User login
Medical cannabis appears safe for patients with movement disorders
, two Israeli research teams reported.
The practice calls for careful monitoring of patients and additional study, said the researchers, who presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Cannabis for Parkinson’s disease
One retrospective study focused on Parkinson’s disease, evaluating the safety and effects of long-term treatment with medical cannabis, which has become a widely available treatment for controlling symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and other pain disorders. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but long-term safety has never been examined in Parkinson’s disease compared with untreated patients.
Their study included 152 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (mean age at diagnosis: 55.6 plus or minus 9.5 years) from the Sheba Medical Center Movement Disorders Institute who had been issued a license for medical cannabis. Seventy-six patients treated with cannabis were compared with 76 patients with similar characteristics who were not treated with cannabis.
Investigators collected data on patients who were followed at the institute between 2008 and 2022. Average follow-up period was 3.6 years.
Specifically, they collected data on levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn and Yahr scale progression, and patient-reported outcome measures on cognitive impairment, depressive, and psychotic symptoms, at baseline and at follow-up.
The Hoehn and Yahr scale allows for the quantification of different disease stages and LEDD provides a summary of the total daily medication a patient is receiving, explained Tomer Goldberg, BSc, the study’s lead author. Both are widely accepted motor severity and progression measures for Parkinson’s disease. “We wanted to check whether cannabis treatment influences these two motor parameters,” said Mr. Goldberg, who is affiliated with Tel Aviv University and the Movement Disorders Institute at Sheba Medical Center.
The medical cannabis–treated group and the untreated group had no significant differences in the mean annual change in LEDD or Hoehn and Yahr score. At 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, the treated group showed no signs of psychotic, depressive, or cognitive deterioration (P = .10-.68). The groups in Kaplan-Meier analyses also exhibited no differences in these nonmotor symptoms over time (P = .27-.93).
The findings suggest that cannabis treatment appears to be safe and has no negative effect on disease progression, said Mr. Goldberg. “It is important to note that we did not investigate all of the potential side effects of this treatment, and that prescribing medical cannabis for patients with Parkinson’s disease should be done with careful monitoring of each patient’s individual response to the treatment,” he added.
Cannabis for Huntington’s disease
Another study, targeting Huntington’s disease, drew similar conclusions. Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive decline are often present in Huntington’s disease patients, who have few treatment options. “An overall improvement in chorea and in neuropsychiatric symptoms was reported following cannabis treatment in several studies both in humans and in murine models,” wrote the study authors.
In this study, a certified Huntington’s disease specialist reviewed the medical records of 150 patients who were being followed in an Huntington’s disease clinic. Study metrics included the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, indications for treatment, and adverse events related to treatment. Among the 150 patients, 19 had received cannabis treatment for indications such as sleep disorders, behavioral anomalies, and chorea. All but one patient reported an improvement in symptoms (94%). No adverse events were recorded, although one patient died from a COVID-19 infection.
Overall, medical cannabis appeared to safely relieve symptoms in patients with Huntington’s disease. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should further examine efficacy of these findings, the study authors recommended.
Mr. Goldberg had no disclosures or conflicts of interest in reporting his research.
, two Israeli research teams reported.
The practice calls for careful monitoring of patients and additional study, said the researchers, who presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Cannabis for Parkinson’s disease
One retrospective study focused on Parkinson’s disease, evaluating the safety and effects of long-term treatment with medical cannabis, which has become a widely available treatment for controlling symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and other pain disorders. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but long-term safety has never been examined in Parkinson’s disease compared with untreated patients.
Their study included 152 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (mean age at diagnosis: 55.6 plus or minus 9.5 years) from the Sheba Medical Center Movement Disorders Institute who had been issued a license for medical cannabis. Seventy-six patients treated with cannabis were compared with 76 patients with similar characteristics who were not treated with cannabis.
Investigators collected data on patients who were followed at the institute between 2008 and 2022. Average follow-up period was 3.6 years.
Specifically, they collected data on levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn and Yahr scale progression, and patient-reported outcome measures on cognitive impairment, depressive, and psychotic symptoms, at baseline and at follow-up.
The Hoehn and Yahr scale allows for the quantification of different disease stages and LEDD provides a summary of the total daily medication a patient is receiving, explained Tomer Goldberg, BSc, the study’s lead author. Both are widely accepted motor severity and progression measures for Parkinson’s disease. “We wanted to check whether cannabis treatment influences these two motor parameters,” said Mr. Goldberg, who is affiliated with Tel Aviv University and the Movement Disorders Institute at Sheba Medical Center.
The medical cannabis–treated group and the untreated group had no significant differences in the mean annual change in LEDD or Hoehn and Yahr score. At 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, the treated group showed no signs of psychotic, depressive, or cognitive deterioration (P = .10-.68). The groups in Kaplan-Meier analyses also exhibited no differences in these nonmotor symptoms over time (P = .27-.93).
The findings suggest that cannabis treatment appears to be safe and has no negative effect on disease progression, said Mr. Goldberg. “It is important to note that we did not investigate all of the potential side effects of this treatment, and that prescribing medical cannabis for patients with Parkinson’s disease should be done with careful monitoring of each patient’s individual response to the treatment,” he added.
Cannabis for Huntington’s disease
Another study, targeting Huntington’s disease, drew similar conclusions. Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive decline are often present in Huntington’s disease patients, who have few treatment options. “An overall improvement in chorea and in neuropsychiatric symptoms was reported following cannabis treatment in several studies both in humans and in murine models,” wrote the study authors.
In this study, a certified Huntington’s disease specialist reviewed the medical records of 150 patients who were being followed in an Huntington’s disease clinic. Study metrics included the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, indications for treatment, and adverse events related to treatment. Among the 150 patients, 19 had received cannabis treatment for indications such as sleep disorders, behavioral anomalies, and chorea. All but one patient reported an improvement in symptoms (94%). No adverse events were recorded, although one patient died from a COVID-19 infection.
Overall, medical cannabis appeared to safely relieve symptoms in patients with Huntington’s disease. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should further examine efficacy of these findings, the study authors recommended.
Mr. Goldberg had no disclosures or conflicts of interest in reporting his research.
, two Israeli research teams reported.
The practice calls for careful monitoring of patients and additional study, said the researchers, who presented their findings at the International Congress of Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders.
Cannabis for Parkinson’s disease
One retrospective study focused on Parkinson’s disease, evaluating the safety and effects of long-term treatment with medical cannabis, which has become a widely available treatment for controlling symptoms in Parkinson’s disease and other pain disorders. Studies have demonstrated its efficacy in patients with Parkinson’s disease, but long-term safety has never been examined in Parkinson’s disease compared with untreated patients.
Their study included 152 patients with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (mean age at diagnosis: 55.6 plus or minus 9.5 years) from the Sheba Medical Center Movement Disorders Institute who had been issued a license for medical cannabis. Seventy-six patients treated with cannabis were compared with 76 patients with similar characteristics who were not treated with cannabis.
Investigators collected data on patients who were followed at the institute between 2008 and 2022. Average follow-up period was 3.6 years.
Specifically, they collected data on levodopa equivalent daily dose (LEDD), Hoehn and Yahr scale progression, and patient-reported outcome measures on cognitive impairment, depressive, and psychotic symptoms, at baseline and at follow-up.
The Hoehn and Yahr scale allows for the quantification of different disease stages and LEDD provides a summary of the total daily medication a patient is receiving, explained Tomer Goldberg, BSc, the study’s lead author. Both are widely accepted motor severity and progression measures for Parkinson’s disease. “We wanted to check whether cannabis treatment influences these two motor parameters,” said Mr. Goldberg, who is affiliated with Tel Aviv University and the Movement Disorders Institute at Sheba Medical Center.
The medical cannabis–treated group and the untreated group had no significant differences in the mean annual change in LEDD or Hoehn and Yahr score. At 1, 2, and 3 years of follow-up, the treated group showed no signs of psychotic, depressive, or cognitive deterioration (P = .10-.68). The groups in Kaplan-Meier analyses also exhibited no differences in these nonmotor symptoms over time (P = .27-.93).
The findings suggest that cannabis treatment appears to be safe and has no negative effect on disease progression, said Mr. Goldberg. “It is important to note that we did not investigate all of the potential side effects of this treatment, and that prescribing medical cannabis for patients with Parkinson’s disease should be done with careful monitoring of each patient’s individual response to the treatment,” he added.
Cannabis for Huntington’s disease
Another study, targeting Huntington’s disease, drew similar conclusions. Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive decline are often present in Huntington’s disease patients, who have few treatment options. “An overall improvement in chorea and in neuropsychiatric symptoms was reported following cannabis treatment in several studies both in humans and in murine models,” wrote the study authors.
In this study, a certified Huntington’s disease specialist reviewed the medical records of 150 patients who were being followed in an Huntington’s disease clinic. Study metrics included the Unified Huntington’s Disease Rating Scale and Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores, indications for treatment, and adverse events related to treatment. Among the 150 patients, 19 had received cannabis treatment for indications such as sleep disorders, behavioral anomalies, and chorea. All but one patient reported an improvement in symptoms (94%). No adverse events were recorded, although one patient died from a COVID-19 infection.
Overall, medical cannabis appeared to safely relieve symptoms in patients with Huntington’s disease. A double-blind randomized controlled trial should further examine efficacy of these findings, the study authors recommended.
Mr. Goldberg had no disclosures or conflicts of interest in reporting his research.
FROM MDS 2022
Early bird gets the worm, night owl gets the diabetes
Metabolism a player in circadian rhythm section
Are you an early bird, or do you wake up and stare at your phone, wondering why you were up watching “The Crown” until 3 a.m.? Recent research suggests that people who wake up earlier tend to be more active during the day and burn more fat than those who sleep in. Fat builds up in the night owls, putting them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
The study gives physicians something to think about when assessing a patient’s risk factors. “This could help medical professionals consider another behavioral factor contributing to disease risk,” Steven Malin, PhD, lead author of the study and expert in metabolism at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., said in The Guardian.
For the research, 51 participants were divided into night owls and early birds, depending on their answers to a questionnaire. They were examined, monitored for a week, and assessed while doing various activities. Those who woke up early tended to be more sensitive to insulin and burned off fat faster than those who woke up late, the researchers explained.
“Night owls are reported to have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease when compared with early birds,” Dr. Malin said. “A potential explanation is they become misaligned with their circadian rhythm for various reasons, but most notably among adults would be work.”
We all know that we may not be at our best when we throw off our internal clocks by going to sleep late and waking up early. Think about that next time you start another episode on Netflix at 2:57 a.m.
Mosquitoes, chemical cocktails, and glass sock beads
We all know that mosquitoes are annoying little disease vectors with a taste for human blood. One of the less-known things about mosquitoes is what attracts them to humans in the first place. It’s so less known that, until now, it was unknown. Oh sure, we knew that odor was involved, and that lactic acid was part of the odor equation, but what are the specific chemicals? Well, there’s carbon dioxide … and ammonia. Those were already known.
Ring Cardé, PhD, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, wasn’t convinced. “I suspected there was something undiscovered about the chemistry of odors luring the yellow fever mosquito. I wanted to nail down the exact blend,” he said in a statement from the university.
Dr. Cardé and his associates eventually figured out that the exact chemical cocktail attracting female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes was a combination of carbon dioxide plus two chemicals, 2-ketoglutaric acid and lactic acid. The odor from these chemicals enables mosquitoes to locate and land on their victim and “also encourages probing, the use of piercing mouthparts to find blood,” the university said.
This amazing destination of science is important, but we have to acknowledge the journey as well. To do that we turn to one of Dr. Cardé’s associates, Jan Bello, PhD, formerly of Cal-Riverside and now with insect pest control company Provivi. Turns out that 2-ketoglutaric acid is tricky stuff because the methods typically used to identify chemicals don’t work on it.
Dr. Bello employed a somewhat unorthodox chemical extraction method: He filled his socks with glass beads and walked around with the beads in his socks. 
“Wearing the beads felt almost like a massage, like squeezing stress balls full of sand, but with your feet,” Dr. Bello said. “The most frustrating part of doing it for a long time is that they would get stuck in between your toes, so it would be uncomfortable after a while.”
We hate when science gets stuck between our toes, but we love it when scientists write their own punchlines.
The MS drugs are better down where it’s wetter, take it from me
The myth of the mermaid is one with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history. The ancient Greeks had the mythological siren, while the Babylonians depicted kulullû (which were mermen – never let the Babylonians be known as noninclusive) in artwork as far back as 1600 BC. Cultures as far flung as Japan, southern Africa, and New Zealand have folkloric figures similar to the mermaid. It is most decidedly not a creation of western Europe, Hans Christian Andersen, or Disney.
With that mild rant out of the way, let’s move to Germany and a group of researchers from the University of Bonn, who have not created a mermaid. They did, however, add human genes to a zebrafish for research purposes, which feels uncomfortably close. Nothing better than unholy animal-human hybrids, right?
Stick with us here, because the researchers did have a good reason for their gene splicing. Zebrafish and humans both have the GPR17 receptor, which is highly active in nerve tissue. When GPR17 is overactivated, diseases such as multiple sclerosis can develop. Because the zebrafish has this receptor, which performs the same function in its body as in ours, it’s a prime candidate for replacement. Also, zebrafish larvae are transparent, which makes it very easy to observe a drug working.
That said, fish and humans are very far apart, genetically speaking. Big shock right there. But by replacing their GPR17 receptor with ours, the scientists have created a fish that we could test drug candidates on and be assured that they would also work on humans. Actually testing drugs for MS on these humanized zebrafish was beyond the scope of the study, but the researchers said that the new genes function normally in the fish larvae, making them a promising new avenue for MS drug development.
Can we all promise not to tell Disney that human DNA can be spliced into a fish without consequence? Otherwise, we’re just going to have to sit through another “Little Mermaid” adaptation in 30 years, this one in super live-action featuring actual, real-life mermaids. And we’re not ready for that level of man-made horror just yet.
Beware of the fly vomit
Picture this: You’re outside at a picnic or barbecue, loading a plate with food. In a brief moment of conversation a fly lands right on top of your sandwich. You shoo it away and think nothing more of it, eating the sandwich anyway. We’ve all been there.
