical characteristics, such as tender and swollen joint counts and body surface area affected by psoriasis. The researchers assessed quality of life on the survey using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the impact of disease using the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12). They assessed patients’ disability and work productivity using the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire (WPAI).

Overall disease presentation, duration, and use of biologics were similar between men and women. However, women reported significantly worse quality of life compared with men, with a mean EQ-5D score of 0.80 vs. 0.82 (P = .02).

Women also scored higher than men on measures of disability and work impairment, with mean HAQ-DI scores of 0.56 vs. 0.41 and mean WPAI scores of 27.9% vs. 24.6%, respectively (P < .01).

Disease burden was significantly higher in women vs. men based on PsAID12 scores (2.66 vs. 2.27, respectively) and women reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and pain (P < .01 for all).

More men than women reported working full-time (68.6% vs. 49.4%) but no gender differences emerged for work time missed because of PsA, the researchers noted.

However, women had significantly fewer comorbidities compared with men, based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.10 vs. 1.15, P < .01).

“Other factors not assessed in the study are likely to be contributing to disease burden, and these unmeasured factors may affect men and women differently,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. These factors may include hormone levels and treatment outcomes, as well as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and joint erosion, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible overrepresentation of patients who visited physicians more often, the use of self-reports, and potential recall bias, as well as the lack of data on fibromyalgia prevalence using a validated score, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large and geographically diverse study population and highlight the need for more research to examine the additional disease burden of PsA in women, and the potential of alternative treatment regimens to improve management of PsA in women, they concluded.
 

Mechanisms driving sex differences remain unclear

“In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the effect of sex on the manifestations and impact of PsA as well as on the response to therapy,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Krembil Research Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study findings support previous research showing differences in disease expression in PsA between men and women, Dr. Gladman said. Several studies have shown more axial disease and joint damage in men than in women, while women reported greater functional disability and worse quality of life than men. The reasons for gender differences remain unclear, and genetics may play a role as well, she said.

Dr. Gladman emphasized the need for more research on the impact of fibromyalgia (FM) in particular. “As was shown in a previous study, the presence of FM affects the clinical assessment of patients with PsA,” she wrote. Fibromyalgia and pain reporting also may affect clinical trials of patients with PsA; however, the effect of fibromyalgia on sex differences is uncertain, she said. “In a disease that affects men and women equally, recognizing sex effect is important,” and more research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind this effect, she concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gossec disclosed receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from Janssen and 13 other pharmaceutical companies. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, and several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Janssen. Dr. Gladman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience a higher disease burden than that of men with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life, based on data from a cross-sectional survey of more than 2,000 individuals and their rheumatologists and dermatologists.

Although PsA affects men and women in equal numbers, previous research suggests differences in clinical manifestations based on gender that may manifest in many ways, including quality of life, but data on sex differences in PsA are limited, wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and dermatologists and their patients with PsA during June-August 2018. The study population included 2,270 adults from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The mean age of the patients was 48.6 years, the mean duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 46% (1,047 patients) were women.

The survey data included information on demographics, treatment, and clinical characteristics, such as tender and swollen joint counts and body surface area affected by psoriasis. The researchers assessed quality of life on the survey using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the impact of disease using the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12). They assessed patients’ disability and work productivity using the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire (WPAI).

Overall disease presentation, duration, and use of biologics were similar between men and women. However, women reported significantly worse quality of life compared with men, with a mean EQ-5D score of 0.80 vs. 0.82 (P = .02).

Women also scored higher than men on measures of disability and work impairment, with mean HAQ-DI scores of 0.56 vs. 0.41 and mean WPAI scores of 27.9% vs. 24.6%, respectively (P < .01).

Disease burden was significantly higher in women vs. men based on PsAID12 scores (2.66 vs. 2.27, respectively) and women reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and pain (P < .01 for all).

More men than women reported working full-time (68.6% vs. 49.4%) but no gender differences emerged for work time missed because of PsA, the researchers noted.

However, women had significantly fewer comorbidities compared with men, based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.10 vs. 1.15, P < .01).

