Nail disorders are common among pediatric patients but often are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of their unique disease manifestations. These conditions may severely impact quality of life. There are few nail disease clinical trials that include children. Consequently, most treatment recommendations are based on case series and expert consensus recommendations. We review inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in pediatric patients. By describing characteristics, clinical manifestations, and management approaches for these conditions, we aim to provide guidance to dermatologists in their diagnosis and treatment.

INFLAMMATORY NAIL DISORDERS

Nail Psoriasis

Nail involvement in children with psoriasis is common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 17% to 39.2%.¹ Nail matrix psoriasis may manifest with pitting (large irregular pits) and leukonychia as well as chromonychia and nail plate crumbling. Onycholysis, oil drop spots (salmon patches), and subungual hyperkeratosis can be seen in nail bed psoriasis. Nail pitting is the most frequently observed clinical finding (Figure 1).^2,3 In a cross-sectional multicenter study of 313 children with cutaneous psoriasis in France, nail findings were present in 101 patients (32.3%). There were associations between nail findings and presence of psoriatic arthritis (P=.03), palmoplantar psoriasis (P<.001), and severity of psoriatic disease, defined as use of systemic treatment with phototherapy (psoralen plus UVA, UVB), traditional systemic treatment (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine), or a biologic (P=.003).⁴

Topical steroids and vitamin D analogues may be used with or without occlusion and may be efficacious.⁵ Several case reports describe systemic treatments for psoriasis in children, including methotrexate, acitretin, and apremilast (approved for children 6 years and older for plaque psoriasis by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]).² There are 5 biologic drugs currently approved for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis—adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab—and 6 drugs currently undergoing phase 3 studies—brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, certolizumab pegol, and deucravacitinib (Table 1).^6-15 Adalimumab is specifically approved for moderate to severe nail psoriasis in adults 18 years and older.

Intralesional steroid injections are sometimes useful in the management of nail matrix psoriasis; however, appropriate patient selection is critical due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a prospective study of 16 children (age range, 9–17 years) with nail psoriasis treated with intralesional triamcinolone (ILTAC) 2.5 to 5 mg/mL every 4 to 8 weeks for a minimum of 3 to 6 months, 9 patients achieved resolution and 6 had improvement of clinical findings.¹⁶ Local adverse events were mild, including injection-site pain (66%), subungual hematoma (n=1), Beau lines (n=1), proximal nail fold hypopigmentation (n=2), and proximal nail fold atrophy (n=2). Because the proximal nail fold in children is thinner than in adults, there may be an increased risk for nail fold hypopigmentation and atrophy in children. Therefore, a maximum ILTAC concentration of 2.5 mg/mL with 0.2 mL maximum volume per nail per session is recommended for children younger than 15 years.¹⁶

Nail Lichen Planus

Nail lichen planus (NLP) is uncommon in children, with few biopsy-proven cases documented in the literature.¹⁷ Common clinical findings are onychorrhexis, nail plate thinning, fissuring, splitting, and atrophy with koilonychia.⁵ Although pterygium development (irreversible nail matrix scarring) is uncommon in pediatric patients, NLP can be progressive and may cause irreversible destruction of the nail matrix and subsequent nail loss, warranting therapeutic intervention.¹⁸

Treatment of NLP may be difficult, as there are no options that work in all patients. Current literature supports the use of systemic corticosteroids or ILTAC for the treatment of NLP; however, recurrence rates can be high. According to an expert consensus paper on NLP treatment, ILTAC may be injected in a concentration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL according to disease severity.¹⁹ In severe or resistant cases, intramuscular (IM) triamcinolone may be considered, especially if more than 3 nails are affected. A dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/mo for at least 3 to 6 months is recommended for both children and adults, with 1 mg/kg/mo recommended in the active treatment phase (first 2–3 months).¹⁹ In a retrospective review of 5 pediatric patients with NLP treated with IM triamcinolone 0.5 mg/kg/mo, 3 patients had resolution and 2 improved with treatment.²⁰ In a prospective study of 10 children with NLP, IM triamcinolone at a dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg every 30 days for 3 to 6 months resulted in resolution of nail findings in 9 patients.¹⁷ In a prospective study of 14 pediatric patients with NLP treated with 2.5 to 5 mg/mL of ILTAC, 10 achieved resolution and 3 improved.¹⁶

Intralesional triamcinolone injections may be better suited for teenagers compared to younger children who may be more apprehensive of needles. To minimize pain, it is recommended to inject ILTAC slowly at room temperature, with use of “talkesthesia” and vibration devices, 1% lidocaine, or ethyl chloride spray.¹⁸

Trachyonychia

Trachyonychia is characterized by the presence of sandpaperlike nails. It manifests with brittle thin nails with longitudinal ridging, onychoschizia, and thickened hyperkeratotic cuticles. Trachyonychia typically involves multiple nails, with a peak age of onset between 3 and 12 years.^21,22 There are 2 variants: the opaque type with rough longitudinal ridging, and the shiny variant with opalescent nails and pits that reflect light. The opaque variant is more common and is associated with psoriasis, whereas the shiny variant is less common and is associated with alopecia areata.²³ Although most cases are idiopathic, some are associated with psoriasis and alopecia areata, as previously noted, as well as atopic dermatitis (AD) and lichen planus.^22,24

Fortunately, trachyonychia does not lead to permanent nail damage or pterygium, making treatment primarily focused on addressing functional and cosmetic concerns.²⁴ Spontaneous resolution occurs in approximately 50% of patients. In a prospective study of 11 patients with idiopathic trachyonychia, there was partial improvement in 5 of 9 patients treated with topical steroids, 1 with only petrolatum, and 1 with vitamin supplements. Complete resolution was reported in 1 patient treated with topical steroids.²⁵ Because trachyonychia often is self-resolving, no treatment is required and a conservative approach is strongly recommended.²⁶ Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and 5-fluorouracil. Intralesional triamcinolone, systemic cyclosporine, retinoids, systemic corticosteroids, and tofacitinib have been described in case reports, though none of these have been shown to be 100% efficacious.²⁴

Nail Lichen Striatus

Lichen striatus involving the nail is uncommon and is characterized by onycholysis, longitudinal ridging, ­splitting, and fraying, as well as what appears to be a subungual tumor. It can encompass the entire nail or may be isolated to a portion of the nail (Figure 2). Usually, a Blaschko-linear array of flesh-colored papules on the more proximal digit directly adjacent to the nail dystrophy will be seen, though nail findings can occur in ­isolation.^27-29 The underlying pathophysiology is not clear; however, one hypothesis is that a triggering event, such as trauma, induces the expression of antigens that elicit a self-limiting immune-mediated response by CD8 T lymphocytes.³⁰

Generally, nail lichen striatus spontaneously resolves in 1 to 2 years without treatment. In a prospective study of 5 patients with nail lichen striatus, the median time to resolution was 22.6 months (range, 10–30 months).³¹ Topical steroids may be used for pruritus. In one case report, a 3-year-old boy with nail lichen striatus of 4 months’ duration was treated with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% daily for 3 months.²⁸

Nail AD

Nail changes with AD may be more common in adults than children or are underreported. In a study of 777 adults with AD, nail dystrophy was present in 124 patients (16%), whereas in a study of 250 pediatric patients with AD (aged 0-2 years), nail dystrophy was present in only 4 patients.^32,33

Periungual inflammation from AD causes the nail changes.³⁴ In a cross-sectional study of 24 pediatric patients with nail dystrophy due to AD, transverse grooves (Beau lines) were present in 25% (6/24), nail pitting in 16.7% (4/24), koilonychia in 16.7% (4/24), trachyonychia in 12.5% (3/24), leukonychia in 12.5% (3/24), brachyonychia in 8.3% (2/24), melanonychia in 8.3% (2/24), onychomadesis in 8.3% (2/24), onychoschizia in 8.3% (2/24), and onycholysis in 8.3% (2/24). There was an association between disease severity and presence of toenail dystrophy (P=.03).³⁵

Topical steroids with or without occlusion can be used to treat nail changes. Although there is limited literature describing the treatment of nail AD in children, a 61-year-old man with nail changes associated with AD achieved resolution with 3 months of treatment with dupilumab.³⁶ Anecdotally, most patients will improve with usual cutaneous AD management.