A recent study is making us think again.
John Stoffolano, an entomology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, claims that too much attention has been focused on pathogen transmission by the biting, blood-feeding flies when really we should be taking note of the nonbiting, or synanthropic, flies we live with, which may have a greater impact on the transmission of pathogens right in our own homes.
Sure, blood-feeding flies can spread pathogens directly, but house flies vomit every time they land on something. Think about that.
The fly that sneakily swooped into your house from a tear in your window screen has just been outside in the neighbor’s garbage or sitting on dog poop and now has who knows what filling its crop, the tank in their body that serves as “a place to store food before it makes its way into the digestive tract where it will get turned into energy for the fly,” Dr. Stoffolano explained in a written statement.
Did that fly land right on the baked potato you were prepping for dinner before you shooed it away? Guess what? Before flying off it emitted excess water that has pathogens from whatever was in its crop. We don’t want to say your potato might have dog poop on it, but you get the idea. The crop doesn’t have a ton of digestive enzymes that would help neutralize pathogens, so whatever that fly regurgitated before buzzing off is still around for you to ingest and there’s not much you can do about it.
More research needs to be done about flies, but at the very least this study should make you think twice before eating that baked potato after a fly has been there.
Metabolism a player in circadian rhythm section
Are you an early bird, or do you wake up and stare at your phone, wondering why you were up watching “The Crown” until 3 a.m.? Recent research suggests that people who wake up earlier tend to be more active during the day and burn more fat than those who sleep in. Fat builds up in the night owls, putting them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
The study gives physicians something to think about when assessing a patient’s risk factors. “This could help medical professionals consider another behavioral factor contributing to disease risk,” Steven Malin, PhD, lead author of the study and expert in metabolism at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., said in The Guardian.
For the research, 51 participants were divided into night owls and early birds, depending on their answers to a questionnaire. They were examined, monitored for a week, and assessed while doing various activities. Those who woke up early tended to be more sensitive to insulin and burned off fat faster than those who woke up late, the researchers explained.
“Night owls are reported to have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease when compared with early birds,” Dr. Malin said. “A potential explanation is they become misaligned with their circadian rhythm for various reasons, but most notably among adults would be work.”
We all know that we may not be at our best when we throw off our internal clocks by going to sleep late and waking up early. Think about that next time you start another episode on Netflix at 2:57 a.m.
Mosquitoes, chemical cocktails, and glass sock beads
We all know that mosquitoes are annoying little disease vectors with a taste for human blood. One of the less-known things about mosquitoes is what attracts them to humans in the first place. It’s so less known that, until now, it was unknown. Oh sure, we knew that odor was involved, and that lactic acid was part of the odor equation, but what are the specific chemicals? Well, there’s carbon dioxide … and ammonia. Those were already known.
Ring Cardé, PhD, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, wasn’t convinced. “I suspected there was something undiscovered about the chemistry of odors luring the yellow fever mosquito. I wanted to nail down the exact blend,” he said in a statement from the university.
Dr. Cardé and his associates eventually figured out that the exact chemical cocktail attracting female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes was a combination of carbon dioxide plus two chemicals, 2-ketoglutaric acid and lactic acid. The odor from these chemicals enables mosquitoes to locate and land on their victim and “also encourages probing, the use of piercing mouthparts to find blood,” the university said.
This amazing destination of science is important, but we have to acknowledge the journey as well. To do that we turn to one of Dr. Cardé’s associates, Jan Bello, PhD, formerly of Cal-Riverside and now with insect pest control company Provivi. Turns out that 2-ketoglutaric acid is tricky stuff because the methods typically used to identify chemicals don’t work on it.
Dr. Bello employed a somewhat unorthodox chemical extraction method: He filled his socks with glass beads and walked around with the beads in his socks.
“Wearing the beads felt almost like a massage, like squeezing stress balls full of sand, but with your feet,” Dr. Bello said. “The most frustrating part of doing it for a long time is that they would get stuck in between your toes, so it would be uncomfortable after a while.”
We hate when science gets stuck between our toes, but we love it when scientists write their own punchlines.
The MS drugs are better down where it’s wetter, take it from me
The myth of the mermaid is one with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history. The ancient Greeks had the mythological siren, while the Babylonians depicted kulullû (which were mermen – never let the Babylonians be known as noninclusive) in artwork as far back as 1600 BC. Cultures as far flung as Japan, southern Africa, and New Zealand have folkloric figures similar to the mermaid. It is most decidedly not a creation of western Europe, Hans Christian Andersen, or Disney.
With that mild rant out of the way, let’s move to Germany and a group of researchers from the University of Bonn, who have not created a mermaid. They did, however, add human genes to a zebrafish for research purposes, which feels uncomfortably close. Nothing better than unholy animal-human hybrids, right?
Stick with us here, because the researchers did have a good reason for their gene splicing. Zebrafish and humans both have the GPR17 receptor, which is highly active in nerve tissue. When GPR17 is overactivated, diseases such as multiple sclerosis can develop. Because the zebrafish has this receptor, which performs the same function in its body as in ours, it’s a prime candidate for replacement. Also, zebrafish larvae are transparent, which makes it very easy to observe a drug working.
That said, fish and humans are very far apart, genetically speaking. Big shock right there. But by replacing their GPR17 receptor with ours, the scientists have created a fish that we could test drug candidates on and be assured that they would also work on humans. Actually testing drugs for MS on these humanized zebrafish was beyond the scope of the study, but the researchers said that the new genes function normally in the fish larvae, making them a promising new avenue for MS drug development.
Can we all promise not to tell Disney that human DNA can be spliced into a fish without consequence? Otherwise, we’re just going to have to sit through another “Little Mermaid” adaptation in 30 years, this one in super live-action featuring actual, real-life mermaids. And we’re not ready for that level of man-made horror just yet.
Beware of the fly vomit
Picture this: You’re outside at a picnic or barbecue, loading a plate with food. In a brief moment of conversation a fly lands right on top of your sandwich. You shoo it away and think nothing more of it, eating the sandwich anyway. We’ve all been there.
A recent study is making us think again.
John Stoffolano, an entomology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, claims that too much attention has been focused on pathogen transmission by the biting, blood-feeding flies when really we should be taking note of the nonbiting, or synanthropic, flies we live with, which may have a greater impact on the transmission of pathogens right in our own homes.
Sure, blood-feeding flies can spread pathogens directly, but house flies vomit every time they land on something. Think about that.
The fly that sneakily swooped into your house from a tear in your window screen has just been outside in the neighbor’s garbage or sitting on dog poop and now has who knows what filling its crop, the tank in their body that serves as “a place to store food before it makes its way into the digestive tract where it will get turned into energy for the fly,” Dr. Stoffolano explained in a written statement.
Did that fly land right on the baked potato you were prepping for dinner before you shooed it away? Guess what? Before flying off it emitted excess water that has pathogens from whatever was in its crop. We don’t want to say your potato might have dog poop on it, but you get the idea. The crop doesn’t have a ton of digestive enzymes that would help neutralize pathogens, so whatever that fly regurgitated before buzzing off is still around for you to ingest and there’s not much you can do about it.
More research needs to be done about flies, but at the very least this study should make you think twice before eating that baked potato after a fly has been there.
Metabolism a player in circadian rhythm section
Are you an early bird, or do you wake up and stare at your phone, wondering why you were up watching “The Crown” until 3 a.m.? Recent research suggests that people who wake up earlier tend to be more active during the day and burn more fat than those who sleep in. Fat builds up in the night owls, putting them at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and heart disease.
The study gives physicians something to think about when assessing a patient’s risk factors. “This could help medical professionals consider another behavioral factor contributing to disease risk,” Steven Malin, PhD, lead author of the study and expert in metabolism at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., said in The Guardian.
For the research, 51 participants were divided into night owls and early birds, depending on their answers to a questionnaire. They were examined, monitored for a week, and assessed while doing various activities. Those who woke up early tended to be more sensitive to insulin and burned off fat faster than those who woke up late, the researchers explained.
“Night owls are reported to have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease when compared with early birds,” Dr. Malin said. “A potential explanation is they become misaligned with their circadian rhythm for various reasons, but most notably among adults would be work.”
We all know that we may not be at our best when we throw off our internal clocks by going to sleep late and waking up early. Think about that next time you start another episode on Netflix at 2:57 a.m.
Mosquitoes, chemical cocktails, and glass sock beads
We all know that mosquitoes are annoying little disease vectors with a taste for human blood. One of the less-known things about mosquitoes is what attracts them to humans in the first place. It’s so less known that, until now, it was unknown. Oh sure, we knew that odor was involved, and that lactic acid was part of the odor equation, but what are the specific chemicals? Well, there’s carbon dioxide … and ammonia. Those were already known.
Ring Cardé, PhD, an entomologist at the University of California, Riverside, wasn’t convinced. “I suspected there was something undiscovered about the chemistry of odors luring the yellow fever mosquito. I wanted to nail down the exact blend,” he said in a statement from the university.
Dr. Cardé and his associates eventually figured out that the exact chemical cocktail attracting female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes was a combination of carbon dioxide plus two chemicals, 2-ketoglutaric acid and lactic acid. The odor from these chemicals enables mosquitoes to locate and land on their victim and “also encourages probing, the use of piercing mouthparts to find blood,” the university said.
This amazing destination of science is important, but we have to acknowledge the journey as well. To do that we turn to one of Dr. Cardé’s associates, Jan Bello, PhD, formerly of Cal-Riverside and now with insect pest control company Provivi. Turns out that 2-ketoglutaric acid is tricky stuff because the methods typically used to identify chemicals don’t work on it.
Dr. Bello employed a somewhat unorthodox chemical extraction method: He filled his socks with glass beads and walked around with the beads in his socks.
“Wearing the beads felt almost like a massage, like squeezing stress balls full of sand, but with your feet,” Dr. Bello said. “The most frustrating part of doing it for a long time is that they would get stuck in between your toes, so it would be uncomfortable after a while.”
We hate when science gets stuck between our toes, but we love it when scientists write their own punchlines.
The MS drugs are better down where it’s wetter, take it from me
The myth of the mermaid is one with hundreds, if not thousands, of years of history. The ancient Greeks had the mythological siren, while the Babylonians depicted kulullû (which were mermen – never let the Babylonians be known as noninclusive) in artwork as far back as 1600 BC. Cultures as far flung as Japan, southern Africa, and New Zealand have folkloric figures similar to the mermaid. It is most decidedly not a creation of western Europe, Hans Christian Andersen, or Disney.
With that mild rant out of the way, let’s move to Germany and a group of researchers from the University of Bonn, who have not created a mermaid. They did, however, add human genes to a zebrafish for research purposes, which feels uncomfortably close. Nothing better than unholy animal-human hybrids, right?
Stick with us here, because the researchers did have a good reason for their gene splicing. Zebrafish and humans both have the GPR17 receptor, which is highly active in nerve tissue. When GPR17 is overactivated, diseases such as multiple sclerosis can develop. Because the zebrafish has this receptor, which performs the same function in its body as in ours, it’s a prime candidate for replacement. Also, zebrafish larvae are transparent, which makes it very easy to observe a drug working.
That said, fish and humans are very far apart, genetically speaking. Big shock right there. But by replacing their GPR17 receptor with ours, the scientists have created a fish that we could test drug candidates on and be assured that they would also work on humans. Actually testing drugs for MS on these humanized zebrafish was beyond the scope of the study, but the researchers said that the new genes function normally in the fish larvae, making them a promising new avenue for MS drug development.
Can we all promise not to tell Disney that human DNA can be spliced into a fish without consequence? Otherwise, we’re just going to have to sit through another “Little Mermaid” adaptation in 30 years, this one in super live-action featuring actual, real-life mermaids. And we’re not ready for that level of man-made horror just yet.
Beware of the fly vomit
Picture this: You’re outside at a picnic or barbecue, loading a plate with food. In a brief moment of conversation a fly lands right on top of your sandwich. You shoo it away and think nothing more of it, eating the sandwich anyway. We’ve all been there.
A recent study is making us think again.
John Stoffolano, an entomology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, claims that too much attention has been focused on pathogen transmission by the biting, blood-feeding flies when really we should be taking note of the nonbiting, or synanthropic, flies we live with, which may have a greater impact on the transmission of pathogens right in our own homes.
Sure, blood-feeding flies can spread pathogens directly, but house flies vomit every time they land on something. Think about that.
The fly that sneakily swooped into your house from a tear in your window screen has just been outside in the neighbor’s garbage or sitting on dog poop and now has who knows what filling its crop, the tank in their body that serves as “a place to store food before it makes its way into the digestive tract where it will get turned into energy for the fly,” Dr. Stoffolano explained in a written statement.
Did that fly land right on the baked potato you were prepping for dinner before you shooed it away? Guess what? Before flying off it emitted excess water that has pathogens from whatever was in its crop. We don’t want to say your potato might have dog poop on it, but you get the idea. The crop doesn’t have a ton of digestive enzymes that would help neutralize pathogens, so whatever that fly regurgitated before buzzing off is still around for you to ingest and there’s not much you can do about it.
More research needs to be done about flies, but at the very least this study should make you think twice before eating that baked potato after a fly has been there.
Angiography in patients with prior CABG does better when planned with CT
BOSTON – Coronary angiography in patients who have previously undergone cardiac artery bypass grafting (CABG) is challenging, but the procedure can be streamlined and made safer when preprocedural CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is performed to plan the intervention, according to a randomized controlled trial.
In this study, all three endpoints, including a reduction in the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and duration of the procedure, were met, according to Daniel Jones, MBBS, PhD.
Preprocedural CTCA was also associated with about a 40% improvement in patient satisfaction.
“When logistically possible, CTCA should be considered for any stable postbypass patient undergoing coronary angiography,” said Dr. Jones, who supported this assertion with data presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
In this study, called BYPASS-CTCA, 688 patients with a prior CABG scheduled for invasive coronary angiography were randomized to a preprocedural CTCA or no preprocedural CTCA. Patients with stable angina and those with a non–ST elevated acute coronary syndrome were eligible. Those with ST-segment elevated MI or severe renal impairment (eGFR < 20 mL/min) were excluded.