“Other factors not assessed in the study are likely to be contributing to disease burden, and these unmeasured factors may affect men and women differently,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. These factors may include hormone levels and treatment outcomes, as well as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and joint erosion, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible overrepresentation of patients who visited physicians more often, the use of self-reports, and potential recall bias, as well as the lack of data on fibromyalgia prevalence using a validated score, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large and geographically diverse study population and highlight the need for more research to examine the additional disease burden of PsA in women, and the potential of alternative treatment regimens to improve management of PsA in women, they concluded.
 

Mechanisms driving sex differences remain unclear

“In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the effect of sex on the manifestations and impact of PsA as well as on the response to therapy,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Krembil Research Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study findings support previous research showing differences in disease expression in PsA between men and women, Dr. Gladman said. Several studies have shown more axial disease and joint damage in men than in women, while women reported greater functional disability and worse quality of life than men. The reasons for gender differences remain unclear, and genetics may play a role as well, she said.

Dr. Gladman emphasized the need for more research on the impact of fibromyalgia (FM) in particular. “As was shown in a previous study, the presence of FM affects the clinical assessment of patients with PsA,” she wrote. Fibromyalgia and pain reporting also may affect clinical trials of patients with PsA; however, the effect of fibromyalgia on sex differences is uncertain, she said. “In a disease that affects men and women equally, recognizing sex effect is important,” and more research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind this effect, she concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gossec disclosed receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from Janssen and 13 other pharmaceutical companies. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, and several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Janssen. Dr. Gladman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) experience a higher disease burden than that of men with regard to pain, disability, and quality of life, based on data from a cross-sectional survey of more than 2,000 individuals and their rheumatologists and dermatologists.

Although PsA affects men and women in equal numbers, previous research suggests differences in clinical manifestations based on gender that may manifest in many ways, including quality of life, but data on sex differences in PsA are limited, wrote Laure Gossec, MD, of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital and Sorbonne University, Paris, and colleagues.

In a study published in The Journal of Rheumatology, the researchers conducted a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and dermatologists and their patients with PsA during June-August 2018. The study population included 2,270 adults from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The mean age of the patients was 48.6 years, the mean duration of disease was 4.9 years, and 46% (1,047 patients) were women.

The survey data included information on demographics, treatment, and clinical characteristics, such as tender and swollen joint counts and body surface area affected by psoriasis. The researchers assessed quality of life on the survey using the EuroQoL 5-Dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and the impact of disease using the 12-item Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12). They assessed patients’ disability and work productivity using the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Work Productivity and Impairment questionnaire (WPAI).

Overall disease presentation, duration, and use of biologics were similar between men and women. However, women reported significantly worse quality of life compared with men, with a mean EQ-5D score of 0.80 vs. 0.82 (P = .02).

Women also scored higher than men on measures of disability and work impairment, with mean HAQ-DI scores of 0.56 vs. 0.41 and mean WPAI scores of 27.9% vs. 24.6%, respectively (P < .01).

Disease burden was significantly higher in women vs. men based on PsAID12 scores (2.66 vs. 2.27, respectively) and women reported significantly higher levels of fatigue and pain (P < .01 for all).

More men than women reported working full-time (68.6% vs. 49.4%) but no gender differences emerged for work time missed because of PsA, the researchers noted.

However, women had significantly fewer comorbidities compared with men, based on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (1.10 vs. 1.15, P < .01).

“Other factors not assessed in the study are likely to be contributing to disease burden, and these unmeasured factors may affect men and women differently,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. These factors may include hormone levels and treatment outcomes, as well as sleep disturbance, anxiety, and joint erosion, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the possible overrepresentation of patients who visited physicians more often, the use of self-reports, and potential recall bias, as well as the lack of data on fibromyalgia prevalence using a validated score, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the large and geographically diverse study population and highlight the need for more research to examine the additional disease burden of PsA in women, and the potential of alternative treatment regimens to improve management of PsA in women, they concluded.
 

Mechanisms driving sex differences remain unclear

“In the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in the effect of sex on the manifestations and impact of PsA as well as on the response to therapy,” Dafna D. Gladman, MD, of the University of Toronto and the Krembil Research Institute at Toronto Western Hospital, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The current study findings support previous research showing differences in disease expression in PsA between men and women, Dr. Gladman said. Several studies have shown more axial disease and joint damage in men than in women, while women reported greater functional disability and worse quality of life than men. The reasons for gender differences remain unclear, and genetics may play a role as well, she said.