INFECTIOUS NAIL DISORDERS

Viral Infections

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease—Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood viral infection caused by various enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16, with the A6 variant causing more severe disease. Fever and painful vesicles involving the oral mucosa as well as palms and soles give the disease its name. Nail changes are common. In a prospective study involving 130 patients with laboratory-confirmed coxsackievirus CA6 serotype infection, 37% developed onychomadesis vs only 5% of 145 cases with non-CA6 enterovirus infection who developed nail findings. There was an association between CA6 infection and presence of nail changes (P<.001).³⁷

Findings ranging from transverse grooves (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding (onychomadesis)(Figure 3) may be seen.^38,39 Nail findings in HFMD are due to transient inhibition of nail growth and present approximately 3 to 6 weeks after infection.⁴⁰ Onychomadesis is seen in 30% to 68% of patients with HFMD.^37,41,42 Nail findings in HFMD spontaneously resolve with nail growth (2–3 mm per month for fingernails and 1 mm per month for toenails) and do not require specific treatment. Although the appearance of nail changes associated with HFMD can be disturbing, dermatologists can reassure children and their parents that the nails will resolve with the next cycle of growth.

Kawasaki Disease—Kawasaki disease (KD) is a vasculitis primarily affecting children and infants. Although the specific pathogen and pathophysiology is not entirely clear, clinical observations have suggested an infectious cause, most likely a virus.⁴³ In Japan, more than 15,000 cases of KD are documented annually, while approximately 4200 cases are seen in the United States.⁴⁴ In a prospective study from 1984 to 1990, 4 of 26 (15.4%) patients with KD presented with nail manifestations during the late acute phase or early convalescent phase of disease. There were no significant associations between nail dystrophy and severity of KD, such as coronary artery aneurysm.⁴⁵

Nail changes reported in children with KD include onychomadesis, onycholysis, orange-brown chromonychia, splinter hemorrhages, Beau lines, and pincer nails. In a review of nail changes associated with KD from 1980 to 2021, orange-brown transverse chromonychia, which may evolve into transverse leukonychia, was the most common nail finding reported, occurring in 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients.⁴⁴ It has been hypothesized that nail changes may result from blood flow disturbance due to the underlying vasculitis.⁴⁶ Nail changes appear several weeks after the onset of fever and are self-limited. Resolution occurs with nail growth, with no treatment required.

FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nails that occurs in 0.2% to 5.5% of pediatric patients, and its prevalence may be increasing, which may be due to environmental factors or increased rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity in the pediatric population.⁴⁷ Onychomycosis represents 15.5% of nail dystrophies in pediatric patients.⁴⁸ Some dermatologists treat presumptive onychomycosis without confirmation; however, we do not recommend that approach. Because the differential is broad and the duration of treatment is long, mycologic examination (potassium hydroxide preparation, fungal culture, polymerase chain reaction, and/or histopathology) should be obtained to confirm onychomycosis prior to initiation of antifungal management. Family members of affected individuals should be evaluated and treated, if indicated, for onychomycosis and tinea pedis, as household transmission is common.

Currently, there are 2 topical FDA-approved treatments for pediatric onychomycosis in children 6 years and older (Table 2).^49,50 There is a discussion of the need for confirmatory testing for onychomycosis in children, particularly when systemic treatment is prescribed. In a retrospective review of 269 pediatric patients with onychomycosis prescribed terbinafine, 53.5% (n=144) underwent laboratory monitoring of liver function and complete blood cell counts, and 12.5% had grade 1 laboratory abnormalities either prior to (12/144 [8.3%]) or during (6/144 [4.2%]) therapy.⁵¹ Baseline transaminase monitoring is recommended, though subsequent routine laboratory monitoring in healthy children may have limited utility with associated increased costs, incidental findings, and patient discomfort and likely is not needed.⁵¹

Pediatric onychomycosis responds better to topical therapy than adult disease, and pediatric patients do not always require systemic treatment.⁵² Ciclopirox is not FDA approved for the treatment of pediatric onychomycosis, but in a 32-week clinical trial of ciclopirox lacquer 8% use in 40 patients, 77% (27/35) of treated patients achieved mycologic cure. Overall, 71% of treated patients (25/35) vs 22% (2/9) of controls achieved efficacy (defined as investigator global assessment score of 2 or lower).⁵² In an open-label, single-arm clinical trial assessing tavaborole solution 5% applied once daily for 48 weeks for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in pediatric patients (aged 6–17 years), 36.2% (20/55) of patients achieved mycologic cure, and 8.5% (5/55) achieved complete cure at week 52 with mild or minimal adverse effects.⁵³ In an open-label, phase 4 study of the safety and efficacy of efinaconazole solution 10% applied once daily for 48 weeks in pediatric patients (aged 6 to 16 years) (n=60), 65% (35/60) achieved mycologic cure, 42% (25/60) achieved clinical cure, and 40% (24/60) achieved complete cure at 52 weeks. The most common adverse effects of efina­conazole were local and included ingrown toenail (1/60), application-site dermatitis (1/60), application-site vesicles (1/60), and application-site pain (1/60).⁵⁴

In a systematic review of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in 151 pediatric patients, itraconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine resulted in complete cure rates similar to those of the adult population, with excellent safety profiles.⁵⁵ Depending on the situation, initiation of treatment with topical medications followed by addition of systemic antifungal agents only if needed may be an appropriate course of action.

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS

Acute Paronychia

Acute paronychia is a nail-fold infection that develops after the protective nail barrier has been compromised.⁵⁶ In children, thumb-sucking, nail-biting, frequent oral manipulation of the digits, and poor skin hygiene are risk factors. Acute paronychia also may develop in association with congenital malalignment of the great toenails.⁵⁷

Clinical manifestations include localized pain, erythema, and nail fold edema (Figure 4). Purulent material and abscess formation may ensue. Staphylococcus aureus as well as methicillin-resistant S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are classically the most common causes of acute paronychia. Treatment of paronychia is based on severity. In mild cases, warm soaks with topical antibiotics are indicated. Oral antibiotics should be prescribed for more severe presentations. If there is no improvement after 48 hours, surgical drainage is required to facilitate healing.⁵⁶

FINAL THOUGHTS

Inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in children are relatively common and may impact the physical and emotional well-being of young patients. By understanding the distinctive features of these nail disorders in pediatric patients, dermatologists can provide anticipatory guidance and informed treatment options to children and their parents. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of pediatric nail disorders and create targeted therapeutic interventions, particularly for NLP and psoriasis.

Nail disorders are common among pediatric patients but often are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of their unique disease manifestations. These conditions may severely impact quality of life. There are few nail disease clinical trials that include children. Consequently, most treatment recommendations are based on case series and expert consensus recommendations. We review inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in pediatric patients. By describing characteristics, clinical manifestations, and management approaches for these conditions, we aim to provide guidance to dermatologists in their diagnosis and treatment.