All three co–primary endpoints favor CTCA
CTCA relative to no CTCA provided a significant advantage for all three of the coprimary endpoints, which were procedure duration, CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria, and patient satisfaction as measured by questionnaire.
The procedure duration was reduced by almost 21 minutes, cutting the time from nearly 39 minutes to less than 18 minutes (P < .001). This relative reduction was of similar magnitude across groups, such as those with or without acute coronary syndrome and procedures performed by a senior or a junior operator.
“Even when you include the preprocedural CTCA evaluation time, there was still a significant reduction [P < .001] in duration for those in the CTCA arm,” reported Dr. Jones, honorary consultant cardiologist, Barts Heart Centre, Queen Mary University, London.
The rates of CIN following the procedure in this study, which had a follow-up of 12 months, were 3.4% versus 27.9% (P < .0001) in the preprocedural CTCA and non-CTCA groups, respectively. Again, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar magnitude of risk reduction across all subgroups evaluated.
CTCA planning reduced contrast exposure
The reduced risk of CIN was consistent with a large reduction in contrast exposure for those in the CTCA group (77.4 vs. 173.0 mL; P < .001). The advantage narrowed substantially when adding in contrast exposure from CTCA, but still remained statistically significant (148.9 vs. 173.0 mL; P < .001).
Dr. Jones did not speculate about the specific reasons for the 40% improvement in patient satisfaction among those who underwent preprocedural CTCA relative to those who did not, but, again, a sensitivity analysis showed consistency across subgroups defined by race, operator experience, and underlying diagnosis.
Numerous secondary endpoints also favored CTCA over no CTCA. This included fewer catheters used to complete the procedure (three vs. four; P < .001), a greater likelihood that the procedure was performed with radial access (76.9% vs. 56.7%), and lower rates of procedural complications (2.3% vs. 10.8%; P < .001). This latter category included fewer vascular access complications such as bleeding (0.6 % vs. 4.4%; P = .007) and periprocedural MI (0.6% vs. 6.4%; P < 0.001).
In a graph of time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), the curves separated almost immediately with a consistently lower rate maintained in the CTCA arm over the 12 months of follow-up, but this is observational. Dr. Jones acknowledged that this trial was not powered to show a difference in MACE.
Study intriguing but not definitive
In a panel discussion that followed the presentation of these results at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, some reservations with this study were expressed. In particular, several of the panelists, including Jeffrey W. Moses, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular therapeutics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, expressed surprise at the 27% rate of CIN, which he considered uncommonly high even in a high-risk population.
The unusual rate of CIN was also considered problematic given that it was the most significant clinical outcome among the three co–primary endpoints. Procedural times and patient satisfaction, while valid endpoints, are important subjects of study, but Dr. Moses was not alone in suggesting this study deserves validation.
In particular, there appeared to be a consensus among panelists that a larger multicenter study looking at hard endpoints, such as MACE, would be more compelling. They indicated that even if CTCA poses a very low risk of meaningful complications, it does add expense and an extra step.
Dr. Jones reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Moses reported financial relationships with Covanos, Orchestra Biomed, Ostial, and Xenter.
BOSTON – Coronary angiography in patients who have previously undergone cardiac artery bypass grafting (CABG) is challenging, but the procedure can be streamlined and made safer when preprocedural CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is performed to plan the intervention, according to a randomized controlled trial.
In this study, all three endpoints, including a reduction in the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and duration of the procedure, were met, according to Daniel Jones, MBBS, PhD.
Preprocedural CTCA was also associated with about a 40% improvement in patient satisfaction.
“When logistically possible, CTCA should be considered for any stable postbypass patient undergoing coronary angiography,” said Dr. Jones, who supported this assertion with data presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
In this study, called BYPASS-CTCA, 688 patients with a prior CABG scheduled for invasive coronary angiography were randomized to a preprocedural CTCA or no preprocedural CTCA. Patients with stable angina and those with a non–ST elevated acute coronary syndrome were eligible. Those with ST-segment elevated MI or severe renal impairment (eGFR < 20 mL/min) were excluded.
All three co–primary endpoints favor CTCA
CTCA relative to no CTCA provided a significant advantage for all three of the coprimary endpoints, which were procedure duration, CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria, and patient satisfaction as measured by questionnaire.
The procedure duration was reduced by almost 21 minutes, cutting the time from nearly 39 minutes to less than 18 minutes (P < .001). This relative reduction was of similar magnitude across groups, such as those with or without acute coronary syndrome and procedures performed by a senior or a junior operator.
“Even when you include the preprocedural CTCA evaluation time, there was still a significant reduction [P < .001] in duration for those in the CTCA arm,” reported Dr. Jones, honorary consultant cardiologist, Barts Heart Centre, Queen Mary University, London.
The rates of CIN following the procedure in this study, which had a follow-up of 12 months, were 3.4% versus 27.9% (P < .0001) in the preprocedural CTCA and non-CTCA groups, respectively. Again, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar magnitude of risk reduction across all subgroups evaluated.
CTCA planning reduced contrast exposure
The reduced risk of CIN was consistent with a large reduction in contrast exposure for those in the CTCA group (77.4 vs. 173.0 mL; P < .001). The advantage narrowed substantially when adding in contrast exposure from CTCA, but still remained statistically significant (148.9 vs. 173.0 mL; P < .001).
Dr. Jones did not speculate about the specific reasons for the 40% improvement in patient satisfaction among those who underwent preprocedural CTCA relative to those who did not, but, again, a sensitivity analysis showed consistency across subgroups defined by race, operator experience, and underlying diagnosis.
Numerous secondary endpoints also favored CTCA over no CTCA. This included fewer catheters used to complete the procedure (three vs. four; P < .001), a greater likelihood that the procedure was performed with radial access (76.9% vs. 56.7%), and lower rates of procedural complications (2.3% vs. 10.8%; P < .001). This latter category included fewer vascular access complications such as bleeding (0.6 % vs. 4.4%; P = .007) and periprocedural MI (0.6% vs. 6.4%; P < 0.001).
In a graph of time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), the curves separated almost immediately with a consistently lower rate maintained in the CTCA arm over the 12 months of follow-up, but this is observational. Dr. Jones acknowledged that this trial was not powered to show a difference in MACE.
Study intriguing but not definitive
In a panel discussion that followed the presentation of these results at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, some reservations with this study were expressed. In particular, several of the panelists, including Jeffrey W. Moses, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular therapeutics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, expressed surprise at the 27% rate of CIN, which he considered uncommonly high even in a high-risk population.
The unusual rate of CIN was also considered problematic given that it was the most significant clinical outcome among the three co–primary endpoints. Procedural times and patient satisfaction, while valid endpoints, are important subjects of study, but Dr. Moses was not alone in suggesting this study deserves validation.
In particular, there appeared to be a consensus among panelists that a larger multicenter study looking at hard endpoints, such as MACE, would be more compelling. They indicated that even if CTCA poses a very low risk of meaningful complications, it does add expense and an extra step.
Dr. Jones reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Moses reported financial relationships with Covanos, Orchestra Biomed, Ostial, and Xenter.
BOSTON – Coronary angiography in patients who have previously undergone cardiac artery bypass grafting (CABG) is challenging, but the procedure can be streamlined and made safer when preprocedural CT coronary angiography (CTCA) is performed to plan the intervention, according to a randomized controlled trial.
In this study, all three endpoints, including a reduction in the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and duration of the procedure, were met, according to Daniel Jones, MBBS, PhD.
Preprocedural CTCA was also associated with about a 40% improvement in patient satisfaction.
“When logistically possible, CTCA should be considered for any stable postbypass patient undergoing coronary angiography,” said Dr. Jones, who supported this assertion with data presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting.
In this study, called BYPASS-CTCA, 688 patients with a prior CABG scheduled for invasive coronary angiography were randomized to a preprocedural CTCA or no preprocedural CTCA. Patients with stable angina and those with a non–ST elevated acute coronary syndrome were eligible. Those with ST-segment elevated MI or severe renal impairment (eGFR < 20 mL/min) were excluded.
All three co–primary endpoints favor CTCA
CTCA relative to no CTCA provided a significant advantage for all three of the coprimary endpoints, which were procedure duration, CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria, and patient satisfaction as measured by questionnaire.
The procedure duration was reduced by almost 21 minutes, cutting the time from nearly 39 minutes to less than 18 minutes (P < .001). This relative reduction was of similar magnitude across groups, such as those with or without acute coronary syndrome and procedures performed by a senior or a junior operator.
“Even when you include the preprocedural CTCA evaluation time, there was still a significant reduction [P < .001] in duration for those in the CTCA arm,” reported Dr. Jones, honorary consultant cardiologist, Barts Heart Centre, Queen Mary University, London.
The rates of CIN following the procedure in this study, which had a follow-up of 12 months, were 3.4% versus 27.9% (P < .0001) in the preprocedural CTCA and non-CTCA groups, respectively. Again, a sensitivity analysis showed a similar magnitude of risk reduction across all subgroups evaluated.
CTCA planning reduced contrast exposure
The reduced risk of CIN was consistent with a large reduction in contrast exposure for those in the CTCA group (77.4 vs. 173.0 mL; P < .001). The advantage narrowed substantially when adding in contrast exposure from CTCA, but still remained statistically significant (148.9 vs. 173.0 mL; P < .001).
Dr. Jones did not speculate about the specific reasons for the 40% improvement in patient satisfaction among those who underwent preprocedural CTCA relative to those who did not, but, again, a sensitivity analysis showed consistency across subgroups defined by race, operator experience, and underlying diagnosis.
Numerous secondary endpoints also favored CTCA over no CTCA. This included fewer catheters used to complete the procedure (three vs. four; P < .001), a greater likelihood that the procedure was performed with radial access (76.9% vs. 56.7%), and lower rates of procedural complications (2.3% vs. 10.8%; P < .001). This latter category included fewer vascular access complications such as bleeding (0.6 % vs. 4.4%; P = .007) and periprocedural MI (0.6% vs. 6.4%; P < 0.001).
In a graph of time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE), the curves separated almost immediately with a consistently lower rate maintained in the CTCA arm over the 12 months of follow-up, but this is observational. Dr. Jones acknowledged that this trial was not powered to show a difference in MACE.
Study intriguing but not definitive
In a panel discussion that followed the presentation of these results at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation, some reservations with this study were expressed. In particular, several of the panelists, including Jeffrey W. Moses, MD, director of interventional cardiovascular therapeutics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, expressed surprise at the 27% rate of CIN, which he considered uncommonly high even in a high-risk population.
The unusual rate of CIN was also considered problematic given that it was the most significant clinical outcome among the three co–primary endpoints. Procedural times and patient satisfaction, while valid endpoints, are important subjects of study, but Dr. Moses was not alone in suggesting this study deserves validation.
In particular, there appeared to be a consensus among panelists that a larger multicenter study looking at hard endpoints, such as MACE, would be more compelling. They indicated that even if CTCA poses a very low risk of meaningful complications, it does add expense and an extra step.
Dr. Jones reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Moses reported financial relationships with Covanos, Orchestra Biomed, Ostial, and Xenter.
AT TCT 2022
Community-level actions could mitigate maternal mortality
Maternal mortality in the United States has been rising for several decades, but actions taken at the community level, as well as larger public health initiatives, have the potential to slow this trend, according to experts at a webinar sponsored by the National Institute for Health Care Management.
Maternal mortality in the United States increased by 14% from 2018 to 2020, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
However, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable, according to 2017-2019 data from the Maternal Mortality Review Committees published online by the CDC. MMRCs include representatives of diverse clinical and nonclinical backgrounds who review the circumstances of pregnancy-related deaths.
In a webinar presented on Sept. 20, the NIHCM enlisted a panel of experts to discuss maternal mortality, the effect of changes to reproductive rights, and potential strategies to improve maternal health outcomes.
Maternal mortality is defined as “death while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of pregnancy, from any cause related to pregnancy or its management,” according to the CDC.
Importantly, mortality rates in the United States are approximately three times higher in Black women compared with White women, said Ndidiamaka Amutah-Onukagha, PhD, MPH, of the Tufts University Center for Black Maternal Health & Reproductive Justice. Dr. Amutah-Onukagha addressed some of the potential issues that appear to drive the disparity in care.
The lack of diversity in the health care workforce has a significant effect on patient outcomes, Dr. Amutah-Onukagha said. Overall, Black newborns are more than twice as likely as White newborns to die during their first year of life, but this number is cut in half when Black infants are cared for by Black physicians, she emphasized.
Other factors that may affect disparities in maternal health care include limited access to prenatal care, discriminatory hospital protocols, and mistreatment by health care professionals, said Dr. Amutah-Onukagha. She cited data showing that maternal mortality rates were higher in rural compared with urban areas. “According to the American Hospital Association, half of rural hospitals have no obstetric care, leaving mothers in maternity care deserts; this exacerbates existing disparities,” she said.
In the webinar, Sindhu Srinivas, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, explained how patient, community, and system factors play a role in the disparities in maternal care.
Overall, Black women have to travel further to receive care, which has implications for high-risk pregnancies, and patients on Medicaid have to wait longer for care, and are less likely to be referred, she added. Black women also have higher rates of preexisting conditions compared with other populations that put them in the high-risk category, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, or being HIV positive, she said.
Other factors contributing to persistent disparities in maternal care include sociodemographics, patient beliefs and knowledge, and psychological issues including stress, said Dr. Srinivas. Community factors, such as social networks, safety, and poverty, also play a role, as do clinician factors of implicit bias and communication skills, she said.
Strategies to reduce disparity
Dr. Srinivas presented several strategies to reduce disparities at various levels. At the policy level, interventions such as establishing a Maternal Mortality Review Committee, establishing a perinatal quality collaborative, and extending Medicaid for a full year postpartum could help improve outcomes, she said. Dr. Srinivas also encouraged clinicians to report maternal mortality data stratified by race and ethnicity, and to participate in the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health program (AIM), an initiative in partnership with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Dr. Srinivas also proposed maternal health policies to develop payment models “to sustain and scale innovative solutions, and “preserve access to contraception and abortion care.”