Dr. Gladman emphasized the need for more research on the impact of fibromyalgia (FM) in particular. “As was shown in a previous study, the presence of FM affects the clinical assessment of patients with PsA,” she wrote. Fibromyalgia and pain reporting also may affect clinical trials of patients with PsA; however, the effect of fibromyalgia on sex differences is uncertain, she said. “In a disease that affects men and women equally, recognizing sex effect is important,” and more research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind this effect, she concluded.

The study was supported by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Gossec disclosed receiving research grants and/or consulting fees from Janssen and 13 other pharmaceutical companies. Several study coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies, and several coauthors are employees and stockholders of Janssen. Dr. Gladman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

MONTREAL – Amid common patient concerns about weight gain in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, findings from a large study suggest the therapy with the most favorable survival rate – radioiodine – is not associated with an increased risk of weight gain or obesity.

“EGRET is the first large study using population-based linked community and hospital data to elucidate the long-term consequences of treatment modalities for hyperthyroidism,” said co-author Kristien Boelaert, MD, PhD, while presenting the research at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“The administration of [radioiodine] for hyperthyroidism is associated with a survival benefit for patients with hyperthyroidism and is not associated with increased risks of becoming obese,” Dr. Boelaert, a professor of endocrinology and consultant endocrinologist with the Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, England, told this news organization.

However, “overall, there was a nearly 10% risk of major adverse cardiac events [MACE] in patients with hyperthyroidism regardless of the treatment modality used,” she noted.

Commenting on the findings, Jonathon O. Russell, MD, said the study offers surprising – but encouraging – results.

The discovery that radioiodine shows no increase in weight gain “contradicts numerous previous studies which have consistently demonstrated weight gain following definitive radioiodine,” Dr. Russell told this news organization.

Overall, however, “these findings reinforce our knowledge that definitive treatment of an overactive thyroid leads to a longer life – even if there is some weight gain,” added Dr. Russell, who is chief of the Division of Head and Neck Endocrine Surgery at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
 

Hyperthyroidism associated with serious long-term cardiometabolic issues

Hyperthyroidism is associated with serious long-term cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity and mortality, and treatment is therefore essential. However, the swing to hypothyroidism that often occurs afterward commonly results in regaining the weight lost due to the hyperthyroidism, if not more, potentially leading to obesity and its attendant health risks.

To investigate those risks in relation to the three key hyperthyroidism treatments, the authors conducted the EGRET trial. They identified 62,474 patients in the United Kingdom population-based electronic health record database who had newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism and were treated with antithyroid drugs (73.4%), radioiodine (19.5%), or thyroidectomy (7.1%) between April 1997 and December 2015.

Exclusion criteria included those with less than 6 months of antithyroid drugs as the only form of treatment, thyroid cancer, or pregnancy during the first episode.

With a median follow-up of about 8 years, those who were treated with thyroidectomy had a significantly increased risk of gaining weight, compared with the general population (P < .001), and of developing obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m2; P = .003), while the corresponding increases with antithyroid drugs and radioiodine were not significantly different, compared with the general population over the same period.

In terms of survival, with an average follow-up of about 11 years per person, about 14% of the cohort died, with rates of 14.4% in the antithyroid drug group, 15.8% in the radioiodine group, and 9.2% in the thyroidectomy group.

Mortality rates were further assessed based on an average treatment effects analysis in which the average change was estimated, compared with the index of antithyroid drugs – for instance, if all were treated instead with radioiodine. In that extension of life analysis, those treated with radioiodine could be expected to die, on average, 1.2 years later than those taking antithyroid drugs (P < .001), while those treated with thyroidectomy would be expected to die 0.6 years later, which was not statistically significant.

Using the same average treatment effects analysis, Dr. Boelaert noted, “we found a slightly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events following radioiodine, compared with antithyroid drugs; [however], the risk was very small and may not be clinically relevant.”

“Previous data from our and other groups have shown reduced risks of mortality and cardiovascular death following radioiodine-induced hypothyroidism, although this is not confirmed in all studies.”
 

Weight gain after hyperthyroid treatment drives concerns

The findings are important because weight gain associated with hyperthyroidism treatment is no small matter for many patients, even prompting a lack of adherence to therapy for some, despite its importance, Dr. Boelaert noted.