INFLAMMATORY NAIL DISORDERS

Nail Psoriasis

Nail involvement in children with psoriasis is common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 17% to 39.2%.¹ Nail matrix psoriasis may manifest with pitting (large irregular pits) and leukonychia as well as chromonychia and nail plate crumbling. Onycholysis, oil drop spots (salmon patches), and subungual hyperkeratosis can be seen in nail bed psoriasis. Nail pitting is the most frequently observed clinical finding (Figure 1).^2,3 In a cross-sectional multicenter study of 313 children with cutaneous psoriasis in France, nail findings were present in 101 patients (32.3%). There were associations between nail findings and presence of psoriatic arthritis (P=.03), palmoplantar psoriasis (P<.001), and severity of psoriatic disease, defined as use of systemic treatment with phototherapy (psoralen plus UVA, UVB), traditional systemic treatment (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine), or a biologic (P=.003).⁴

Topical steroids and vitamin D analogues may be used with or without occlusion and may be efficacious.⁵ Several case reports describe systemic treatments for psoriasis in children, including methotrexate, acitretin, and apremilast (approved for children 6 years and older for plaque psoriasis by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]).² There are 5 biologic drugs currently approved for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis—adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab—and 6 drugs currently undergoing phase 3 studies—brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, certolizumab pegol, and deucravacitinib (Table 1).^6-15 Adalimumab is specifically approved for moderate to severe nail psoriasis in adults 18 years and older.

Intralesional steroid injections are sometimes useful in the management of nail matrix psoriasis; however, appropriate patient selection is critical due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a prospective study of 16 children (age range, 9–17 years) with nail psoriasis treated with intralesional triamcinolone (ILTAC) 2.5 to 5 mg/mL every 4 to 8 weeks for a minimum of 3 to 6 months, 9 patients achieved resolution and 6 had improvement of clinical findings.¹⁶ Local adverse events were mild, including injection-site pain (66%), subungual hematoma (n=1), Beau lines (n=1), proximal nail fold hypopigmentation (n=2), and proximal nail fold atrophy (n=2). Because the proximal nail fold in children is thinner than in adults, there may be an increased risk for nail fold hypopigmentation and atrophy in children. Therefore, a maximum ILTAC concentration of 2.5 mg/mL with 0.2 mL maximum volume per nail per session is recommended for children younger than 15 years.¹⁶

Nail Lichen Planus

Nail lichen planus (NLP) is uncommon in children, with few biopsy-proven cases documented in the literature.¹⁷ Common clinical findings are onychorrhexis, nail plate thinning, fissuring, splitting, and atrophy with koilonychia.⁵ Although pterygium development (irreversible nail matrix scarring) is uncommon in pediatric patients, NLP can be progressive and may cause irreversible destruction of the nail matrix and subsequent nail loss, warranting therapeutic intervention.¹⁸

Treatment of NLP may be difficult, as there are no options that work in all patients. Current literature supports the use of systemic corticosteroids or ILTAC for the treatment of NLP; however, recurrence rates can be high. According to an expert consensus paper on NLP treatment, ILTAC may be injected in a concentration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL according to disease severity.¹⁹ In severe or resistant cases, intramuscular (IM) triamcinolone may be considered, especially if more than 3 nails are affected. A dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/mo for at least 3 to 6 months is recommended for both children and adults, with 1 mg/kg/mo recommended in the active treatment phase (first 2–3 months).¹⁹ In a retrospective review of 5 pediatric patients with NLP treated with IM triamcinolone 0.5 mg/kg/mo, 3 patients had resolution and 2 improved with treatment.²⁰ In a prospective study of 10 children with NLP, IM triamcinolone at a dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg every 30 days for 3 to 6 months resulted in resolution of nail findings in 9 patients.¹⁷ In a prospective study of 14 pediatric patients with NLP treated with 2.5 to 5 mg/mL of ILTAC, 10 achieved resolution and 3 improved.¹⁶

Intralesional triamcinolone injections may be better suited for teenagers compared to younger children who may be more apprehensive of needles. To minimize pain, it is recommended to inject ILTAC slowly at room temperature, with use of “talkesthesia” and vibration devices, 1% lidocaine, or ethyl chloride spray.¹⁸

Trachyonychia

Trachyonychia is characterized by the presence of sandpaperlike nails. It manifests with brittle thin nails with longitudinal ridging, onychoschizia, and thickened hyperkeratotic cuticles. Trachyonychia typically involves multiple nails, with a peak age of onset between 3 and 12 years.^21,22 There are 2 variants: the opaque type with rough longitudinal ridging, and the shiny variant with opalescent nails and pits that reflect light. The opaque variant is more common and is associated with psoriasis, whereas the shiny variant is less common and is associated with alopecia areata.²³ Although most cases are idiopathic, some are associated with psoriasis and alopecia areata, as previously noted, as well as atopic dermatitis (AD) and lichen planus.^22,24

Fortunately, trachyonychia does not lead to permanent nail damage or pterygium, making treatment primarily focused on addressing functional and cosmetic concerns.²⁴ Spontaneous resolution occurs in approximately 50% of patients. In a prospective study of 11 patients with idiopathic trachyonychia, there was partial improvement in 5 of 9 patients treated with topical steroids, 1 with only petrolatum, and 1 with vitamin supplements. Complete resolution was reported in 1 patient treated with topical steroids.²⁵ Because trachyonychia often is self-resolving, no treatment is required and a conservative approach is strongly recommended.²⁶ Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and 5-fluorouracil. Intralesional triamcinolone, systemic cyclosporine, retinoids, systemic corticosteroids, and tofacitinib have been described in case reports, though none of these have been shown to be 100% efficacious.²⁴

Nail Lichen Striatus

Lichen striatus involving the nail is uncommon and is characterized by onycholysis, longitudinal ridging, ­splitting, and fraying, as well as what appears to be a subungual tumor. It can encompass the entire nail or may be isolated to a portion of the nail (Figure 2). Usually, a Blaschko-linear array of flesh-colored papules on the more proximal digit directly adjacent to the nail dystrophy will be seen, though nail findings can occur in ­isolation.^27-29 The underlying pathophysiology is not clear; however, one hypothesis is that a triggering event, such as trauma, induces the expression of antigens that elicit a self-limiting immune-mediated response by CD8 T lymphocytes.³⁰

Generally, nail lichen striatus spontaneously resolves in 1 to 2 years without treatment. In a prospective study of 5 patients with nail lichen striatus, the median time to resolution was 22.6 months (range, 10–30 months).³¹ Topical steroids may be used for pruritus. In one case report, a 3-year-old boy with nail lichen striatus of 4 months’ duration was treated with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% daily for 3 months.²⁸

Nail AD

Nail changes with AD may be more common in adults than children or are underreported. In a study of 777 adults with AD, nail dystrophy was present in 124 patients (16%), whereas in a study of 250 pediatric patients with AD (aged 0-2 years), nail dystrophy was present in only 4 patients.^32,33

Periungual inflammation from AD causes the nail changes.³⁴ In a cross-sectional study of 24 pediatric patients with nail dystrophy due to AD, transverse grooves (Beau lines) were present in 25% (6/24), nail pitting in 16.7% (4/24), koilonychia in 16.7% (4/24), trachyonychia in 12.5% (3/24), leukonychia in 12.5% (3/24), brachyonychia in 8.3% (2/24), melanonychia in 8.3% (2/24), onychomadesis in 8.3% (2/24), onychoschizia in 8.3% (2/24), and onycholysis in 8.3% (2/24). There was an association between disease severity and presence of toenail dystrophy (P=.03).³⁵

Topical steroids with or without occlusion can be used to treat nail changes. Although there is limited literature describing the treatment of nail AD in children, a 61-year-old man with nail changes associated with AD achieved resolution with 3 months of treatment with dupilumab.³⁶ Anecdotally, most patients will improve with usual cutaneous AD management.