For clinicians looking to have an immediate impact, the panelists agreed that working with community health centers can make a significant difference by improving access to maternal care. Consider opportunities for partnership between hospitals and health care delivery centers in the community, said Dr. Srinivas.
Also, don’t underestimate the value of doulas in the birthing process, Dr. Amutah-Onukagha said. She urged clinicians to advocate for doula reimbursement and to take advantage of opportunities for doulas to work with pregnant individuals at the community levels. Data suggest that doulas are associated with increased maternal care visits and with breastfeeding, she noted.
Adam Myers, MD, of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, also contributed to the webinar discussion with a key point: Having financial means and commercial coverage is not a buffer against adverse maternal outcomes for racial minorities.
Dr. Myers cited the latest Health of America Report, which included data up to April 2021 with surveys of Medicaid members and their experiences. According to the report, rates of severe maternal mortality (SMM) increased by 9% for commercially and Medicaid-insured women between 2018 and 2020.
Among commercially insured women, SMM was 53% higher among Black women than White women; among Medicaid-insured women, Black women had a 73% higher rate of SMM, compared with White women.
In addition, the report showed that significantly more mothers of color were not able to complete the recommended series of prenatal visits, mainly for reasons of scheduling and transportation, which were greater barriers than COVID-19, Dr. Myers said.
Based on the data, one specific risk profile rose to the top: “We believe women of color aged 35 or higher with comorbid conditions should be treated as very high risk for SMM,” Dr. Myers emphasized. He stressed the need to focus on transportation and scheduling barriers and expressed support for partnerships and health care delivery centers in the community to mitigate these issues.
Finally, Dr. Srinivas encouraged clinicians to have confidence in their expertise and make themselves heard to help their patients and improve maternal health for all. “Use your voice,” said Dr. Srinivas, “As physicians we don’t think of that as an important aspect of our work, or that we can’t articulate, but remember that we are experts, and sharing stories of patients who are impacted is incredibly powerful,” she said.
The presenters had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Maternal mortality in the United States has been rising for several decades, but actions taken at the community level, as well as larger public health initiatives, have the potential to slow this trend, according to experts at a webinar sponsored by the National Institute for Health Care Management.
Maternal mortality in the United States increased by 14% from 2018 to 2020, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
However, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable, according to 2017-2019 data from the Maternal Mortality Review Committees published online by the CDC. MMRCs include representatives of diverse clinical and nonclinical backgrounds who review the circumstances of pregnancy-related deaths.
In a webinar presented on Sept. 20, the NIHCM enlisted a panel of experts to discuss maternal mortality, the effect of changes to reproductive rights, and potential strategies to improve maternal health outcomes.
Maternal mortality is defined as “death while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of pregnancy, from any cause related to pregnancy or its management,” according to the CDC.
Importantly, mortality rates in the United States are approximately three times higher in Black women compared with White women, said Ndidiamaka Amutah-Onukagha, PhD, MPH, of the Tufts University Center for Black Maternal Health & Reproductive Justice. Dr. Amutah-Onukagha addressed some of the potential issues that appear to drive the disparity in care.
The lack of diversity in the health care workforce has a significant effect on patient outcomes, Dr. Amutah-Onukagha said. Overall, Black newborns are more than twice as likely as White newborns to die during their first year of life, but this number is cut in half when Black infants are cared for by Black physicians, she emphasized.
Other factors that may affect disparities in maternal health care include limited access to prenatal care, discriminatory hospital protocols, and mistreatment by health care professionals, said Dr. Amutah-Onukagha. She cited data showing that maternal mortality rates were higher in rural compared with urban areas. “According to the American Hospital Association, half of rural hospitals have no obstetric care, leaving mothers in maternity care deserts; this exacerbates existing disparities,” she said.
In the webinar, Sindhu Srinivas, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, explained how patient, community, and system factors play a role in the disparities in maternal care.
Overall, Black women have to travel further to receive care, which has implications for high-risk pregnancies, and patients on Medicaid have to wait longer for care, and are less likely to be referred, she added. Black women also have higher rates of preexisting conditions compared with other populations that put them in the high-risk category, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, or being HIV positive, she said.
Other factors contributing to persistent disparities in maternal care include sociodemographics, patient beliefs and knowledge, and psychological issues including stress, said Dr. Srinivas. Community factors, such as social networks, safety, and poverty, also play a role, as do clinician factors of implicit bias and communication skills, she said.
Strategies to reduce disparity
Dr. Srinivas presented several strategies to reduce disparities at various levels. At the policy level, interventions such as establishing a Maternal Mortality Review Committee, establishing a perinatal quality collaborative, and extending Medicaid for a full year postpartum could help improve outcomes, she said. Dr. Srinivas also encouraged clinicians to report maternal mortality data stratified by race and ethnicity, and to participate in the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health program (AIM), an initiative in partnership with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Dr. Srinivas also proposed maternal health policies to develop payment models “to sustain and scale innovative solutions, and “preserve access to contraception and abortion care.”
For clinicians looking to have an immediate impact, the panelists agreed that working with community health centers can make a significant difference by improving access to maternal care. Consider opportunities for partnership between hospitals and health care delivery centers in the community, said Dr. Srinivas.
Also, don’t underestimate the value of doulas in the birthing process, Dr. Amutah-Onukagha said. She urged clinicians to advocate for doula reimbursement and to take advantage of opportunities for doulas to work with pregnant individuals at the community levels. Data suggest that doulas are associated with increased maternal care visits and with breastfeeding, she noted.
Adam Myers, MD, of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, also contributed to the webinar discussion with a key point: Having financial means and commercial coverage is not a buffer against adverse maternal outcomes for racial minorities.
Dr. Myers cited the latest Health of America Report, which included data up to April 2021 with surveys of Medicaid members and their experiences. According to the report, rates of severe maternal mortality (SMM) increased by 9% for commercially and Medicaid-insured women between 2018 and 2020.
Among commercially insured women, SMM was 53% higher among Black women than White women; among Medicaid-insured women, Black women had a 73% higher rate of SMM, compared with White women.
In addition, the report showed that significantly more mothers of color were not able to complete the recommended series of prenatal visits, mainly for reasons of scheduling and transportation, which were greater barriers than COVID-19, Dr. Myers said.
Based on the data, one specific risk profile rose to the top: “We believe women of color aged 35 or higher with comorbid conditions should be treated as very high risk for SMM,” Dr. Myers emphasized. He stressed the need to focus on transportation and scheduling barriers and expressed support for partnerships and health care delivery centers in the community to mitigate these issues.
Finally, Dr. Srinivas encouraged clinicians to have confidence in their expertise and make themselves heard to help their patients and improve maternal health for all. “Use your voice,” said Dr. Srinivas, “As physicians we don’t think of that as an important aspect of our work, or that we can’t articulate, but remember that we are experts, and sharing stories of patients who are impacted is incredibly powerful,” she said.
The presenters had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Maternal mortality in the United States has been rising for several decades, but actions taken at the community level, as well as larger public health initiatives, have the potential to slow this trend, according to experts at a webinar sponsored by the National Institute for Health Care Management.
Maternal mortality in the United States increased by 14% from 2018 to 2020, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics.
However, more than 80% of pregnancy-related deaths are preventable, according to 2017-2019 data from the Maternal Mortality Review Committees published online by the CDC. MMRCs include representatives of diverse clinical and nonclinical backgrounds who review the circumstances of pregnancy-related deaths.
In a webinar presented on Sept. 20, the NIHCM enlisted a panel of experts to discuss maternal mortality, the effect of changes to reproductive rights, and potential strategies to improve maternal health outcomes.
Maternal mortality is defined as “death while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and site of pregnancy, from any cause related to pregnancy or its management,” according to the CDC.
Importantly, mortality rates in the United States are approximately three times higher in Black women compared with White women, said Ndidiamaka Amutah-Onukagha, PhD, MPH, of the Tufts University Center for Black Maternal Health & Reproductive Justice. Dr. Amutah-Onukagha addressed some of the potential issues that appear to drive the disparity in care.
The lack of diversity in the health care workforce has a significant effect on patient outcomes, Dr. Amutah-Onukagha said. Overall, Black newborns are more than twice as likely as White newborns to die during their first year of life, but this number is cut in half when Black infants are cared for by Black physicians, she emphasized.
Other factors that may affect disparities in maternal health care include limited access to prenatal care, discriminatory hospital protocols, and mistreatment by health care professionals, said Dr. Amutah-Onukagha. She cited data showing that maternal mortality rates were higher in rural compared with urban areas. “According to the American Hospital Association, half of rural hospitals have no obstetric care, leaving mothers in maternity care deserts; this exacerbates existing disparities,” she said.
In the webinar, Sindhu Srinivas, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at the University of Pennsylvania, explained how patient, community, and system factors play a role in the disparities in maternal care.
Overall, Black women have to travel further to receive care, which has implications for high-risk pregnancies, and patients on Medicaid have to wait longer for care, and are less likely to be referred, she added. Black women also have higher rates of preexisting conditions compared with other populations that put them in the high-risk category, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, obesity, or being HIV positive, she said.
Other factors contributing to persistent disparities in maternal care include sociodemographics, patient beliefs and knowledge, and psychological issues including stress, said Dr. Srinivas. Community factors, such as social networks, safety, and poverty, also play a role, as do clinician factors of implicit bias and communication skills, she said.
Strategies to reduce disparity
Dr. Srinivas presented several strategies to reduce disparities at various levels. At the policy level, interventions such as establishing a Maternal Mortality Review Committee, establishing a perinatal quality collaborative, and extending Medicaid for a full year postpartum could help improve outcomes, she said. Dr. Srinivas also encouraged clinicians to report maternal mortality data stratified by race and ethnicity, and to participate in the Alliance for Innovation on Maternal Health program (AIM), an initiative in partnership with the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Dr. Srinivas also proposed maternal health policies to develop payment models “to sustain and scale innovative solutions, and “preserve access to contraception and abortion care.”
For clinicians looking to have an immediate impact, the panelists agreed that working with community health centers can make a significant difference by improving access to maternal care. Consider opportunities for partnership between hospitals and health care delivery centers in the community, said Dr. Srinivas.
Also, don’t underestimate the value of doulas in the birthing process, Dr. Amutah-Onukagha said. She urged clinicians to advocate for doula reimbursement and to take advantage of opportunities for doulas to work with pregnant individuals at the community levels. Data suggest that doulas are associated with increased maternal care visits and with breastfeeding, she noted.
Adam Myers, MD, of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, also contributed to the webinar discussion with a key point: Having financial means and commercial coverage is not a buffer against adverse maternal outcomes for racial minorities.
Dr. Myers cited the latest Health of America Report, which included data up to April 2021 with surveys of Medicaid members and their experiences. According to the report, rates of severe maternal mortality (SMM) increased by 9% for commercially and Medicaid-insured women between 2018 and 2020.
Among commercially insured women, SMM was 53% higher among Black women than White women; among Medicaid-insured women, Black women had a 73% higher rate of SMM, compared with White women.
In addition, the report showed that significantly more mothers of color were not able to complete the recommended series of prenatal visits, mainly for reasons of scheduling and transportation, which were greater barriers than COVID-19, Dr. Myers said.
Based on the data, one specific risk profile rose to the top: “We believe women of color aged 35 or higher with comorbid conditions should be treated as very high risk for SMM,” Dr. Myers emphasized. He stressed the need to focus on transportation and scheduling barriers and expressed support for partnerships and health care delivery centers in the community to mitigate these issues.
Finally, Dr. Srinivas encouraged clinicians to have confidence in their expertise and make themselves heard to help their patients and improve maternal health for all. “Use your voice,” said Dr. Srinivas, “As physicians we don’t think of that as an important aspect of our work, or that we can’t articulate, but remember that we are experts, and sharing stories of patients who are impacted is incredibly powerful,” she said.
The presenters had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.
Commentary: Something for Everyone in AD Treatment, September 2022
Let's start with tralokinumab. I previously had the privilege of being lead author on a study of the efficacy of tralokinumab beyond week 16 — the ECZTRA3 study.1 ECZTRA3 studied tralokinumab at the approved dose (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every other week) vs placebo with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) for an initial 16-week treatment period. Patients who achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 or 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response were then randomly assigned again to receive 300 mg tralokinumab either continuously at every-other-week intervals or a prolonged interval of every 4 weeks (again with concomitant TCS).
With ECZTRA3, we found that patients continued to improve on tralokinumab + TCS well beyond week 16, with increased EASI-75 responses (week 16: 56%; week 32: 70.2%) and sustained or increased improvement across multiple patient-reported outcomes. Together, these results indicate that clinical responses may take more than 16 weeks to achieve with tralokinumab. In addition, some patients may be able to maintain clinical responses using fewer injections at 4-week intervals. This may allow tailoring dosing to individual patient needs. In fact, tralokinumab is approved in the United States and other regions with the option of every-2-week or every-4-week maintenance dosing in patients who have a good clinical response at week 16.
Since AD can be a lifelong disease, we expect that some patients will need to remain on various therapies for extended periods of time, perhaps many years, in order to maintain long-term control. It is imperative that any long-term treatment demonstrate a good long-term safety and efficacy profile. Blauvelt and colleagues published 2-year interim results from the ongoing ECZTEND long-term, open-label extension study of tralokinumab. They showed no new safety signals and stable rates of adverse events compared with earlier time points. Additionally, they showed that 82.5% of patients treated with open-label tralokinumab + TCS for 2 years maintained EASI-75 responses. These data are reassuring and support the potential use of tralokinumab as a long-term treatment option in AD.
While dupilumab is not approved for every-4-week maintenance dosing, a recent study by Spekhorst and colleagues confirmed that dupilumab can also be safely and effectively administered at intervals of every 4 weeks or every 6-8 weeks. Analyzing data from the BioDay real-world observational registry, they found that among patients who achieved good clinical responses (EASI scores ≤ 7) after 52 weeks of treatment with dupilumab administered every 2 weeks, many patients were able to maintain those responses at 3 months after the interval of administration was increased to every 4 weeks (> 80%) or 6-8 weeks (93.3%). These real-world data confirm the results previously observed in the phase 3 SOLO-CONTINUE study2 and support the use of maintenance dosing of dupilumab at prolonged intervals, though such use would technically be considered off-label.