“Since the majority of patients lose weight as a consequence of being hyperthyroid, it can be expected that they will at least regain the lost weight and possibly even have a weight overshoot,” she explained. “Indeed, many patients are reluctant to accept definitive treatment with surgery or radioiodine out of fear of weight gain.”

“This may cause difficulties to some patients who occasionally may even stop taking antithyroid drugs to prevent this weight regain. Such lack of adherence may have dire consequences and is likely a contributing factor to the increased mortality in these patients,” she observed.

In a previous study of 1,373 patients, Dr. Boelaert and colleagues found that men treated for hyperthyroidism gained an average of 8.0 kg (17.6 lb), and women gained an average of 5.5 kg (12.1 lb).

Compared with the background population, men were significantly more likely to gain weight over the study period (odds ratio, 1.7; P < .001) as were women (OR, 1.3; P < .001). Also in that study, radioiodine was associated with greater weight gain (0.6 kg; P < .001), compared with antithyroid drug treatment alone.

Dr. Russell added that even when weight gain does occur, the payoff of having treated the potentially serious state of hyperthyroidism is a highly beneficial trade-off.

Ultimately, “the goal of treating any patient with Graves’ should be to get them to become hypothyroid as quickly as possible,” he said. “Patients have options, and all of these options can be safe in the right situation.”

“It is unrealistic to think that going from a hyperthyroid state to a low thyroid state will not result in weight gain for many patients,” Dr. Russell added. “But the key point is that overall health is better despite this weight gain.”

Dr. Boelaert has disclosed consulting fees paid to the University of Birmingham by Lilly and Eisai. Dr. Russell has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Amid common patient concerns about weight gain in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, findings from a large study suggest the therapy with the most favorable survival rate – radioiodine – is not associated with an increased risk of weight gain or obesity.

“EGRET is the first large study using population-based linked community and hospital data to elucidate the long-term consequences of treatment modalities for hyperthyroidism,” said co-author Kristien Boelaert, MD, PhD, while presenting the research at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“The administration of [radioiodine] for hyperthyroidism is associated with a survival benefit for patients with hyperthyroidism and is not associated with increased risks of becoming obese,” Dr. Boelaert, a professor of endocrinology and consultant endocrinologist with the Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, England, told this news organization.

However, “overall, there was a nearly 10% risk of major adverse cardiac events [MACE] in patients with hyperthyroidism regardless of the treatment modality used,” she noted.

Commenting on the findings, Jonathon O. Russell, MD, said the study offers surprising – but encouraging – results.

The discovery that radioiodine shows no increase in weight gain “contradicts numerous previous studies which have consistently demonstrated weight gain following definitive radioiodine,” Dr. Russell told this news organization.

Overall, however, “these findings reinforce our knowledge that definitive treatment of an overactive thyroid leads to a longer life – even if there is some weight gain,” added Dr. Russell, who is chief of the Division of Head and Neck Endocrine Surgery at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
 

Hyperthyroidism associated with serious long-term cardiometabolic issues

Hyperthyroidism is associated with serious long-term cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity and mortality, and treatment is therefore essential. However, the swing to hypothyroidism that often occurs afterward commonly results in regaining the weight lost due to the hyperthyroidism, if not more, potentially leading to obesity and its attendant health risks.

To investigate those risks in relation to the three key hyperthyroidism treatments, the authors conducted the EGRET trial. They identified 62,474 patients in the United Kingdom population-based electronic health record database who had newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism and were treated with antithyroid drugs (73.4%), radioiodine (19.5%), or thyroidectomy (7.1%) between April 1997 and December 2015.

Exclusion criteria included those with less than 6 months of antithyroid drugs as the only form of treatment, thyroid cancer, or pregnancy during the first episode.

With a median follow-up of about 8 years, those who were treated with thyroidectomy had a significantly increased risk of gaining weight, compared with the general population (P < .001), and of developing obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m2; P = .003), while the corresponding increases with antithyroid drugs and radioiodine were not significantly different, compared with the general population over the same period.

In terms of survival, with an average follow-up of about 11 years per person, about 14% of the cohort died, with rates of 14.4% in the antithyroid drug group, 15.8% in the radioiodine group, and 9.2% in the thyroidectomy group.