INFECTIOUS NAIL DISORDERS

Viral Infections

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease—Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood viral infection caused by various enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16, with the A6 variant causing more severe disease. Fever and painful vesicles involving the oral mucosa as well as palms and soles give the disease its name. Nail changes are common. In a prospective study involving 130 patients with laboratory-confirmed coxsackievirus CA6 serotype infection, 37% developed onychomadesis vs only 5% of 145 cases with non-CA6 enterovirus infection who developed nail findings. There was an association between CA6 infection and presence of nail changes (P<.001).³⁷

Findings ranging from transverse grooves (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding (onychomadesis)(Figure 3) may be seen.^38,39 Nail findings in HFMD are due to transient inhibition of nail growth and present approximately 3 to 6 weeks after infection.⁴⁰ Onychomadesis is seen in 30% to 68% of patients with HFMD.^37,41,42 Nail findings in HFMD spontaneously resolve with nail growth (2–3 mm per month for fingernails and 1 mm per month for toenails) and do not require specific treatment. Although the appearance of nail changes associated with HFMD can be disturbing, dermatologists can reassure children and their parents that the nails will resolve with the next cycle of growth.

Kawasaki Disease—Kawasaki disease (KD) is a vasculitis primarily affecting children and infants. Although the specific pathogen and pathophysiology is not entirely clear, clinical observations have suggested an infectious cause, most likely a virus.⁴³ In Japan, more than 15,000 cases of KD are documented annually, while approximately 4200 cases are seen in the United States.⁴⁴ In a prospective study from 1984 to 1990, 4 of 26 (15.4%) patients with KD presented with nail manifestations during the late acute phase or early convalescent phase of disease. There were no significant associations between nail dystrophy and severity of KD, such as coronary artery aneurysm.⁴⁵

Nail changes reported in children with KD include onychomadesis, onycholysis, orange-brown chromonychia, splinter hemorrhages, Beau lines, and pincer nails. In a review of nail changes associated with KD from 1980 to 2021, orange-brown transverse chromonychia, which may evolve into transverse leukonychia, was the most common nail finding reported, occurring in 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients.⁴⁴ It has been hypothesized that nail changes may result from blood flow disturbance due to the underlying vasculitis.⁴⁶ Nail changes appear several weeks after the onset of fever and are self-limited. Resolution occurs with nail growth, with no treatment required.

FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nails that occurs in 0.2% to 5.5% of pediatric patients, and its prevalence may be increasing, which may be due to environmental factors or increased rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity in the pediatric population.⁴⁷ Onychomycosis represents 15.5% of nail dystrophies in pediatric patients.⁴⁸ Some dermatologists treat presumptive onychomycosis without confirmation; however, we do not recommend that approach. Because the differential is broad and the duration of treatment is long, mycologic examination (potassium hydroxide preparation, fungal culture, polymerase chain reaction, and/or histopathology) should be obtained to confirm onychomycosis prior to initiation of antifungal management. Family members of affected individuals should be evaluated and treated, if indicated, for onychomycosis and tinea pedis, as household transmission is common.

Currently, there are 2 topical FDA-approved treatments for pediatric onychomycosis in children 6 years and older (Table 2).^49,50 There is a discussion of the need for confirmatory testing for onychomycosis in children, particularly when systemic treatment is prescribed. In a retrospective review of 269 pediatric patients with onychomycosis prescribed terbinafine, 53.5% (n=144) underwent laboratory monitoring of liver function and complete blood cell counts, and 12.5% had grade 1 laboratory abnormalities either prior to (12/144 [8.3%]) or during (6/144 [4.2%]) therapy.⁵¹ Baseline transaminase monitoring is recommended, though subsequent routine laboratory monitoring in healthy children may have limited utility with associated increased costs, incidental findings, and patient discomfort and likely is not needed.⁵¹

Pediatric onychomycosis responds better to topical therapy than adult disease, and pediatric patients do not always require systemic treatment.⁵² Ciclopirox is not FDA approved for the treatment of pediatric onychomycosis, but in a 32-week clinical trial of ciclopirox lacquer 8% use in 40 patients, 77% (27/35) of treated patients achieved mycologic cure. Overall, 71% of treated patients (25/35) vs 22% (2/9) of controls achieved efficacy (defined as investigator global assessment score of 2 or lower).⁵² In an open-label, single-arm clinical trial assessing tavaborole solution 5% applied once daily for 48 weeks for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in pediatric patients (aged 6–17 years), 36.2% (20/55) of patients achieved mycologic cure, and 8.5% (5/55) achieved complete cure at week 52 with mild or minimal adverse effects.⁵³ In an open-label, phase 4 study of the safety and efficacy of efinaconazole solution 10% applied once daily for 48 weeks in pediatric patients (aged 6 to 16 years) (n=60), 65% (35/60) achieved mycologic cure, 42% (25/60) achieved clinical cure, and 40% (24/60) achieved complete cure at 52 weeks. The most common adverse effects of efina­conazole were local and included ingrown toenail (1/60), application-site dermatitis (1/60), application-site vesicles (1/60), and application-site pain (1/60).⁵⁴

In a systematic review of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in 151 pediatric patients, itraconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine resulted in complete cure rates similar to those of the adult population, with excellent safety profiles.⁵⁵ Depending on the situation, initiation of treatment with topical medications followed by addition of systemic antifungal agents only if needed may be an appropriate course of action.

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS

Acute Paronychia

Acute paronychia is a nail-fold infection that develops after the protective nail barrier has been compromised.⁵⁶ In children, thumb-sucking, nail-biting, frequent oral manipulation of the digits, and poor skin hygiene are risk factors. Acute paronychia also may develop in association with congenital malalignment of the great toenails.⁵⁷

Clinical manifestations include localized pain, erythema, and nail fold edema (Figure 4). Purulent material and abscess formation may ensue. Staphylococcus aureus as well as methicillin-resistant S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are classically the most common causes of acute paronychia. Treatment of paronychia is based on severity. In mild cases, warm soaks with topical antibiotics are indicated. Oral antibiotics should be prescribed for more severe presentations. If there is no improvement after 48 hours, surgical drainage is required to facilitate healing.⁵⁶

FINAL THOUGHTS

Inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in children are relatively common and may impact the physical and emotional well-being of young patients. By understanding the distinctive features of these nail disorders in pediatric patients, dermatologists can provide anticipatory guidance and informed treatment options to children and their parents. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of pediatric nail disorders and create targeted therapeutic interventions, particularly for NLP and psoriasis.

Nail disorders are common among pediatric patients but often are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of their unique disease manifestations. These conditions may severely impact quality of life. There are few nail disease clinical trials that include children. Consequently, most treatment recommendations are based on case series and expert consensus recommendations. We review inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in pediatric patients. By describing characteristics, clinical manifestations, and management approaches for these conditions, we aim to provide guidance to dermatologists in their diagnosis and treatment.

INFLAMMATORY NAIL DISORDERS

Nail Psoriasis

Nail involvement in children with psoriasis is common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 17% to 39.2%.¹ Nail matrix psoriasis may manifest with pitting (large irregular pits) and leukonychia as well as chromonychia and nail plate crumbling. Onycholysis, oil drop spots (salmon patches), and subungual hyperkeratosis can be seen in nail bed psoriasis. Nail pitting is the most frequently observed clinical finding (Figure 1).^2,3 In a cross-sectional multicenter study of 313 children with cutaneous psoriasis in France, nail findings were present in 101 patients (32.3%). There were associations between nail findings and presence of psoriatic arthritis (P=.03), palmoplantar psoriasis (P<.001), and severity of psoriatic disease, defined as use of systemic treatment with phototherapy (psoralen plus UVA, UVB), traditional systemic treatment (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine), or a biologic (P=.003).⁴

Topical steroids and vitamin D analogues may be used with or without occlusion and may be efficacious.⁵ Several case reports describe systemic treatments for psoriasis in children, including methotrexate, acitretin, and apremilast (approved for children 6 years and older for plaque psoriasis by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]).² There are 5 biologic drugs currently approved for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis—adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab—and 6 drugs currently undergoing phase 3 studies—brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, certolizumab pegol, and deucravacitinib (Table 1).^6-15 Adalimumab is specifically approved for moderate to severe nail psoriasis in adults 18 years and older.