Let’s also review some new data for abrocitinib, a once-daily oral preferential Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor. Reich and colleagues reported results from a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate-to-severe AD that compared the safety and efficacy of oral abrocitinib at the higher 200 mg dose vs subcutaneous dupilumab over 26 weeks. They found that more patients achieved ≥ 4-point improvement in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score at week 2 with 200 mg abrocitinib compared with 300 mg dupilumab every other week (48% vs 26%). There were also improved EASI-90 responses at week 4 (29% vs 15%). A dose of 200 mg abrocitinib was also significantly more effective than dupilumab for a number of additional investigator- and patient-reported outcomes. In general, abrocitinib had a faster onset of treatment benefit than dupilumab. However, treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with abrocitinib compared with dupilumab (74% vs 65%). Dupilumab was associated with more ocular adverse events (eg, conjunctivitis), whereas abrocitinib was associated with more headaches, nausea, and herpes zoster infections. These results provide important insights into the comparative effectiveness of treatments in moderate-to-severe AD. Of note, this study compared the higher dose of abrocitinib (200 mg) vs dupilumab. However, in the United States, the FDA-approved label recommends initiating abrocitinib therapy with the lower 100 mg dose and increasing to 200 mg only in those who had an inadequate response to 100 mg.
Additional References
1. Silverberg JI, Toth D, Bieber T, et al, for the ECZTRA 3 study investigators. Tralokinumab plus topical corticosteroids for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from the double-blind, randomized, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase III ECZTRA 3 trial. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(3):450-463. Doi: 10.1111/bjd.19573
2. Worm M, Simpson EL, Thaçi D, et al. Efficacy and safety of multiple dupilumab dose regimens after initial successful treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(2):131-143. Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3617
Let's start with tralokinumab. I previously had the privilege of being lead author on a study of the efficacy of tralokinumab beyond week 16 — the ECZTRA3 study.1 ECZTRA3 studied tralokinumab at the approved dose (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every other week) vs placebo with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) for an initial 16-week treatment period. Patients who achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 or 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response were then randomly assigned again to receive 300 mg tralokinumab either continuously at every-other-week intervals or a prolonged interval of every 4 weeks (again with concomitant TCS).
With ECZTRA3, we found that patients continued to improve on tralokinumab + TCS well beyond week 16, with increased EASI-75 responses (week 16: 56%; week 32: 70.2%) and sustained or increased improvement across multiple patient-reported outcomes. Together, these results indicate that clinical responses may take more than 16 weeks to achieve with tralokinumab. In addition, some patients may be able to maintain clinical responses using fewer injections at 4-week intervals. This may allow tailoring dosing to individual patient needs. In fact, tralokinumab is approved in the United States and other regions with the option of every-2-week or every-4-week maintenance dosing in patients who have a good clinical response at week 16.
Since AD can be a lifelong disease, we expect that some patients will need to remain on various therapies for extended periods of time, perhaps many years, in order to maintain long-term control. It is imperative that any long-term treatment demonstrate a good long-term safety and efficacy profile. Blauvelt and colleagues published 2-year interim results from the ongoing ECZTEND long-term, open-label extension study of tralokinumab. They showed no new safety signals and stable rates of adverse events compared with earlier time points. Additionally, they showed that 82.5% of patients treated with open-label tralokinumab + TCS for 2 years maintained EASI-75 responses. These data are reassuring and support the potential use of tralokinumab as a long-term treatment option in AD.
While dupilumab is not approved for every-4-week maintenance dosing, a recent study by Spekhorst and colleagues confirmed that dupilumab can also be safely and effectively administered at intervals of every 4 weeks or every 6-8 weeks. Analyzing data from the BioDay real-world observational registry, they found that among patients who achieved good clinical responses (EASI scores ≤ 7) after 52 weeks of treatment with dupilumab administered every 2 weeks, many patients were able to maintain those responses at 3 months after the interval of administration was increased to every 4 weeks (> 80%) or 6-8 weeks (93.3%). These real-world data confirm the results previously observed in the phase 3 SOLO-CONTINUE study2 and support the use of maintenance dosing of dupilumab at prolonged intervals, though such use would technically be considered off-label.
Let’s also review some new data for abrocitinib, a once-daily oral preferential Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor. Reich and colleagues reported results from a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate-to-severe AD that compared the safety and efficacy of oral abrocitinib at the higher 200 mg dose vs subcutaneous dupilumab over 26 weeks. They found that more patients achieved ≥ 4-point improvement in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score at week 2 with 200 mg abrocitinib compared with 300 mg dupilumab every other week (48% vs 26%). There were also improved EASI-90 responses at week 4 (29% vs 15%). A dose of 200 mg abrocitinib was also significantly more effective than dupilumab for a number of additional investigator- and patient-reported outcomes. In general, abrocitinib had a faster onset of treatment benefit than dupilumab. However, treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with abrocitinib compared with dupilumab (74% vs 65%). Dupilumab was associated with more ocular adverse events (eg, conjunctivitis), whereas abrocitinib was associated with more headaches, nausea, and herpes zoster infections. These results provide important insights into the comparative effectiveness of treatments in moderate-to-severe AD. Of note, this study compared the higher dose of abrocitinib (200 mg) vs dupilumab. However, in the United States, the FDA-approved label recommends initiating abrocitinib therapy with the lower 100 mg dose and increasing to 200 mg only in those who had an inadequate response to 100 mg.
Additional References
1. Silverberg JI, Toth D, Bieber T, et al, for the ECZTRA 3 study investigators. Tralokinumab plus topical corticosteroids for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from the double-blind, randomized, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase III ECZTRA 3 trial. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(3):450-463. Doi: 10.1111/bjd.19573
2. Worm M, Simpson EL, Thaçi D, et al. Efficacy and safety of multiple dupilumab dose regimens after initial successful treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(2):131-143. Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3617
Let's start with tralokinumab. I previously had the privilege of being lead author on a study of the efficacy of tralokinumab beyond week 16 — the ECZTRA3 study.1 ECZTRA3 studied tralokinumab at the approved dose (600 mg loading dose followed by 300 mg every other week) vs placebo with concomitant topical corticosteroids (TCS) for an initial 16-week treatment period. Patients who achieved an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 or 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) response were then randomly assigned again to receive 300 mg tralokinumab either continuously at every-other-week intervals or a prolonged interval of every 4 weeks (again with concomitant TCS).
With ECZTRA3, we found that patients continued to improve on tralokinumab + TCS well beyond week 16, with increased EASI-75 responses (week 16: 56%; week 32: 70.2%) and sustained or increased improvement across multiple patient-reported outcomes. Together, these results indicate that clinical responses may take more than 16 weeks to achieve with tralokinumab. In addition, some patients may be able to maintain clinical responses using fewer injections at 4-week intervals. This may allow tailoring dosing to individual patient needs. In fact, tralokinumab is approved in the United States and other regions with the option of every-2-week or every-4-week maintenance dosing in patients who have a good clinical response at week 16.
Since AD can be a lifelong disease, we expect that some patients will need to remain on various therapies for extended periods of time, perhaps many years, in order to maintain long-term control. It is imperative that any long-term treatment demonstrate a good long-term safety and efficacy profile. Blauvelt and colleagues published 2-year interim results from the ongoing ECZTEND long-term, open-label extension study of tralokinumab. They showed no new safety signals and stable rates of adverse events compared with earlier time points. Additionally, they showed that 82.5% of patients treated with open-label tralokinumab + TCS for 2 years maintained EASI-75 responses. These data are reassuring and support the potential use of tralokinumab as a long-term treatment option in AD.
While dupilumab is not approved for every-4-week maintenance dosing, a recent study by Spekhorst and colleagues confirmed that dupilumab can also be safely and effectively administered at intervals of every 4 weeks or every 6-8 weeks. Analyzing data from the BioDay real-world observational registry, they found that among patients who achieved good clinical responses (EASI scores ≤ 7) after 52 weeks of treatment with dupilumab administered every 2 weeks, many patients were able to maintain those responses at 3 months after the interval of administration was increased to every 4 weeks (> 80%) or 6-8 weeks (93.3%). These real-world data confirm the results previously observed in the phase 3 SOLO-CONTINUE study2 and support the use of maintenance dosing of dupilumab at prolonged intervals, though such use would technically be considered off-label.
Let’s also review some new data for abrocitinib, a once-daily oral preferential Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor. Reich and colleagues reported results from a phase 3 trial of adults with moderate-to-severe AD that compared the safety and efficacy of oral abrocitinib at the higher 200 mg dose vs subcutaneous dupilumab over 26 weeks. They found that more patients achieved ≥ 4-point improvement in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score at week 2 with 200 mg abrocitinib compared with 300 mg dupilumab every other week (48% vs 26%). There were also improved EASI-90 responses at week 4 (29% vs 15%). A dose of 200 mg abrocitinib was also significantly more effective than dupilumab for a number of additional investigator- and patient-reported outcomes. In general, abrocitinib had a faster onset of treatment benefit than dupilumab. However, treatment-emergent adverse events were more common with abrocitinib compared with dupilumab (74% vs 65%). Dupilumab was associated with more ocular adverse events (eg, conjunctivitis), whereas abrocitinib was associated with more headaches, nausea, and herpes zoster infections. These results provide important insights into the comparative effectiveness of treatments in moderate-to-severe AD. Of note, this study compared the higher dose of abrocitinib (200 mg) vs dupilumab. However, in the United States, the FDA-approved label recommends initiating abrocitinib therapy with the lower 100 mg dose and increasing to 200 mg only in those who had an inadequate response to 100 mg.
Additional References
1. Silverberg JI, Toth D, Bieber T, et al, for the ECZTRA 3 study investigators. Tralokinumab plus topical corticosteroids for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: Results from the double-blind, randomized, multicentre, placebo-controlled phase III ECZTRA 3 trial. Br J Dermatol. 2021;184(3):450-463. Doi: 10.1111/bjd.19573
2. Worm M, Simpson EL, Thaçi D, et al. Efficacy and safety of multiple dupilumab dose regimens after initial successful treatment in patients with atopic dermatitis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(2):131-143. Doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.3617
‘Amazing’ data for cheap beta-blocker gel for diabetic foot ulcers
STOCKHOLM – Esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovoLead) appears to be a safe and effective novel topical treatment option for diabetic foot ulcers, according to results from a new trial of the drug, which is widely available as a generic and is inexpensive.
Of note, the proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure at 12 weeks with esmolol (plus standard of care) was around 60% compared with just over 40% in patients who received standard of care alone.
Presenting the findings at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes was Ashu Rastogi, MD, a professor of endocrinology at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India.
“Esmolol can be given topically as a 14% gel and is a novel treatment option in diabetic foot ulcer,” said Dr. Rastogi.
Esmolol, a short-acting beta-adrenergic blocker, is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications only, such as short-term use for controlling supraventricular tachycardia. Beta-blockers are also used to treat hypertension.
However, esmolol has also been repurposed and formulated as a topical gel for the treatment of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (mainly neuropathic grade 1).
Audience member Ketan Dhatariya, MBBS, MD, PhD, a National Health Service consultant in diabetes, endocrinology, and general medicine and honorary senior lecturer at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, England, enthused about the findings.
“This is an amazing study. I’m part of a working group looking at the updating of a guideline for the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot, reviewing all the studies on wound healing, specifically pharmacological interventions. This is way beyond anything shown to date in terms of medical intervention. [The authors] should be congratulated; this is really astounding,” he told this news organization.
“Right now, there is very little out there in terms of pharmacological interventions that have shown benefit,” he added. “Once this study has been peer-reviewed and is published properly, it is potentially game-changing because it is a generic, worldwide, cheap, and freely available medication.”
Study across 27 sites in India
Prior phase 1/2 data have shown that 60% of ulcers completely closed with esmolol (14% gel) compared with 39% with standard of care. Encouraged by these findings, a phase 3 randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study was conducted across 27 sites in India.
Patients were a mean age of 56 years, and had a body mass index (BMI) of 25-26 kg/m2 and mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%-8.7%. Around 70% of participants were men. Mean ulcer area was approximately 460-500 mm2, two-thirds of the ulcers were plantar, and mean ulcer duration was 40-50 weeks.
After screening and discontinuations (39 participants), a 12-week treatment phase began with patients randomized to one of three groups: esmolol (14% gel) along with standard of care administered twice daily (57 completers); standard of care only (63 completers); or vehicle gel (placebo) along with standard of care administered twice daily (17 completers).
Standard of care comprised wound cleaning, debridement, maintenance of moist wound environment, twice-daily fresh bandages, and off-loading footwear as needed, and was provided to all participants irrespective of study group.
The 12-week treatment period was followed by an observation period of 12 weeks up to the 24-week study endpoint.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure (100% re-epithelialization without drainage or dressing requirement) within the 12-week treatment phase.
Secondary endpoints included time to target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure by 24 weeks (end of study). Investigators were blinded throughout.
Subanalyses were conducted based on ulcer location, size, and age, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 90 mL/min and ankle-brachial index under 0.9 but greater than 0.7.
50% more patients on esmolol had complete ulcer closure
The proportion of participants with complete ulcer closure at 12 weeks was 60.3% in the esmolol plus standard of care group, compared with 41.7% with standard of care only, a difference of 18.6% (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .0276).
“The 24-week end-of-study data show what happened in the 12 weeks following end of treatment,” said Dr. Rastogi, turning to results showing that by 24 weeks the proportion of participants with complete ulcer closure was 77.2% versus 55.6%, respectively, with a difference of 21.6% (OR, 2.71; P = .013).
Time to ulcer closure (a secondary endpoint) was similar between the esmolol plus standard of care vs. standard of care groups (74.3 vs. 72.5 days).
The impact of ulcer location on complete ulcer closure, a subanalysis, showed a higher proportion of patients experienced complete ulcer closure with esmolol plus standard of care versus standard of care. For example, in plantar-based ulcers, esmolol led to complete closure in 58.7% vs. 43.1%, while for nonplantar ulcers, complete closure was found in 63.6% vs. 38.1%.