Mortality rates were further assessed based on an average treatment effects analysis in which the average change was estimated, compared with the index of antithyroid drugs – for instance, if all were treated instead with radioiodine. In that extension of life analysis, those treated with radioiodine could be expected to die, on average, 1.2 years later than those taking antithyroid drugs (P < .001), while those treated with thyroidectomy would be expected to die 0.6 years later, which was not statistically significant.

Using the same average treatment effects analysis, Dr. Boelaert noted, “we found a slightly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events following radioiodine, compared with antithyroid drugs; [however], the risk was very small and may not be clinically relevant.”

“Previous data from our and other groups have shown reduced risks of mortality and cardiovascular death following radioiodine-induced hypothyroidism, although this is not confirmed in all studies.”
 

Weight gain after hyperthyroid treatment drives concerns

The findings are important because weight gain associated with hyperthyroidism treatment is no small matter for many patients, even prompting a lack of adherence to therapy for some, despite its importance, Dr. Boelaert noted.

“Since the majority of patients lose weight as a consequence of being hyperthyroid, it can be expected that they will at least regain the lost weight and possibly even have a weight overshoot,” she explained. “Indeed, many patients are reluctant to accept definitive treatment with surgery or radioiodine out of fear of weight gain.”

“This may cause difficulties to some patients who occasionally may even stop taking antithyroid drugs to prevent this weight regain. Such lack of adherence may have dire consequences and is likely a contributing factor to the increased mortality in these patients,” she observed.

In a previous study of 1,373 patients, Dr. Boelaert and colleagues found that men treated for hyperthyroidism gained an average of 8.0 kg (17.6 lb), and women gained an average of 5.5 kg (12.1 lb).

Compared with the background population, men were significantly more likely to gain weight over the study period (odds ratio, 1.7; P < .001) as were women (OR, 1.3; P < .001). Also in that study, radioiodine was associated with greater weight gain (0.6 kg; P < .001), compared with antithyroid drug treatment alone.

Dr. Russell added that even when weight gain does occur, the payoff of having treated the potentially serious state of hyperthyroidism is a highly beneficial trade-off.

Ultimately, “the goal of treating any patient with Graves’ should be to get them to become hypothyroid as quickly as possible,” he said. “Patients have options, and all of these options can be safe in the right situation.”

“It is unrealistic to think that going from a hyperthyroid state to a low thyroid state will not result in weight gain for many patients,” Dr. Russell added. “But the key point is that overall health is better despite this weight gain.”

Dr. Boelaert has disclosed consulting fees paid to the University of Birmingham by Lilly and Eisai. Dr. Russell has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

MONTREAL – Amid common patient concerns about weight gain in the treatment of hyperthyroidism, findings from a large study suggest the therapy with the most favorable survival rate – radioiodine – is not associated with an increased risk of weight gain or obesity.

“EGRET is the first large study using population-based linked community and hospital data to elucidate the long-term consequences of treatment modalities for hyperthyroidism,” said co-author Kristien Boelaert, MD, PhD, while presenting the research at the American Thyroid Association annual meeting.

“The administration of [radioiodine] for hyperthyroidism is associated with a survival benefit for patients with hyperthyroidism and is not associated with increased risks of becoming obese,” Dr. Boelaert, a professor of endocrinology and consultant endocrinologist with the Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, England, told this news organization.

However, “overall, there was a nearly 10% risk of major adverse cardiac events [MACE] in patients with hyperthyroidism regardless of the treatment modality used,” she noted.

Commenting on the findings, Jonathon O. Russell, MD, said the study offers surprising – but encouraging – results.

The discovery that radioiodine shows no increase in weight gain “contradicts numerous previous studies which have consistently demonstrated weight gain following definitive radioiodine,” Dr. Russell told this news organization.

Overall, however, “these findings reinforce our knowledge that definitive treatment of an overactive thyroid leads to a longer life – even if there is some weight gain,” added Dr. Russell, who is chief of the Division of Head and Neck Endocrine Surgery at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.
 

Hyperthyroidism associated with serious long-term cardiometabolic issues

Hyperthyroidism is associated with serious long-term cardiovascular and metabolic morbidity and mortality, and treatment is therefore essential. However, the swing to hypothyroidism that often occurs afterward commonly results in regaining the weight lost due to the hyperthyroidism, if not more, potentially leading to obesity and its attendant health risks.