Intralesional steroid injections are sometimes useful in the management of nail matrix psoriasis; however, appropriate patient selection is critical due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a prospective study of 16 children (age range, 9–17 years) with nail psoriasis treated with intralesional triamcinolone (ILTAC) 2.5 to 5 mg/mL every 4 to 8 weeks for a minimum of 3 to 6 months, 9 patients achieved resolution and 6 had improvement of clinical findings.¹⁶ Local adverse events were mild, including injection-site pain (66%), subungual hematoma (n=1), Beau lines (n=1), proximal nail fold hypopigmentation (n=2), and proximal nail fold atrophy (n=2). Because the proximal nail fold in children is thinner than in adults, there may be an increased risk for nail fold hypopigmentation and atrophy in children. Therefore, a maximum ILTAC concentration of 2.5 mg/mL with 0.2 mL maximum volume per nail per session is recommended for children younger than 15 years.¹⁶

Nail Lichen Planus

Nail lichen planus (NLP) is uncommon in children, with few biopsy-proven cases documented in the literature.¹⁷ Common clinical findings are onychorrhexis, nail plate thinning, fissuring, splitting, and atrophy with koilonychia.⁵ Although pterygium development (irreversible nail matrix scarring) is uncommon in pediatric patients, NLP can be progressive and may cause irreversible destruction of the nail matrix and subsequent nail loss, warranting therapeutic intervention.¹⁸

Treatment of NLP may be difficult, as there are no options that work in all patients. Current literature supports the use of systemic corticosteroids or ILTAC for the treatment of NLP; however, recurrence rates can be high. According to an expert consensus paper on NLP treatment, ILTAC may be injected in a concentration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL according to disease severity.¹⁹ In severe or resistant cases, intramuscular (IM) triamcinolone may be considered, especially if more than 3 nails are affected. A dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/mo for at least 3 to 6 months is recommended for both children and adults, with 1 mg/kg/mo recommended in the active treatment phase (first 2–3 months).¹⁹ In a retrospective review of 5 pediatric patients with NLP treated with IM triamcinolone 0.5 mg/kg/mo, 3 patients had resolution and 2 improved with treatment.²⁰ In a prospective study of 10 children with NLP, IM triamcinolone at a dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg every 30 days for 3 to 6 months resulted in resolution of nail findings in 9 patients.¹⁷ In a prospective study of 14 pediatric patients with NLP treated with 2.5 to 5 mg/mL of ILTAC, 10 achieved resolution and 3 improved.¹⁶

Intralesional triamcinolone injections may be better suited for teenagers compared to younger children who may be more apprehensive of needles. To minimize pain, it is recommended to inject ILTAC slowly at room temperature, with use of “talkesthesia” and vibration devices, 1% lidocaine, or ethyl chloride spray.¹⁸

Trachyonychia

Trachyonychia is characterized by the presence of sandpaperlike nails. It manifests with brittle thin nails with longitudinal ridging, onychoschizia, and thickened hyperkeratotic cuticles. Trachyonychia typically involves multiple nails, with a peak age of onset between 3 and 12 years.^21,22 There are 2 variants: the opaque type with rough longitudinal ridging, and the shiny variant with opalescent nails and pits that reflect light. The opaque variant is more common and is associated with psoriasis, whereas the shiny variant is less common and is associated with alopecia areata.²³ Although most cases are idiopathic, some are associated with psoriasis and alopecia areata, as previously noted, as well as atopic dermatitis (AD) and lichen planus.^22,24

Fortunately, trachyonychia does not lead to permanent nail damage or pterygium, making treatment primarily focused on addressing functional and cosmetic concerns.²⁴ Spontaneous resolution occurs in approximately 50% of patients. In a prospective study of 11 patients with idiopathic trachyonychia, there was partial improvement in 5 of 9 patients treated with topical steroids, 1 with only petrolatum, and 1 with vitamin supplements. Complete resolution was reported in 1 patient treated with topical steroids.²⁵ Because trachyonychia often is self-resolving, no treatment is required and a conservative approach is strongly recommended.²⁶ Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and 5-fluorouracil. Intralesional triamcinolone, systemic cyclosporine, retinoids, systemic corticosteroids, and tofacitinib have been described in case reports, though none of these have been shown to be 100% efficacious.²⁴

Nail Lichen Striatus

Lichen striatus involving the nail is uncommon and is characterized by onycholysis, longitudinal ridging, ­splitting, and fraying, as well as what appears to be a subungual tumor. It can encompass the entire nail or may be isolated to a portion of the nail (Figure 2). Usually, a Blaschko-linear array of flesh-colored papules on the more proximal digit directly adjacent to the nail dystrophy will be seen, though nail findings can occur in ­isolation.^27-29 The underlying pathophysiology is not clear; however, one hypothesis is that a triggering event, such as trauma, induces the expression of antigens that elicit a self-limiting immune-mediated response by CD8 T lymphocytes.³⁰

Generally, nail lichen striatus spontaneously resolves in 1 to 2 years without treatment. In a prospective study of 5 patients with nail lichen striatus, the median time to resolution was 22.6 months (range, 10–30 months).³¹ Topical steroids may be used for pruritus. In one case report, a 3-year-old boy with nail lichen striatus of 4 months’ duration was treated with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% daily for 3 months.²⁸

Nail AD

Nail changes with AD may be more common in adults than children or are underreported. In a study of 777 adults with AD, nail dystrophy was present in 124 patients (16%), whereas in a study of 250 pediatric patients with AD (aged 0-2 years), nail dystrophy was present in only 4 patients.^32,33

Periungual inflammation from AD causes the nail changes.³⁴ In a cross-sectional study of 24 pediatric patients with nail dystrophy due to AD, transverse grooves (Beau lines) were present in 25% (6/24), nail pitting in 16.7% (4/24), koilonychia in 16.7% (4/24), trachyonychia in 12.5% (3/24), leukonychia in 12.5% (3/24), brachyonychia in 8.3% (2/24), melanonychia in 8.3% (2/24), onychomadesis in 8.3% (2/24), onychoschizia in 8.3% (2/24), and onycholysis in 8.3% (2/24). There was an association between disease severity and presence of toenail dystrophy (P=.03).³⁵

Topical steroids with or without occlusion can be used to treat nail changes. Although there is limited literature describing the treatment of nail AD in children, a 61-year-old man with nail changes associated with AD achieved resolution with 3 months of treatment with dupilumab.³⁶ Anecdotally, most patients will improve with usual cutaneous AD management.

INFECTIOUS NAIL DISORDERS

Viral Infections

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease—Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood viral infection caused by various enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16, with the A6 variant causing more severe disease. Fever and painful vesicles involving the oral mucosa as well as palms and soles give the disease its name. Nail changes are common. In a prospective study involving 130 patients with laboratory-confirmed coxsackievirus CA6 serotype infection, 37% developed onychomadesis vs only 5% of 145 cases with non-CA6 enterovirus infection who developed nail findings. There was an association between CA6 infection and presence of nail changes (P<.001).³⁷

Findings ranging from transverse grooves (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding (onychomadesis)(Figure 3) may be seen.^38,39 Nail findings in HFMD are due to transient inhibition of nail growth and present approximately 3 to 6 weeks after infection.⁴⁰ Onychomadesis is seen in 30% to 68% of patients with HFMD.^37,41,42 Nail findings in HFMD spontaneously resolve with nail growth (2–3 mm per month for fingernails and 1 mm per month for toenails) and do not require specific treatment. Although the appearance of nail changes associated with HFMD can be disturbing, dermatologists can reassure children and their parents that the nails will resolve with the next cycle of growth.