In wounds less than 5 cm2, the proportion of complete closures was 66.0% vs. 50.0% for esmolol compared with standard of care alone, while in wounds over 5 cm2, these proportions were 47.6% vs. 26.9%.
Subanalyses also showed that esmolol was substantially better in patients with BMI greater than 25, ulcer duration over 12 weeks, and A1c above 8%.
Also, a subanalysis stratified by “real-life” situations favored esmolol, showing a 50.9% difference in the proportion of patients with diabetic foot ulcer healing in those with a history of hypertension and a 31.8% difference favoring esmolol in those with an abnormal electrocardiogram.
Overall, the proportions of patients who had an adverse event were 13.2%, 18.4%, and 37.5% in the esmolol plus standard of care, standard of care alone, and vehicle plus standard of care groups, respectively, and the vast majority were unrelated to study drug. There were no serious adverse events in the esmolol plus standard of care group.
A class effect of beta blockers?
The proposed mechanism of action of esmolol relates to a sequence of reducing inflammation (via vasodilation, fibroblast migration, and cytokine reduction); proliferation by beta-blockade (improves keratinocyte migration and epithelialization); and remodeling (increases collagen turnover).
Asked by an audience member if the observations were a class effect and systemic effect of beta-blockers, Dr. Rastogi said he could not say for sure that it was a class effect, but they deliberately used a beta-1 adrenergic receptor antagonist.
“It may not be a systemic effect because we have some patients who use beta-blockers systemically and they still have diabetic foot ulcers,” he said.
Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Dhatariya have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovoLead) appears to be a safe and effective novel topical treatment option for diabetic foot ulcers, according to results from a new trial of the drug, which is widely available as a generic and is inexpensive.
Of note, the proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure at 12 weeks with esmolol (plus standard of care) was around 60% compared with just over 40% in patients who received standard of care alone.
Presenting the findings at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes was Ashu Rastogi, MD, a professor of endocrinology at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India.
“Esmolol can be given topically as a 14% gel and is a novel treatment option in diabetic foot ulcer,” said Dr. Rastogi.
Esmolol, a short-acting beta-adrenergic blocker, is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications only, such as short-term use for controlling supraventricular tachycardia. Beta-blockers are also used to treat hypertension.
However, esmolol has also been repurposed and formulated as a topical gel for the treatment of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (mainly neuropathic grade 1).
Audience member Ketan Dhatariya, MBBS, MD, PhD, a National Health Service consultant in diabetes, endocrinology, and general medicine and honorary senior lecturer at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, England, enthused about the findings.
“This is an amazing study. I’m part of a working group looking at the updating of a guideline for the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot, reviewing all the studies on wound healing, specifically pharmacological interventions. This is way beyond anything shown to date in terms of medical intervention. [The authors] should be congratulated; this is really astounding,” he told this news organization.
“Right now, there is very little out there in terms of pharmacological interventions that have shown benefit,” he added. “Once this study has been peer-reviewed and is published properly, it is potentially game-changing because it is a generic, worldwide, cheap, and freely available medication.”
Study across 27 sites in India
Prior phase 1/2 data have shown that 60% of ulcers completely closed with esmolol (14% gel) compared with 39% with standard of care. Encouraged by these findings, a phase 3 randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study was conducted across 27 sites in India.
Patients were a mean age of 56 years, and had a body mass index (BMI) of 25-26 kg/m2 and mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%-8.7%. Around 70% of participants were men. Mean ulcer area was approximately 460-500 mm2, two-thirds of the ulcers were plantar, and mean ulcer duration was 40-50 weeks.
After screening and discontinuations (39 participants), a 12-week treatment phase began with patients randomized to one of three groups: esmolol (14% gel) along with standard of care administered twice daily (57 completers); standard of care only (63 completers); or vehicle gel (placebo) along with standard of care administered twice daily (17 completers).
Standard of care comprised wound cleaning, debridement, maintenance of moist wound environment, twice-daily fresh bandages, and off-loading footwear as needed, and was provided to all participants irrespective of study group.
The 12-week treatment period was followed by an observation period of 12 weeks up to the 24-week study endpoint.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure (100% re-epithelialization without drainage or dressing requirement) within the 12-week treatment phase.
Secondary endpoints included time to target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure by 24 weeks (end of study). Investigators were blinded throughout.
Subanalyses were conducted based on ulcer location, size, and age, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 90 mL/min and ankle-brachial index under 0.9 but greater than 0.7.
50% more patients on esmolol had complete ulcer closure
The proportion of participants with complete ulcer closure at 12 weeks was 60.3% in the esmolol plus standard of care group, compared with 41.7% with standard of care only, a difference of 18.6% (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .0276).
“The 24-week end-of-study data show what happened in the 12 weeks following end of treatment,” said Dr. Rastogi, turning to results showing that by 24 weeks the proportion of participants with complete ulcer closure was 77.2% versus 55.6%, respectively, with a difference of 21.6% (OR, 2.71; P = .013).
Time to ulcer closure (a secondary endpoint) was similar between the esmolol plus standard of care vs. standard of care groups (74.3 vs. 72.5 days).
The impact of ulcer location on complete ulcer closure, a subanalysis, showed a higher proportion of patients experienced complete ulcer closure with esmolol plus standard of care versus standard of care. For example, in plantar-based ulcers, esmolol led to complete closure in 58.7% vs. 43.1%, while for nonplantar ulcers, complete closure was found in 63.6% vs. 38.1%.
In wounds less than 5 cm2, the proportion of complete closures was 66.0% vs. 50.0% for esmolol compared with standard of care alone, while in wounds over 5 cm2, these proportions were 47.6% vs. 26.9%.
Subanalyses also showed that esmolol was substantially better in patients with BMI greater than 25, ulcer duration over 12 weeks, and A1c above 8%.
Also, a subanalysis stratified by “real-life” situations favored esmolol, showing a 50.9% difference in the proportion of patients with diabetic foot ulcer healing in those with a history of hypertension and a 31.8% difference favoring esmolol in those with an abnormal electrocardiogram.
Overall, the proportions of patients who had an adverse event were 13.2%, 18.4%, and 37.5% in the esmolol plus standard of care, standard of care alone, and vehicle plus standard of care groups, respectively, and the vast majority were unrelated to study drug. There were no serious adverse events in the esmolol plus standard of care group.
A class effect of beta blockers?
The proposed mechanism of action of esmolol relates to a sequence of reducing inflammation (via vasodilation, fibroblast migration, and cytokine reduction); proliferation by beta-blockade (improves keratinocyte migration and epithelialization); and remodeling (increases collagen turnover).
Asked by an audience member if the observations were a class effect and systemic effect of beta-blockers, Dr. Rastogi said he could not say for sure that it was a class effect, but they deliberately used a beta-1 adrenergic receptor antagonist.
“It may not be a systemic effect because we have some patients who use beta-blockers systemically and they still have diabetic foot ulcers,” he said.
Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Dhatariya have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
STOCKHOLM – Esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovoLead) appears to be a safe and effective novel topical treatment option for diabetic foot ulcers, according to results from a new trial of the drug, which is widely available as a generic and is inexpensive.
Of note, the proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure at 12 weeks with esmolol (plus standard of care) was around 60% compared with just over 40% in patients who received standard of care alone.
Presenting the findings at this year’s annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes was Ashu Rastogi, MD, a professor of endocrinology at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research in Chandigarh, India.
“Esmolol can be given topically as a 14% gel and is a novel treatment option in diabetic foot ulcer,” said Dr. Rastogi.
Esmolol, a short-acting beta-adrenergic blocker, is currently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications only, such as short-term use for controlling supraventricular tachycardia. Beta-blockers are also used to treat hypertension.
However, esmolol has also been repurposed and formulated as a topical gel for the treatment of hard-to-heal diabetic foot ulcers (mainly neuropathic grade 1).
Audience member Ketan Dhatariya, MBBS, MD, PhD, a National Health Service consultant in diabetes, endocrinology, and general medicine and honorary senior lecturer at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals, England, enthused about the findings.
“This is an amazing study. I’m part of a working group looking at the updating of a guideline for the International Working Group of the Diabetic Foot, reviewing all the studies on wound healing, specifically pharmacological interventions. This is way beyond anything shown to date in terms of medical intervention. [The authors] should be congratulated; this is really astounding,” he told this news organization.
“Right now, there is very little out there in terms of pharmacological interventions that have shown benefit,” he added. “Once this study has been peer-reviewed and is published properly, it is potentially game-changing because it is a generic, worldwide, cheap, and freely available medication.”
Study across 27 sites in India
Prior phase 1/2 data have shown that 60% of ulcers completely closed with esmolol (14% gel) compared with 39% with standard of care. Encouraged by these findings, a phase 3 randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study was conducted across 27 sites in India.
Patients were a mean age of 56 years, and had a body mass index (BMI) of 25-26 kg/m2 and mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%-8.7%. Around 70% of participants were men. Mean ulcer area was approximately 460-500 mm2, two-thirds of the ulcers were plantar, and mean ulcer duration was 40-50 weeks.
After screening and discontinuations (39 participants), a 12-week treatment phase began with patients randomized to one of three groups: esmolol (14% gel) along with standard of care administered twice daily (57 completers); standard of care only (63 completers); or vehicle gel (placebo) along with standard of care administered twice daily (17 completers).
Standard of care comprised wound cleaning, debridement, maintenance of moist wound environment, twice-daily fresh bandages, and off-loading footwear as needed, and was provided to all participants irrespective of study group.
The 12-week treatment period was followed by an observation period of 12 weeks up to the 24-week study endpoint.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure (100% re-epithelialization without drainage or dressing requirement) within the 12-week treatment phase.
Secondary endpoints included time to target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and proportion of participants achieving target ulcer closure by 24 weeks (end of study). Investigators were blinded throughout.
Subanalyses were conducted based on ulcer location, size, and age, as well as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 90 mL/min and ankle-brachial index under 0.9 but greater than 0.7.
50% more patients on esmolol had complete ulcer closure
The proportion of participants with complete ulcer closure at 12 weeks was 60.3% in the esmolol plus standard of care group, compared with 41.7% with standard of care only, a difference of 18.6% (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .0276).
“The 24-week end-of-study data show what happened in the 12 weeks following end of treatment,” said Dr. Rastogi, turning to results showing that by 24 weeks the proportion of participants with complete ulcer closure was 77.2% versus 55.6%, respectively, with a difference of 21.6% (OR, 2.71; P = .013).
Time to ulcer closure (a secondary endpoint) was similar between the esmolol plus standard of care vs. standard of care groups (74.3 vs. 72.5 days).
The impact of ulcer location on complete ulcer closure, a subanalysis, showed a higher proportion of patients experienced complete ulcer closure with esmolol plus standard of care versus standard of care. For example, in plantar-based ulcers, esmolol led to complete closure in 58.7% vs. 43.1%, while for nonplantar ulcers, complete closure was found in 63.6% vs. 38.1%.
In wounds less than 5 cm2, the proportion of complete closures was 66.0% vs. 50.0% for esmolol compared with standard of care alone, while in wounds over 5 cm2, these proportions were 47.6% vs. 26.9%.
Subanalyses also showed that esmolol was substantially better in patients with BMI greater than 25, ulcer duration over 12 weeks, and A1c above 8%.
Also, a subanalysis stratified by “real-life” situations favored esmolol, showing a 50.9% difference in the proportion of patients with diabetic foot ulcer healing in those with a history of hypertension and a 31.8% difference favoring esmolol in those with an abnormal electrocardiogram.
Overall, the proportions of patients who had an adverse event were 13.2%, 18.4%, and 37.5% in the esmolol plus standard of care, standard of care alone, and vehicle plus standard of care groups, respectively, and the vast majority were unrelated to study drug. There were no serious adverse events in the esmolol plus standard of care group.
A class effect of beta blockers?
The proposed mechanism of action of esmolol relates to a sequence of reducing inflammation (via vasodilation, fibroblast migration, and cytokine reduction); proliferation by beta-blockade (improves keratinocyte migration and epithelialization); and remodeling (increases collagen turnover).
Asked by an audience member if the observations were a class effect and systemic effect of beta-blockers, Dr. Rastogi said he could not say for sure that it was a class effect, but they deliberately used a beta-1 adrenergic receptor antagonist.
“It may not be a systemic effect because we have some patients who use beta-blockers systemically and they still have diabetic foot ulcers,” he said.
Dr. Rastogi and Dr. Dhatariya have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM EASD 2022
Early trial supports hypofractionated radiotherapy in uterine cancer
Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of uterine cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time-consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just 2.5 weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.
Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, who is an associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The research was published in JAMA Oncology.
Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues, and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.
Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in the hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective [compared to standard protocol], and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” said Dr. Williams in an interview. She also noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.
It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is [equivalent]. Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” Dr. Williams said.
The study’s findings
The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 serous or clear cell, 3 carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.
Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.
Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of uterine cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time-consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just 2.5 weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.
Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, who is an associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The research was published in JAMA Oncology.
Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues, and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.
Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in the hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective [compared to standard protocol], and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” said Dr. Williams in an interview. She also noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.
It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is [equivalent]. Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” Dr. Williams said.
The study’s findings
The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 serous or clear cell, 3 carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.
Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.
Postoperative radiotherapy is a mainstay in the treatment of uterine cancer, but the typical 5-week regimen can be time-consuming and expensive. A pilot study found that delivery of approximately the same dose over just 2.5 weeks, known as hypofractionation, had good short-term toxicity outcomes.
Nevertheless, shortening the duration of radiotherapy could have benefits, especially in advanced uterine cancer, where chemotherapy is employed against distant metastases. Following surgery, there is a risk of both local recurrence and distant metastasis, complicating the choice of initial treatment. “Chemo can be several months long and radiation is typically several weeks. Therefore a shortened radiation schedule may have potential benefits, especially if there is an opportunity for this to be delivered earlier without delaying or interrupting chemotherapy, for example,” said lead study author Eric Leung, MD, who is an associate professor of radiation oncology at the University of Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre.
The research was published in JAMA Oncology.