To investigate those risks in relation to the three key hyperthyroidism treatments, the authors conducted the EGRET trial. They identified 62,474 patients in the United Kingdom population-based electronic health record database who had newly diagnosed hyperthyroidism and were treated with antithyroid drugs (73.4%), radioiodine (19.5%), or thyroidectomy (7.1%) between April 1997 and December 2015.

Exclusion criteria included those with less than 6 months of antithyroid drugs as the only form of treatment, thyroid cancer, or pregnancy during the first episode.

With a median follow-up of about 8 years, those who were treated with thyroidectomy had a significantly increased risk of gaining weight, compared with the general population (P < .001), and of developing obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m2; P = .003), while the corresponding increases with antithyroid drugs and radioiodine were not significantly different, compared with the general population over the same period.

In terms of survival, with an average follow-up of about 11 years per person, about 14% of the cohort died, with rates of 14.4% in the antithyroid drug group, 15.8% in the radioiodine group, and 9.2% in the thyroidectomy group.

Mortality rates were further assessed based on an average treatment effects analysis in which the average change was estimated, compared with the index of antithyroid drugs – for instance, if all were treated instead with radioiodine. In that extension of life analysis, those treated with radioiodine could be expected to die, on average, 1.2 years later than those taking antithyroid drugs (P < .001), while those treated with thyroidectomy would be expected to die 0.6 years later, which was not statistically significant.

Using the same average treatment effects analysis, Dr. Boelaert noted, “we found a slightly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events following radioiodine, compared with antithyroid drugs; [however], the risk was very small and may not be clinically relevant.”

“Previous data from our and other groups have shown reduced risks of mortality and cardiovascular death following radioiodine-induced hypothyroidism, although this is not confirmed in all studies.”
 

Weight gain after hyperthyroid treatment drives concerns

The findings are important because weight gain associated with hyperthyroidism treatment is no small matter for many patients, even prompting a lack of adherence to therapy for some, despite its importance, Dr. Boelaert noted.

“Since the majority of patients lose weight as a consequence of being hyperthyroid, it can be expected that they will at least regain the lost weight and possibly even have a weight overshoot,” she explained. “Indeed, many patients are reluctant to accept definitive treatment with surgery or radioiodine out of fear of weight gain.”

“This may cause difficulties to some patients who occasionally may even stop taking antithyroid drugs to prevent this weight regain. Such lack of adherence may have dire consequences and is likely a contributing factor to the increased mortality in these patients,” she observed.

In a previous study of 1,373 patients, Dr. Boelaert and colleagues found that men treated for hyperthyroidism gained an average of 8.0 kg (17.6 lb), and women gained an average of 5.5 kg (12.1 lb).

Compared with the background population, men were significantly more likely to gain weight over the study period (odds ratio, 1.7; P < .001) as were women (OR, 1.3; P < .001). Also in that study, radioiodine was associated with greater weight gain (0.6 kg; P < .001), compared with antithyroid drug treatment alone.

Dr. Russell added that even when weight gain does occur, the payoff of having treated the potentially serious state of hyperthyroidism is a highly beneficial trade-off.

Ultimately, “the goal of treating any patient with Graves’ should be to get them to become hypothyroid as quickly as possible,” he said. “Patients have options, and all of these options can be safe in the right situation.”

“It is unrealistic to think that going from a hyperthyroid state to a low thyroid state will not result in weight gain for many patients,” Dr. Russell added. “But the key point is that overall health is better despite this weight gain.”

Dr. Boelaert has disclosed consulting fees paid to the University of Birmingham by Lilly and Eisai. Dr. Russell has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – The updated Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that targets the original virus and the Omicron variant was superior to the original COVID booster in adults aged 18 and older, new results indicate.

The bivalent booster was superior regardless of age and whether a person had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged.

Spyros Chalkias, MD, senior medical director of clinical development at Moderna, presented the data during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the phase 2/3 trial, participants received either 50 mcg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 mcg each of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 mcg of the standard authorized mRNA-1273. The doses were given as second boosters in adults who had previously received a two-dose primary series and a first booster at least 3 months before.

The model-based geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio of the enhanced booster compared with the standard booster was 1.74 (1.49-2.04), meeting the prespecified bar for superiority against Omicron BA.1.

In participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received updated booster doses and those who received standard boosters, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 and 1473.5, respectively.