Kawasaki Disease—Kawasaki disease (KD) is a vasculitis primarily affecting children and infants. Although the specific pathogen and pathophysiology is not entirely clear, clinical observations have suggested an infectious cause, most likely a virus.⁴³ In Japan, more than 15,000 cases of KD are documented annually, while approximately 4200 cases are seen in the United States.⁴⁴ In a prospective study from 1984 to 1990, 4 of 26 (15.4%) patients with KD presented with nail manifestations during the late acute phase or early convalescent phase of disease. There were no significant associations between nail dystrophy and severity of KD, such as coronary artery aneurysm.⁴⁵

Nail changes reported in children with KD include onychomadesis, onycholysis, orange-brown chromonychia, splinter hemorrhages, Beau lines, and pincer nails. In a review of nail changes associated with KD from 1980 to 2021, orange-brown transverse chromonychia, which may evolve into transverse leukonychia, was the most common nail finding reported, occurring in 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients.⁴⁴ It has been hypothesized that nail changes may result from blood flow disturbance due to the underlying vasculitis.⁴⁶ Nail changes appear several weeks after the onset of fever and are self-limited. Resolution occurs with nail growth, with no treatment required.

FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nails that occurs in 0.2% to 5.5% of pediatric patients, and its prevalence may be increasing, which may be due to environmental factors or increased rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity in the pediatric population.⁴⁷ Onychomycosis represents 15.5% of nail dystrophies in pediatric patients.⁴⁸ Some dermatologists treat presumptive onychomycosis without confirmation; however, we do not recommend that approach. Because the differential is broad and the duration of treatment is long, mycologic examination (potassium hydroxide preparation, fungal culture, polymerase chain reaction, and/or histopathology) should be obtained to confirm onychomycosis prior to initiation of antifungal management. Family members of affected individuals should be evaluated and treated, if indicated, for onychomycosis and tinea pedis, as household transmission is common.

Currently, there are 2 topical FDA-approved treatments for pediatric onychomycosis in children 6 years and older (Table 2).^49,50 There is a discussion of the need for confirmatory testing for onychomycosis in children, particularly when systemic treatment is prescribed. In a retrospective review of 269 pediatric patients with onychomycosis prescribed terbinafine, 53.5% (n=144) underwent laboratory monitoring of liver function and complete blood cell counts, and 12.5% had grade 1 laboratory abnormalities either prior to (12/144 [8.3%]) or during (6/144 [4.2%]) therapy.⁵¹ Baseline transaminase monitoring is recommended, though subsequent routine laboratory monitoring in healthy children may have limited utility with associated increased costs, incidental findings, and patient discomfort and likely is not needed.⁵¹

Pediatric onychomycosis responds better to topical therapy than adult disease, and pediatric patients do not always require systemic treatment.⁵² Ciclopirox is not FDA approved for the treatment of pediatric onychomycosis, but in a 32-week clinical trial of ciclopirox lacquer 8% use in 40 patients, 77% (27/35) of treated patients achieved mycologic cure. Overall, 71% of treated patients (25/35) vs 22% (2/9) of controls achieved efficacy (defined as investigator global assessment score of 2 or lower).⁵² In an open-label, single-arm clinical trial assessing tavaborole solution 5% applied once daily for 48 weeks for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in pediatric patients (aged 6–17 years), 36.2% (20/55) of patients achieved mycologic cure, and 8.5% (5/55) achieved complete cure at week 52 with mild or minimal adverse effects.⁵³ In an open-label, phase 4 study of the safety and efficacy of efinaconazole solution 10% applied once daily for 48 weeks in pediatric patients (aged 6 to 16 years) (n=60), 65% (35/60) achieved mycologic cure, 42% (25/60) achieved clinical cure, and 40% (24/60) achieved complete cure at 52 weeks. The most common adverse effects of efina­conazole were local and included ingrown toenail (1/60), application-site dermatitis (1/60), application-site vesicles (1/60), and application-site pain (1/60).⁵⁴

In a systematic review of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in 151 pediatric patients, itraconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine resulted in complete cure rates similar to those of the adult population, with excellent safety profiles.⁵⁵ Depending on the situation, initiation of treatment with topical medications followed by addition of systemic antifungal agents only if needed may be an appropriate course of action.

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS

Acute Paronychia

Acute paronychia is a nail-fold infection that develops after the protective nail barrier has been compromised.⁵⁶ In children, thumb-sucking, nail-biting, frequent oral manipulation of the digits, and poor skin hygiene are risk factors. Acute paronychia also may develop in association with congenital malalignment of the great toenails.⁵⁷

Clinical manifestations include localized pain, erythema, and nail fold edema (Figure 4). Purulent material and abscess formation may ensue. Staphylococcus aureus as well as methicillin-resistant S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are classically the most common causes of acute paronychia. Treatment of paronychia is based on severity. In mild cases, warm soaks with topical antibiotics are indicated. Oral antibiotics should be prescribed for more severe presentations. If there is no improvement after 48 hours, surgical drainage is required to facilitate healing.⁵⁶

FINAL THOUGHTS

Inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in children are relatively common and may impact the physical and emotional well-being of young patients. By understanding the distinctive features of these nail disorders in pediatric patients, dermatologists can provide anticipatory guidance and informed treatment options to children and their parents. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of pediatric nail disorders and create targeted therapeutic interventions, particularly for NLP and psoriasis.

The combination of the antiviral bulevirtide (Hepcludex) plus pegylated interferon alfa-2a was superior to bulevirtide monotherapy for chronic hepatitis delta (HDV) infection, a multinational phase 2b open-label study in Europe found.

The combination resulted in higher rates of HDV RNA suppression levels at 24 weeks after end of treatment, especially at a higher, 10-mg dose of bulevirtide, according to researchers led by Tarik Asselah, MD. PhD, a professor of medicine and hepatology at Hôpital Beaujon, APHP, Clichy, France, and the University of Paris.

“This response appeared to be maintained from 24-48 weeks after the end of treatment — a finding that supports the concept that sustained undetectable HDV RNA for at least 1 year after treatment is possible in patients with chronic hepatitis D who have been treated with a finite duration of therapy of at least 96 weeks, including 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a therapy,” the investigators wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“As of today, there is no approved treatment for chronic HDV infection in the United States. Pegylated interferon alfa-2a, which is not approved for treatment of HDV, is the only option recommended by US treatment guidelines,” said study corresponding author Fabien Zoulim, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the Lyon Hepatology Institute and a professor of medicine at the University of Lyon in France, in comments to GI & Hepatology News. “Bulevirtide 2 mg is approved for treating chronic HDV and compensated liver disease, and both bulevirtide and peginterferon are recommended options by the European treatment guidelines.”

The study found that most patients with undetectable HDV RNA levels during treatment-free follow-up showed no reduction in HepB surface antigen (HBsAg), suggesting an undetectable HDV RNA level can be achieved and sustained without HBsAg loss, the authors wrote.

While very small numbers in the combo groups and the higher-dose bulevirtide arm cleared HBsAg, “the study was not powered to evaluate the HBsAg response,” Dr. Zoulim said.

HDV is a defective virus that requires HBsAg for assembly and propagation, the authors noted. It affects as many as 20 million persons worldwide, and as the most severe form of chronic viral hepatitis, is associated with 2-6 times the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and 2-3 times the risk of death associated with HBV monoinfection.

Though not common in the United States, it affects an estimated 10 to 20 million people worldwide (J Hepatol. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.04.008). One US database study found HepD in 4.6% of patients with HepB infection.

Commenting on the study but not a participant in it, Ahmet O. Gurakar, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the sections of gastroenterology and hepatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said the study findings look promising for the future treatment of HepD, but cautioned that it will be “a slow process to get approval for combination therapy with bulevirtide since the FDA has previously said it needs to see more studies. The findings need to be confirmed in larger groups, but it’s difficult to recruit enough patients in the United States for a trial since hepatitis D is not common in this country — it’s more common in the Mediterranean basin Eastern European populations.”