Delivery of hypofractionation is tricky, according to Dr. Leung. “Gynecological cancer patients were treated with hypofractionation radiation to the pelvis which included the vagina, paravaginal tissues, and pelvic lymph nodes. With this relatively large pelvic volume with surrounding normal tissues, this requires a highly focused radiation treatment with advanced technology,” said Dr. Leung. The study protocol employed stereotactic technique to deliver 30 Gy in 5 fractions.
Hypofractionation could be beneficial in reduction of travel time and time spent in the hospital, as well as reducing financial burden and increasing quality of life. These benefits have taken on a larger role in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Although the findings are encouraging, they are preliminary, according to Vonetta Williams, MD, PhD, who wrote an accompanying editorial. “I would caution that all they’ve done is presented preliminary toxicity data, so we don’t have any proof yet that it is equally effective [compared to standard protocol], and their study cannot answer that at any rate because it was not designed to answer that question,” said Dr. Williams in an interview. She also noted that long-term follow-up is needed to measure bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, vaginal stenosis, and other side effects.
It is also uncertain whether hypofractionated doses are actually equivalent to the standard dose. “We know that they’re roughly equivalent, but that is very much a question if they are equivalent in terms of efficacy. I don’t know that I would be confident that they are. That’s probably what would give most radiation oncologists pause, because we don’t have any data to say that it is [equivalent]. Although it would be nice to shorten treatment, and I think it would certainly be better for patients, I want to caution that we want to do so once we know what the toxicity and the outcomes really are,” Dr. Williams said.
The study’s findings
The researchers enrolled 61 patients with a median age of 66 years. Thirty-nine had endometrioid adenocarcinoma, 15 serous or clear cell, 3 carcinosarcoma, and 4 had dedifferentiated disease. Sixteen patients underwent sequential chemotherapy, and 9 underwent additional vault brachytherapy. Over a median follow-up of 9 months, 54% had a worst gastrointestinal side effect of grade 1, while 13% had a worst side effect of grade 2. Among worst genitourinary side effects, 41% had grade 1 and 3% had grade 2. One patient had acute grade 3 diarrhea at fraction 5, but this resolved at follow-up. One patient had diarrhea scores that were both clinically and statistically significantly worse than baseline at fraction 5, and this improved at follow-up.
Patient-reported quality of life outcomes were generally good. Of all measures, only diarrhea was clinically and statistically worse by fraction 5, and improvement was seen at 6 weeks and 3 months. Global health status was consistent throughout treatment and follow-up. There was no change in sexual and vaginal symptoms.
FROM JAMA ONCOLOGY
Formula may be right for infants, but experts warn that toddlers don’t need it
Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.
In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.
Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.
Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.
A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.
Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.
Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.
In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.
“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”
If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.
Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”
But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.
“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”
According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.
In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”
However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.
Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.
Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”
One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.
Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”
He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.
Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.
In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.
Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.
Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.
A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.
Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.
Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.
In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.
“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”
If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.
Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”
But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.
“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”
According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.
In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”
However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.
Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.
Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”
One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.
Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”
He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.
Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Formulas for toddlers are a burgeoning business in the United States: Sales of the drinks more than doubled in recent years as companies convinced parents that their little ones needed the liquid boost. But many experts warn that these products, designed for children ages 1-3, fill no nutritional needs beyond what is available in a typical toddler diet, are subject to less regulation than infant formula, and are expensive.
In addition, some parents feed the toddler versions to infants even though they do not meet federal standards for infant formula and may not provide babies with adequate nutrients to sustain their growth.
Pediatricians and federal health officials say that when most children turn 1, they can begin drinking cow milk or an unsweetened plant-based milk substitute. In a 2019 “consensus” statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other health and nutrition organizations recommended against using toddler formulas, saying “they offer no unique nutritional value beyond what could be obtained with healthy foods; furthermore, they may contribute added sugars to the diet.” The toddler formulas often contain sweeteners and fats that add calories.
Some of the same companies that produce infant formula – including Enfamil, Gerber, and Similac – also make toddler formulas, as do some smaller, boutique brands that advertise that they have organic or other special qualities. Toddler formulas are available nearly everywhere infant formulas are sold and are marketed as providing extra nutrients to help children’s brain, immune system, and eye development, among other benefits. They are different from medical formulas prescribed for children with specific needs.
A 2020 study found that sales of toddler formula in the United States rose to $92 million in 2015 from $39 million in 2006.
Parents are often confused by the marketing for the formulas, according to a study led by Jennifer Harris, PhD, a marketing and public health researcher at the University of Connecticut, Hartford. She found that 60% of caregivers falsely believed toddler formulas have nutrients that toddlers can’t get from other foods.
Anthony Porto, MD, MPH, a pediatric gastroenterologist and pediatrics professor at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said he is concerned these products could be giving toddlers more nutrients and calories than they need. Unlike what’s designed for infants, toddler formula has no nutritional regulations: Experts say standardizing a supplement to toddlers’ diets is impossible because no two children are alike.
In focus groups, Dr. Harris said, parents report feeding their children toddler formula to fill nutritional gaps when a child isn’t eating enough, a common concern among parents.
“Infants are often voracious eaters,” said Stephen Daniels, MD, chair of pediatrics at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. But at around a year of age, children’s growth plateaus, he said, and “they’re suddenly not hungry in the way they used to be anymore.” That can worry parents, he added, but “it’s a completely normal phenomenon.”
If parents have concerns about their children’s diet, Dr. Daniels said, they should consult a pediatrician or family doctor.
Blanche Lincoln, president of the Infant Nutrition Council of America, which represents the makers of Enfamil, Gerber, Similac, and store brands, said in an email that the toddler formulas can be helpful because they can fill “nutritional gaps during this period of transition to table foods.” Ms. Lincoln, a former U.S. senator from Arkansas, said the drinks “help contribute to the specific nutritional needs of toddlers by providing energy and important nutrients, as well as essential vitamins and minerals during this important period of growth and development.”
But toddler formula isn’t being ingested by toddlers alone – it’s also being fed to infants. In a recent study, Dr. Porto and colleagues found that 5% of infants’ parents reported giving their babies drinks marketed for the older age group. And Dr. Harris’ research indicated that 22% of parents of infants older than 6 months had fed their babies toddler formula in the previous month. Both studies were conducted before the recent infant formula shortage, which may have exacerbated the problem.
“Infant formulas and toddler formulas tend to be next to each other in the supermarket,” Dr. Harris said. “They look similar, but the toddler formulas are cheaper than the infant formulas. So people confuse them, and they grab the wrong one. Or they think: ‘Oh, this one is less expensive. I’ll get this one instead.’ ”
According to an email from Food and Drug Administration spokesperson Lindsay Haake, toddler drinks do not meet the definition of infant formula, so they are not subject to the same requirements. That means they do not have to undergo the clinical trials and pathogen safety testing that the infant versions do. “Unlike infant formulas, toddler formulas are not necessary to meet the nutritional needs of their intended consumers,” Ms. Haake said.
In a statement to KHN, the Infant Nutrition Council of America said: “Toddler drinks have a distinctive use and nutritional makeup from infant formula; the two are not interchangeable. The labeling of toddler nutritional drinks explicitly identifies the product as a toddler drink intended for children 12 months and older on the front of the package label.”
However, several expensive toddler formula brands made by smaller companies – often advertised as being made from goat milk, A2 whole milk (which lacks one common milk protein), or vegan ingredients that aren’t soy – do meet nutritional requirements for infants, and some advertise that.
Dr. Harris argued that this confuses parents, too, and shouldn’t be allowed. Just because a toddler formula has the nutritional ingredients required by the FDA for infant formula doesn’t mean it has met the other tests required of infant formula.
Federal regulators have not forced any of the companies to withdraw those products. In an email, FDA spokesperson Marianna Naum said: “The FDA does not comment on potential compliance actions.”
One company, Nature’s One, whose toddler formulas are named “Baby’s Only,” received warning letters a decade ago from the FDA about marketing them for infants. That case was closed in 2016. The company’s website says that Baby’s Only formula “meets nutrient requirements for infant” and that “Baby’s Only Organic® can be served up to 3 years of age.” Critics say that language implies the formula is fine for babies younger than 1. The company’s website and its Instagram account feature customer testimonials from parents who report feeding the formula to their infants, as well as pictures of infants drinking it.
Jay Highman, CEO and president of Nature’s One, said that Baby’s Only is clearly labeled as a toddler formula and that the back of the can states that “Baby’s Only is intended for a toddler 1 year of age or older OR when directed by a health care professional.” He also said that since the company launched in 1999, its formulas have met all the nutritional, manufacturing, and safety standards required of infant formula even though they don’t have to. “We behaved like we are an infant formula, but we were selling it as a toddler formula.”
He said that the clinical trials required by the FDA are a huge barrier to bringing a new infant formula to market and that many other countries don’t require a clinical trial. Baby’s Only recently completed a clinical trial, and the company expects to be able to sell it as an infant formula soon.
Yet pediatricians and nutritional experts continue to caution parents about using the toddler drinks. “There’s no question that infant formula is very important in the first year of life,” Dr. Daniels said. But he doesn’t recommend the toddler version “because it’s not that useful, because it’s confusing, because it’s expensive.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
Could exercise improve bone health in youth with type 1 diabetes?
In a small cross-sectional study of 10- to 16-year-old girls with and without type 1 diabetes, both groups were equally physically active, based on their replies to the bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ).
However, among the more sedentary girls (with BPAQ scores below the median), those with type 1 diabetes had worse markers of bone health in imaging tests compared with the girls without diabetes.
the researchers summarize in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
However, this is early research and further study is needed, the group cautions.
“Ongoing studies with objective measures of physical activity as well as interventional studies will clarify whether increasing physical activity may improve bone health and reduce fracture risk in this vulnerable group,” they conclude.
“If you look at the sedentary kids, there’s a big discrepancy between the kids who have diabetes and the control kids, and that’s if we’re looking at radius or tibia or trabecular bone density or estimated failure load,” senior author Deborah M. Mitchell, MD, said in an interview at the poster session.
However, “when we look at the kids who are more physically active, we’re really not seeing as much difference [in bone health] between the kids with and without diabetes,” said Dr. Mitchell, a pediatric endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
But she also acknowledged, “There’s all sorts of caveats, including that this is retrospective questionnaire data.”
However, if further, rigorous studies confirm these findings, “physical activity is potentially a really effective means of improving bone quality in kids with type 1 diabetes.”
“This study suggests that bone-loading physical activity can substantially improve skeletal health in children with [type 1 diabetes] and should provide hope for patients and their families that they can take some action to prevent or mitigate the effects of diabetes on bone,” coauthor and incoming ASBMR President Mary L. Bouxsein, PhD, told this news organization in an email.
“We interpret these data as an important reason to advocate for increased time in moderate to vigorous bone-loading activity,” said Dr. Bouxsein, professor, department of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, “though the ‘dose’ in terms of hours per day or episodes per week to promote optimal bone health is still to be determined.”
“Ongoing debate,” “need stronger proof”
Asked for comment, Laura K. Bachrach, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted: “Activity benefits the development of bone strength through effects on bone geometry more than ‘density,’ and conversely, lack of physical activity can compromise gains in cortical bone diameter and thickness.”
However, “there is ongoing debate about the impact of type 1 diabetes on bone health and the factor(s) determining risk,” Dr. Bachrach, a pediatric endocrinologist at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif., told this news organization in an email.
The current findings suggest “that physical activity in adolescent girls provided protection against potential adverse effects of type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Bachrach, who spoke about bone fragility in childhood in a video commentary in 2021.
Study strengths, she noted, “include the rigor and expertise of the investigators, use of multiple surrogate measures that capture bone geometry/microarchitecture, as well as the inclusion of healthy local controls.”
“The study is limited by the cross-sectional design and subjects who opted, or not, to be active,” she added. “Stronger proof of the protective effects of activity on bone health in type 1 diabetes would require a randomized longitudinal intervention study, as alluded to by the authors of the study.”
Hypothesis: Those with type 1 diabetes acquire less bone mass in early 20s
The excess fracture risk in children with type 1 diabetes has been previously reported and is 14%-35% higher than the fracture risk in children without diabetes, Dr. Bouxsein explained. And “between 30% to 50% of kids [with type 1 diabetes] will have a fracture before the age of 18, so the excess fracture risk in diabetes is not clinically obvious,” she added.
However, “several lines of evidence strongly suggest that bone mass and microarchitecture at the time of peak bone mass (early 20s) is a major determinant of fracture risk throughout the lifespan,” she noted.
“Our hypothesis,” Dr. Bouxsein said, “is that the metabolic disruptions of diabetes, when they are present during the acquisition of peak bone mass, interfere with optimal bone development, and therefore may contribute to increased fracture risk later in life.”
Dr. Bachrach agreed that “peak bone strength is achieved by early adulthood, making childhood and adolescence important times to optimize bone health,” and that “peak bone strength is a predictor of lifetime risk of osteoporosis.”
“The diagnosis of pediatric osteoporosis is made when a child or teen sustains a vertebral fracture or femur fracture with minimal or no trauma,” she explained. “The diagnosis can also be made in a pediatric patient with low BMD [bone mineral density] for age in combination with a history of several long-bone fractures.”
Dr. Mitchell noted that type 1 diabetes is associated with a higher risk of fractures, which is sixfold in adults. In another study, she said, the group showed that in 10- to 16-year-old girls who’ve only had diabetes for a few years, “trabecular bone density is lower, they have lower estimated failure load, and longitudinally when we follow them, at least at the radius, we’re seeing bone loss at a relatively young age when we wouldn’t be expecting to see bone loss.”
80 girls enrolled, half had type 1 diabetes
Researchers enrolled 36 girls with type 1 diabetes and 44 girls without type 1 diabetes (controls) who were a mean age of 14.7 years and most (92%) were White. The girls with and without diabetes had similar rates of previous fractures (44% and 51%).
Those with diabetes had been diagnosed at a mean age of 9 years and had had diabetes for a mean of 4.6 years.
Researchers calculated participants’ total BPAQ scores based on type, duration, and frequency of bone-loading activities.
Participants had dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans to determine areal bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and whole body less head.
They also had high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography at the distal tibia and radius to determine volumetric BMD, bone microarchitecture, and estimated bone strength (calculated using microfinite element analysis).