Additionally, the updated booster elicited higher GMTs (727.4) than the standard booster (492.1) against Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5. Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups.

“By the end of this year, we expect to also have clinical trial data from our BA.4/BA.5 bivalent booster,” Dr. Chalkias said.

In the interim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorization for Moderna’s BA.4/BA.5 Omicron-targeting bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years.

Pfizer/BioNTech also has recently issued an announcement that their COVID-19 booster, adapted for the BA.4 and the BA.5 Omicron subvariants, generated a strong immune response and was well tolerated in human tests.

Pfizer/BioNTech said data from roughly 80 adult patients showed that the booster led to a substantial increase in neutralizing antibody levels against the BA.4/BA.5 variants after 1 week.
 

Separate study of causes of severe breakthrough infections in early vaccine formulations

Though COVID vaccines reduce the incidence of severe outcomes, there are reports of breakthrough infections in persons who received the original vaccines, and some of these have been serious.

In a separate study, also presented at the meeting, researchers led by first author Austin D. Vo, BS, with the VA Boston Healthcare System, used data collected from Dec. 15, 2020, through Feb. 28, 2022, in a U.S. veteran population to assess those at highest risk for severe disease despite vaccination.

Results of the large, nationwide retrospective study were simultaneously published in JAMA Network Open.

The primary outcome was development of severe COVID, defined as a hospitalization within 14 days of a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test, receipt of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days.

Among 110,760 participants with severe disease after primary vaccination, 13% (14,690) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 or died.

The strongest risk factor for severe disease despite vaccination was age, the researchers found.

Presenting author Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, associate professor of medicine with VA Boston Healthcare System, said, “We found that age greater than 50 was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 for every 5-year increase.”

To put that in perspective, she said, “compared to patients who are 45 to 50, those over 80 had an adjusted odds ratio of 16 for hospitalization or death following breakthrough infection.”

Priya Nori, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in an interview that the evidence that age is a strong risk factor for severe disease – even after vaccination – confirms that attention should be focused on those in the highest age groups, particularly those 80 years and older.

Other top risk factors included having immunocompromising conditions; having received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.21); having leukemias/lymphomas (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.14); and having chronic conditions associated with end-organ disease.

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

WASHINGTON – The updated Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that targets the original virus and the Omicron variant was superior to the original COVID booster in adults aged 18 and older, new results indicate.

The bivalent booster was superior regardless of age and whether a person had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged.

Spyros Chalkias, MD, senior medical director of clinical development at Moderna, presented the data during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the phase 2/3 trial, participants received either 50 mcg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 mcg each of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 mcg of the standard authorized mRNA-1273. The doses were given as second boosters in adults who had previously received a two-dose primary series and a first booster at least 3 months before.

The model-based geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio of the enhanced booster compared with the standard booster was 1.74 (1.49-2.04), meeting the prespecified bar for superiority against Omicron BA.1.

In participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received updated booster doses and those who received standard boosters, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 and 1473.5, respectively.

Additionally, the updated booster elicited higher GMTs (727.4) than the standard booster (492.1) against Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5. Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups.

“By the end of this year, we expect to also have clinical trial data from our BA.4/BA.5 bivalent booster,” Dr. Chalkias said.

In the interim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorization for Moderna’s BA.4/BA.5 Omicron-targeting bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years.

Pfizer/BioNTech also has recently issued an announcement that their COVID-19 booster, adapted for the BA.4 and the BA.5 Omicron subvariants, generated a strong immune response and was well tolerated in human tests.

Pfizer/BioNTech said data from roughly 80 adult patients showed that the booster led to a substantial increase in neutralizing antibody levels against the BA.4/BA.5 variants after 1 week.
 

Separate study of causes of severe breakthrough infections in early vaccine formulations

Though COVID vaccines reduce the incidence of severe outcomes, there are reports of breakthrough infections in persons who received the original vaccines, and some of these have been serious.

In a separate study, also presented at the meeting, researchers led by first author Austin D. Vo, BS, with the VA Boston Healthcare System, used data collected from Dec. 15, 2020, through Feb. 28, 2022, in a U.S. veteran population to assess those at highest risk for severe disease despite vaccination.

Results of the large, nationwide retrospective study were simultaneously published in JAMA Network Open.

The primary outcome was development of severe COVID, defined as a hospitalization within 14 days of a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test, receipt of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days.