The Trial

The investigators randomly assigned 174, largely male, patients ages 18-65 (mean, about 41) years to receive one of four treatments:

• Pegylated interferon alfa-2a alone at 180 μg per week) for 48 weeks (n = 24).
• Bulevirtide at a daily dose of 2 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a at 180 μg per week for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks (n = 50).
• Bulevirtide at 10 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a at 180 μg per week for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks (n = 50).
• Bulevirtide at a daily dose of 10 mg alone for 96 weeks (n = 50).

All were followed for 48 weeks after treatment. The primary comparison was between the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group and the 10-mg bulevirtide monotherapy group.

At 24 weeks post-treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 17% of patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group. In the other arms, HDV RNA was undetectable in 32% in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of the 10-mg bulevirtide group.

For the primary comparison, the between-group difference was 34 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 15-50; P < .001).

At 48 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 25% in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, 26% in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, 46% in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and 12% in the 10-mg bulevirtide group.

Also calling the findings promising, Anna Lok, MBBS, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that, “Given that the European Medicines Agency’s approval is for bulevirtide alone at 2 mg, results of this study should prompt reassessment whether bulevirtide should be used in combination with pegylated interferon in patients with no contraindications, and if 10 mg is more appropriate than a 2-mg dose.”

The combination of the antiviral bulevirtide (Hepcludex) plus pegylated interferon alfa-2a was superior to bulevirtide monotherapy for chronic hepatitis delta (HDV) infection, a multinational phase 2b open-label study in Europe found.

The combination resulted in higher rates of HDV RNA suppression levels at 24 weeks after end of treatment, especially at a higher, 10-mg dose of bulevirtide, according to researchers led by Tarik Asselah, MD. PhD, a professor of medicine and hepatology at Hôpital Beaujon, APHP, Clichy, France, and the University of Paris.

“This response appeared to be maintained from 24-48 weeks after the end of treatment — a finding that supports the concept that sustained undetectable HDV RNA for at least 1 year after treatment is possible in patients with chronic hepatitis D who have been treated with a finite duration of therapy of at least 96 weeks, including 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a therapy,” the investigators wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“As of today, there is no approved treatment for chronic HDV infection in the United States. Pegylated interferon alfa-2a, which is not approved for treatment of HDV, is the only option recommended by US treatment guidelines,” said study corresponding author Fabien Zoulim, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the Lyon Hepatology Institute and a professor of medicine at the University of Lyon in France, in comments to GI & Hepatology News. “Bulevirtide 2 mg is approved for treating chronic HDV and compensated liver disease, and both bulevirtide and peginterferon are recommended options by the European treatment guidelines.”

The study found that most patients with undetectable HDV RNA levels during treatment-free follow-up showed no reduction in HepB surface antigen (HBsAg), suggesting an undetectable HDV RNA level can be achieved and sustained without HBsAg loss, the authors wrote.

While very small numbers in the combo groups and the higher-dose bulevirtide arm cleared HBsAg, “the study was not powered to evaluate the HBsAg response,” Dr. Zoulim said.

HDV is a defective virus that requires HBsAg for assembly and propagation, the authors noted. It affects as many as 20 million persons worldwide, and as the most severe form of chronic viral hepatitis, is associated with 2-6 times the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and 2-3 times the risk of death associated with HBV monoinfection.

Though not common in the United States, it affects an estimated 10 to 20 million people worldwide (J Hepatol. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.04.008). One US database study found HepD in 4.6% of patients with HepB infection.

Commenting on the study but not a participant in it, Ahmet O. Gurakar, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the sections of gastroenterology and hepatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said the study findings look promising for the future treatment of HepD, but cautioned that it will be “a slow process to get approval for combination therapy with bulevirtide since the FDA has previously said it needs to see more studies. The findings need to be confirmed in larger groups, but it’s difficult to recruit enough patients in the United States for a trial since hepatitis D is not common in this country — it’s more common in the Mediterranean basin Eastern European populations.”

The Trial

The investigators randomly assigned 174, largely male, patients ages 18-65 (mean, about 41) years to receive one of four treatments:

• Pegylated interferon alfa-2a alone at 180 μg per week) for 48 weeks (n = 24).
• Bulevirtide at a daily dose of 2 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a at 180 μg per week for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks (n = 50).
• Bulevirtide at 10 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a at 180 μg per week for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks (n = 50).
• Bulevirtide at a daily dose of 10 mg alone for 96 weeks (n = 50).

All were followed for 48 weeks after treatment. The primary comparison was between the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group and the 10-mg bulevirtide monotherapy group.

At 24 weeks post-treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 17% of patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group. In the other arms, HDV RNA was undetectable in 32% in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of the 10-mg bulevirtide group.

For the primary comparison, the between-group difference was 34 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 15-50; P < .001).

At 48 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 25% in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, 26% in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, 46% in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and 12% in the 10-mg bulevirtide group.

Also calling the findings promising, Anna Lok, MBBS, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that, “Given that the European Medicines Agency’s approval is for bulevirtide alone at 2 mg, results of this study should prompt reassessment whether bulevirtide should be used in combination with pegylated interferon in patients with no contraindications, and if 10 mg is more appropriate than a 2-mg dose.”

The combination of the antiviral bulevirtide (Hepcludex) plus pegylated interferon alfa-2a was superior to bulevirtide monotherapy for chronic hepatitis delta (HDV) infection, a multinational phase 2b open-label study in Europe found.

The combination resulted in higher rates of HDV RNA suppression levels at 24 weeks after end of treatment, especially at a higher, 10-mg dose of bulevirtide, according to researchers led by Tarik Asselah, MD. PhD, a professor of medicine and hepatology at Hôpital Beaujon, APHP, Clichy, France, and the University of Paris.

“This response appeared to be maintained from 24-48 weeks after the end of treatment — a finding that supports the concept that sustained undetectable HDV RNA for at least 1 year after treatment is possible in patients with chronic hepatitis D who have been treated with a finite duration of therapy of at least 96 weeks, including 48 weeks of peginterferon alfa-2a therapy,” the investigators wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine.

“As of today, there is no approved treatment for chronic HDV infection in the United States. Pegylated interferon alfa-2a, which is not approved for treatment of HDV, is the only option recommended by US treatment guidelines,” said study corresponding author Fabien Zoulim, MD, PhD, a hepatologist at the Lyon Hepatology Institute and a professor of medicine at the University of Lyon in France, in comments to GI & Hepatology News. “Bulevirtide 2 mg is approved for treating chronic HDV and compensated liver disease, and both bulevirtide and peginterferon are recommended options by the European treatment guidelines.”

The study found that most patients with undetectable HDV RNA levels during treatment-free follow-up showed no reduction in HepB surface antigen (HBsAg), suggesting an undetectable HDV RNA level can be achieved and sustained without HBsAg loss, the authors wrote.

While very small numbers in the combo groups and the higher-dose bulevirtide arm cleared HBsAg, “the study was not powered to evaluate the HBsAg response,” Dr. Zoulim said.

HDV is a defective virus that requires HBsAg for assembly and propagation, the authors noted. It affects as many as 20 million persons worldwide, and as the most severe form of chronic viral hepatitis, is associated with 2-6 times the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma and 2-3 times the risk of death associated with HBV monoinfection.

Though not common in the United States, it affects an estimated 10 to 20 million people worldwide (J Hepatol. 2020 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.04.008). One US database study found HepD in 4.6% of patients with HepB infection.