The two groups had similar total BPAQ scores (57.3 and 64.6), with a median score of 49.
BPAQ scores were positively associated with areal BMD at all sites (whole body, lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius) and with trabecular BMD and estimated failure load at the distal radius and tibia (P < .05 for all, adjusted for bone age).
Among participants with low physical activity (BPAQ below the median), compared with controls, those with type 1 diabetes had 6.6% lower aerial BMD at the lumbar spine (0.868 vs. 0.929 g/cm3; P = .04), 8% lower trabecular volumetric BMD at the distal radius (128.5 vs. 156.8 mg/cm3; P = .01), and 12% lower estimated failure load. Results at the distal tibia were similar.
Next steps
“More observational studies in males and females across a broader age spectrum would be helpful,” Dr. Bachrach noted. “The ‘gold standard’ model would be a long-term randomized controlled activity intervention study.”
“Further studies are underway [in girls and boys] using objective measures of activity including accelerometry and longitudinal observation to help confirm the findings from the current study,” Dr. Bouxsein said. “Ultimately, trials of activity interventions in children with [type 1 diabetes] will be the gold standard to determine to what extent physical activity can mitigate bone disease in [type 1 diabetes],” she agreed.
The study authors and Dr. Bachrach have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a small cross-sectional study of 10- to 16-year-old girls with and without type 1 diabetes, both groups were equally physically active, based on their replies to the bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ).
However, among the more sedentary girls (with BPAQ scores below the median), those with type 1 diabetes had worse markers of bone health in imaging tests compared with the girls without diabetes.
the researchers summarize in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
However, this is early research and further study is needed, the group cautions.
“Ongoing studies with objective measures of physical activity as well as interventional studies will clarify whether increasing physical activity may improve bone health and reduce fracture risk in this vulnerable group,” they conclude.
“If you look at the sedentary kids, there’s a big discrepancy between the kids who have diabetes and the control kids, and that’s if we’re looking at radius or tibia or trabecular bone density or estimated failure load,” senior author Deborah M. Mitchell, MD, said in an interview at the poster session.
However, “when we look at the kids who are more physically active, we’re really not seeing as much difference [in bone health] between the kids with and without diabetes,” said Dr. Mitchell, a pediatric endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
But she also acknowledged, “There’s all sorts of caveats, including that this is retrospective questionnaire data.”
However, if further, rigorous studies confirm these findings, “physical activity is potentially a really effective means of improving bone quality in kids with type 1 diabetes.”
“This study suggests that bone-loading physical activity can substantially improve skeletal health in children with [type 1 diabetes] and should provide hope for patients and their families that they can take some action to prevent or mitigate the effects of diabetes on bone,” coauthor and incoming ASBMR President Mary L. Bouxsein, PhD, told this news organization in an email.
“We interpret these data as an important reason to advocate for increased time in moderate to vigorous bone-loading activity,” said Dr. Bouxsein, professor, department of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, “though the ‘dose’ in terms of hours per day or episodes per week to promote optimal bone health is still to be determined.”
“Ongoing debate,” “need stronger proof”
Asked for comment, Laura K. Bachrach, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted: “Activity benefits the development of bone strength through effects on bone geometry more than ‘density,’ and conversely, lack of physical activity can compromise gains in cortical bone diameter and thickness.”
However, “there is ongoing debate about the impact of type 1 diabetes on bone health and the factor(s) determining risk,” Dr. Bachrach, a pediatric endocrinologist at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif., told this news organization in an email.
The current findings suggest “that physical activity in adolescent girls provided protection against potential adverse effects of type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Bachrach, who spoke about bone fragility in childhood in a video commentary in 2021.
Study strengths, she noted, “include the rigor and expertise of the investigators, use of multiple surrogate measures that capture bone geometry/microarchitecture, as well as the inclusion of healthy local controls.”
“The study is limited by the cross-sectional design and subjects who opted, or not, to be active,” she added. “Stronger proof of the protective effects of activity on bone health in type 1 diabetes would require a randomized longitudinal intervention study, as alluded to by the authors of the study.”
Hypothesis: Those with type 1 diabetes acquire less bone mass in early 20s
The excess fracture risk in children with type 1 diabetes has been previously reported and is 14%-35% higher than the fracture risk in children without diabetes, Dr. Bouxsein explained. And “between 30% to 50% of kids [with type 1 diabetes] will have a fracture before the age of 18, so the excess fracture risk in diabetes is not clinically obvious,” she added.
However, “several lines of evidence strongly suggest that bone mass and microarchitecture at the time of peak bone mass (early 20s) is a major determinant of fracture risk throughout the lifespan,” she noted.
“Our hypothesis,” Dr. Bouxsein said, “is that the metabolic disruptions of diabetes, when they are present during the acquisition of peak bone mass, interfere with optimal bone development, and therefore may contribute to increased fracture risk later in life.”
Dr. Bachrach agreed that “peak bone strength is achieved by early adulthood, making childhood and adolescence important times to optimize bone health,” and that “peak bone strength is a predictor of lifetime risk of osteoporosis.”
“The diagnosis of pediatric osteoporosis is made when a child or teen sustains a vertebral fracture or femur fracture with minimal or no trauma,” she explained. “The diagnosis can also be made in a pediatric patient with low BMD [bone mineral density] for age in combination with a history of several long-bone fractures.”
Dr. Mitchell noted that type 1 diabetes is associated with a higher risk of fractures, which is sixfold in adults. In another study, she said, the group showed that in 10- to 16-year-old girls who’ve only had diabetes for a few years, “trabecular bone density is lower, they have lower estimated failure load, and longitudinally when we follow them, at least at the radius, we’re seeing bone loss at a relatively young age when we wouldn’t be expecting to see bone loss.”
80 girls enrolled, half had type 1 diabetes
Researchers enrolled 36 girls with type 1 diabetes and 44 girls without type 1 diabetes (controls) who were a mean age of 14.7 years and most (92%) were White. The girls with and without diabetes had similar rates of previous fractures (44% and 51%).
Those with diabetes had been diagnosed at a mean age of 9 years and had had diabetes for a mean of 4.6 years.
Researchers calculated participants’ total BPAQ scores based on type, duration, and frequency of bone-loading activities.
Participants had dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans to determine areal bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and whole body less head.
They also had high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography at the distal tibia and radius to determine volumetric BMD, bone microarchitecture, and estimated bone strength (calculated using microfinite element analysis).
The two groups had similar total BPAQ scores (57.3 and 64.6), with a median score of 49.
BPAQ scores were positively associated with areal BMD at all sites (whole body, lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius) and with trabecular BMD and estimated failure load at the distal radius and tibia (P < .05 for all, adjusted for bone age).
Among participants with low physical activity (BPAQ below the median), compared with controls, those with type 1 diabetes had 6.6% lower aerial BMD at the lumbar spine (0.868 vs. 0.929 g/cm3; P = .04), 8% lower trabecular volumetric BMD at the distal radius (128.5 vs. 156.8 mg/cm3; P = .01), and 12% lower estimated failure load. Results at the distal tibia were similar.
Next steps
“More observational studies in males and females across a broader age spectrum would be helpful,” Dr. Bachrach noted. “The ‘gold standard’ model would be a long-term randomized controlled activity intervention study.”
“Further studies are underway [in girls and boys] using objective measures of activity including accelerometry and longitudinal observation to help confirm the findings from the current study,” Dr. Bouxsein said. “Ultimately, trials of activity interventions in children with [type 1 diabetes] will be the gold standard to determine to what extent physical activity can mitigate bone disease in [type 1 diabetes],” she agreed.
The study authors and Dr. Bachrach have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a small cross-sectional study of 10- to 16-year-old girls with and without type 1 diabetes, both groups were equally physically active, based on their replies to the bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ).
However, among the more sedentary girls (with BPAQ scores below the median), those with type 1 diabetes had worse markers of bone health in imaging tests compared with the girls without diabetes.
the researchers summarize in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research.
However, this is early research and further study is needed, the group cautions.
“Ongoing studies with objective measures of physical activity as well as interventional studies will clarify whether increasing physical activity may improve bone health and reduce fracture risk in this vulnerable group,” they conclude.
“If you look at the sedentary kids, there’s a big discrepancy between the kids who have diabetes and the control kids, and that’s if we’re looking at radius or tibia or trabecular bone density or estimated failure load,” senior author Deborah M. Mitchell, MD, said in an interview at the poster session.
However, “when we look at the kids who are more physically active, we’re really not seeing as much difference [in bone health] between the kids with and without diabetes,” said Dr. Mitchell, a pediatric endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.
But she also acknowledged, “There’s all sorts of caveats, including that this is retrospective questionnaire data.”
However, if further, rigorous studies confirm these findings, “physical activity is potentially a really effective means of improving bone quality in kids with type 1 diabetes.”
“This study suggests that bone-loading physical activity can substantially improve skeletal health in children with [type 1 diabetes] and should provide hope for patients and their families that they can take some action to prevent or mitigate the effects of diabetes on bone,” coauthor and incoming ASBMR President Mary L. Bouxsein, PhD, told this news organization in an email.
“We interpret these data as an important reason to advocate for increased time in moderate to vigorous bone-loading activity,” said Dr. Bouxsein, professor, department of orthopedic surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, “though the ‘dose’ in terms of hours per day or episodes per week to promote optimal bone health is still to be determined.”
“Ongoing debate,” “need stronger proof”
Asked for comment, Laura K. Bachrach, MD, who was not involved with the research, noted: “Activity benefits the development of bone strength through effects on bone geometry more than ‘density,’ and conversely, lack of physical activity can compromise gains in cortical bone diameter and thickness.”
However, “there is ongoing debate about the impact of type 1 diabetes on bone health and the factor(s) determining risk,” Dr. Bachrach, a pediatric endocrinologist at Stanford Children’s Health, Palo Alto, Calif., told this news organization in an email.
The current findings suggest “that physical activity in adolescent girls provided protection against potential adverse effects of type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Bachrach, who spoke about bone fragility in childhood in a video commentary in 2021.
Study strengths, she noted, “include the rigor and expertise of the investigators, use of multiple surrogate measures that capture bone geometry/microarchitecture, as well as the inclusion of healthy local controls.”
“The study is limited by the cross-sectional design and subjects who opted, or not, to be active,” she added. “Stronger proof of the protective effects of activity on bone health in type 1 diabetes would require a randomized longitudinal intervention study, as alluded to by the authors of the study.”
Hypothesis: Those with type 1 diabetes acquire less bone mass in early 20s
The excess fracture risk in children with type 1 diabetes has been previously reported and is 14%-35% higher than the fracture risk in children without diabetes, Dr. Bouxsein explained. And “between 30% to 50% of kids [with type 1 diabetes] will have a fracture before the age of 18, so the excess fracture risk in diabetes is not clinically obvious,” she added.
However, “several lines of evidence strongly suggest that bone mass and microarchitecture at the time of peak bone mass (early 20s) is a major determinant of fracture risk throughout the lifespan,” she noted.
“Our hypothesis,” Dr. Bouxsein said, “is that the metabolic disruptions of diabetes, when they are present during the acquisition of peak bone mass, interfere with optimal bone development, and therefore may contribute to increased fracture risk later in life.”
Dr. Bachrach agreed that “peak bone strength is achieved by early adulthood, making childhood and adolescence important times to optimize bone health,” and that “peak bone strength is a predictor of lifetime risk of osteoporosis.”
“The diagnosis of pediatric osteoporosis is made when a child or teen sustains a vertebral fracture or femur fracture with minimal or no trauma,” she explained. “The diagnosis can also be made in a pediatric patient with low BMD [bone mineral density] for age in combination with a history of several long-bone fractures.”
Dr. Mitchell noted that type 1 diabetes is associated with a higher risk of fractures, which is sixfold in adults. In another study, she said, the group showed that in 10- to 16-year-old girls who’ve only had diabetes for a few years, “trabecular bone density is lower, they have lower estimated failure load, and longitudinally when we follow them, at least at the radius, we’re seeing bone loss at a relatively young age when we wouldn’t be expecting to see bone loss.”
80 girls enrolled, half had type 1 diabetes
Researchers enrolled 36 girls with type 1 diabetes and 44 girls without type 1 diabetes (controls) who were a mean age of 14.7 years and most (92%) were White. The girls with and without diabetes had similar rates of previous fractures (44% and 51%).
Those with diabetes had been diagnosed at a mean age of 9 years and had had diabetes for a mean of 4.6 years.
Researchers calculated participants’ total BPAQ scores based on type, duration, and frequency of bone-loading activities.
Participants had dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans to determine areal bone mineral density (BMD) at the total hip, femoral neck, lumbar spine, and whole body less head.
They also had high-resolution peripheral quantitative computed tomography at the distal tibia and radius to determine volumetric BMD, bone microarchitecture, and estimated bone strength (calculated using microfinite element analysis).
The two groups had similar total BPAQ scores (57.3 and 64.6), with a median score of 49.
BPAQ scores were positively associated with areal BMD at all sites (whole body, lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius) and with trabecular BMD and estimated failure load at the distal radius and tibia (P < .05 for all, adjusted for bone age).
Among participants with low physical activity (BPAQ below the median), compared with controls, those with type 1 diabetes had 6.6% lower aerial BMD at the lumbar spine (0.868 vs. 0.929 g/cm3; P = .04), 8% lower trabecular volumetric BMD at the distal radius (128.5 vs. 156.8 mg/cm3; P = .01), and 12% lower estimated failure load. Results at the distal tibia were similar.
Next steps
“More observational studies in males and females across a broader age spectrum would be helpful,” Dr. Bachrach noted. “The ‘gold standard’ model would be a long-term randomized controlled activity intervention study.”
“Further studies are underway [in girls and boys] using objective measures of activity including accelerometry and longitudinal observation to help confirm the findings from the current study,” Dr. Bouxsein said. “Ultimately, trials of activity interventions in children with [type 1 diabetes] will be the gold standard to determine to what extent physical activity can mitigate bone disease in [type 1 diabetes],” she agreed.
The study authors and Dr. Bachrach have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ASBMR 2022