Among 110,760 participants with severe disease after primary vaccination, 13% (14,690) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 or died.

The strongest risk factor for severe disease despite vaccination was age, the researchers found.

Presenting author Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, associate professor of medicine with VA Boston Healthcare System, said, “We found that age greater than 50 was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 for every 5-year increase.”

To put that in perspective, she said, “compared to patients who are 45 to 50, those over 80 had an adjusted odds ratio of 16 for hospitalization or death following breakthrough infection.”

Priya Nori, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in an interview that the evidence that age is a strong risk factor for severe disease – even after vaccination – confirms that attention should be focused on those in the highest age groups, particularly those 80 years and older.

Other top risk factors included having immunocompromising conditions; having received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.21); having leukemias/lymphomas (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.14); and having chronic conditions associated with end-organ disease.

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

WASHINGTON – The updated Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccine that targets the original virus and the Omicron variant was superior to the original COVID booster in adults aged 18 and older, new results indicate.

The bivalent booster was superior regardless of age and whether a person had previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Additionally, no new safety concerns emerged.

Spyros Chalkias, MD, senior medical director of clinical development at Moderna, presented the data during an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.

In the phase 2/3 trial, participants received either 50 mcg of the bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 mcg each of the original Wuhan-Hu-1 and Omicron BA.1 spike mRNAs) or 50 mcg of the standard authorized mRNA-1273. The doses were given as second boosters in adults who had previously received a two-dose primary series and a first booster at least 3 months before.

The model-based geometric mean titers (GMTs) ratio of the enhanced booster compared with the standard booster was 1.74 (1.49-2.04), meeting the prespecified bar for superiority against Omicron BA.1.

In participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who received updated booster doses and those who received standard boosters, the neutralizing antibody GMTs against Omicron BA.1 were 2372.4 and 1473.5, respectively.

Additionally, the updated booster elicited higher GMTs (727.4) than the standard booster (492.1) against Omicron subvariants BA.4/BA.5. Safety and reactogenicity were similar for both vaccine groups.

“By the end of this year, we expect to also have clinical trial data from our BA.4/BA.5 bivalent booster,” Dr. Chalkias said.

In the interim, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently granted emergency use authorization for Moderna’s BA.4/BA.5 Omicron-targeting bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine in children and adolescents aged 6-17 years.

Pfizer/BioNTech also has recently issued an announcement that their COVID-19 booster, adapted for the BA.4 and the BA.5 Omicron subvariants, generated a strong immune response and was well tolerated in human tests.

Pfizer/BioNTech said data from roughly 80 adult patients showed that the booster led to a substantial increase in neutralizing antibody levels against the BA.4/BA.5 variants after 1 week.
 

Separate study of causes of severe breakthrough infections in early vaccine formulations

Though COVID vaccines reduce the incidence of severe outcomes, there are reports of breakthrough infections in persons who received the original vaccines, and some of these have been serious.

In a separate study, also presented at the meeting, researchers led by first author Austin D. Vo, BS, with the VA Boston Healthcare System, used data collected from Dec. 15, 2020, through Feb. 28, 2022, in a U.S. veteran population to assess those at highest risk for severe disease despite vaccination.

Results of the large, nationwide retrospective study were simultaneously published in JAMA Network Open.

The primary outcome was development of severe COVID, defined as a hospitalization within 14 days of a confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 test, receipt of supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death within 28 days.

Among 110,760 participants with severe disease after primary vaccination, 13% (14,690) were hospitalized with severe COVID-19 or died.

The strongest risk factor for severe disease despite vaccination was age, the researchers found.

Presenting author Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, associate professor of medicine with VA Boston Healthcare System, said, “We found that age greater than 50 was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.42 for every 5-year increase.”

To put that in perspective, she said, “compared to patients who are 45 to 50, those over 80 had an adjusted odds ratio of 16 for hospitalization or death following breakthrough infection.”

Priya Nori, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said in an interview that the evidence that age is a strong risk factor for severe disease – even after vaccination – confirms that attention should be focused on those in the highest age groups, particularly those 80 years and older.

Other top risk factors included having immunocompromising conditions; having received cytotoxic chemotherapy within 6 months (adjusted odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.21); having leukemias/lymphomas (aOR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.59-2.14); and having chronic conditions associated with end-organ disease.

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