Commenting on the study but not a participant in it, Ahmet O. Gurakar, MD, AGAF, a professor of medicine in the sections of gastroenterology and hepatology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, said the study findings look promising for the future treatment of HepD, but cautioned that it will be “a slow process to get approval for combination therapy with bulevirtide since the FDA has previously said it needs to see more studies. The findings need to be confirmed in larger groups, but it’s difficult to recruit enough patients in the United States for a trial since hepatitis D is not common in this country — it’s more common in the Mediterranean basin Eastern European populations.”

The Trial

The investigators randomly assigned 174, largely male, patients ages 18-65 (mean, about 41) years to receive one of four treatments:

• Pegylated interferon alfa-2a alone at 180 μg per week) for 48 weeks (n = 24).
• Bulevirtide at a daily dose of 2 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a at 180 μg per week for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks (n = 50).
• Bulevirtide at 10 mg plus peginterferon alfa-2a at 180 μg per week for 48 weeks, followed by the same daily dose of bulevirtide for 48 weeks (n = 50).
• Bulevirtide at a daily dose of 10 mg alone for 96 weeks (n = 50).

All were followed for 48 weeks after treatment. The primary comparison was between the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group and the 10-mg bulevirtide monotherapy group.

At 24 weeks post-treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 17% of patients in the peginterferon alfa-2a group. In the other arms, HDV RNA was undetectable in 32% in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, in 46% of the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and in 12% of the 10-mg bulevirtide group.

For the primary comparison, the between-group difference was 34 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 15-50; P < .001).

At 48 weeks after the end of treatment, HDV RNA was undetectable in 25% in the peginterferon alfa-2a group, 26% in the 2-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, 46% in the 10-mg bulevirtide plus peginterferon alfa-2a group, and 12% in the 10-mg bulevirtide group.

Also calling the findings promising, Anna Lok, MBBS, MD, AGAF, a gastroenterologist at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said that, “Given that the European Medicines Agency’s approval is for bulevirtide alone at 2 mg, results of this study should prompt reassessment whether bulevirtide should be used in combination with pegylated interferon in patients with no contraindications, and if 10 mg is more appropriate than a 2-mg dose.”

TOPLINE:

Men at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer had more than a threefold increased risk for early death from the disease, and about one third of these deaths may have been preventable through healthy lifestyle choices, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
• In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
• Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
• A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
• The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
• Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
• Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
• Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.

IN PRACTICE:

“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.

DISCLOSURES:

The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer had more than a threefold increased risk for early death from the disease, and about one third of these deaths may have been preventable through healthy lifestyle choices, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
• In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
• Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
• A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
• The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
• Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
• Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
• Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.

IN PRACTICE:

“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.

DISCLOSURES:

The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Men at higher genetic risk for prostate cancer had more than a threefold increased risk for early death from the disease, and about one third of these deaths may have been preventable through healthy lifestyle choices, a new analysis found.

METHODOLOGY:

• About one third of men die from prostate cancer before age 75, highlighting the need for prevention strategies that target high-risk populations.
• In the current study, researchers analyzed data from two prospective cohort studies — the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) — which included 19,607 men with a median age at inclusion of 59 years (MDCS) and 65.1 years (HPFS) followed from 1991 to 2019.
• Participants were categorized by genetic risk and lifestyle score. Genetic risk was defined using a multiancestry polygenic risk score (PRS) for overall prostate cancer that included 400 genetic risk variants.
• A healthy lifestyle score was defined as 3-6, while an unhealthy lifestyle score was 0-2. Lifestyle factors included smoking, weight, physical activity, and diet.
• The researchers calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for the association between genetic and lifestyle factors and prostate cancer death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combining the PRS and family history of cancer, 67% of men overall (13,186 of 19,607) were considered to have higher genetic risk, and about 30% overall had an unhealthy lifestyle score of 0-2.
• Men at higher genetic risk accounted for 88% (94 of 107) of early prostate cancer deaths.
• Compared with men at lower genetic risk, those at higher genetic risk had more than a threefold higher rate of early prostate cancer death (HR, 3.26) and more than a twofold increased rate of late prostate cancer death (HR, 2.26) as well as a higher lifetime risk for prostate cancer death.
• Among men at higher genetic risk, an unhealthy lifestyle was associated with a higher risk of early prostate cancer death, with smoking and a BMI of ≥ 30 being significant factors. Depending on the definition of a healthy lifestyle, the researchers estimated that 22%-36% of early prostate cancer deaths among men at higher genetic risk might be preventable.

IN PRACTICE:

“Based on data from two prospective cohort studies, this analysis provides evidence for targeting men at increased genetic risk with prevention strategies aimed at reducing premature deaths from prostate cancer,” the researchers concluded.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Anna Plym, PhD, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, was published online on July 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Differences in prostate cancer testing and treatment may account for some of the observed association between a healthy lifestyle and prostate cancer death. This analysis provides an estimate of what is achievable in terms of prevention had everyone adopted a healthy lifestyle. The authors only considered factors at study entry, which would not include changes that happen later.

DISCLOSURES:

The study authors reported several disclosures. Fredrik Wiklund, PhD, received grants from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Janssen, Varian Medical Systems, and WebMD, and stock options and personal fees from Cortechs Labs outside the submitted work. Adam S. Kibel, MD, received personal fees from Janssen, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cellvax, Merck, and Roche and served as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Candel outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Hi, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Sex Matters. I am Dr Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area, and I am thrilled to bring you this next guest. This is someone I am a huge fan of. I have been following her research for decades now, and we are so blessed to have her: Debby Herbenick. Why don’t you introduce yourself and tell people all about your research?

Debby Herbenick, PhD: I’m a professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health, and I’ve been a sexuality researcher and educator for about 25 years. I’ve studied issues related to women’s orgasm, vibrator use, how people feel about their genitals, and how that impacts whether or not they are comfortable seeking healthcare. Most recently, I’ve been looking at emerging sexual practices.

Dr. Rubin: You can’t be in sexual medicine without knowing Dr. Herbenick’s work. It is just instrumental to our knowledge about what people are actually doing, what people care about, and what’s happening out there. Probably not a day goes by that I don’t quote your research on how women experience sexual pleasure, how women orgasm. Can you talk briefly about that research?

Dr. Herbenick: I’ve done a lot of research related to pleasure and orgasm, some related to the different styles of touch, some related to vibrator use, showing that more than half of women reported having ever used a vibrator. The key is really variety. People need to feel comfortable with the way that they experience their bodies and their own paths to pleasure, and feel supported in being able to explore in that way.

Dr. Rubin: And what are some resources? What I often quote is that everyone thinks, because of Hollywood and pornography, that women orgasm from vaginal penetration alone, which of course we know physiologically doesn’t make sense. The numbers are staggering. People often go to their doctor and say: “I’m not normal. I can’t orgasm from penetration. Is there something wrong with me?”

Dr. Herbenick: Most women are not orgasming from vaginal intercourse alone. Many have added direct clitoral stimulation. Others prefer to receive oral sex. Some are having orgasms with a vibrator or other kinds of sex toys. And for some, it’s not just the behavior, right? It’s having the behavior in a certain amount of intimacy or connection with a partner, so really focusing on that as well.

Dr. Rubin: Your data show that more than 50% of women have used vibration in the past. I tell my male patients as well that the penis and the clitoris are the same. The penis likes vibration too, but many have never tried it. As a clinician, being able to encourage patients to use these devices and tools is really important. Your data help us show that this is an important aspect of pleasure.

Dr. Herbenick: I’m always glad to hear they’re helpful. And, of course, our research really focused on vibrators, but it’s been so interesting to see the sexual enhancement products change over the years. And now we have all these air pressure toys, too, which are especially useful for people who really can’t take or don’t prefer direct contact with their clitoris or other genital parts.

Dr. Rubin: I tell my patients all the time that the sex devices that we use today are not the same things from back in the day. There are so many high technological advances in this space that are really wonderful tools for me as a doctor, that I can really help my patients understand and use just to have more fun.

Dr. Herbenick: Absolutely.

Dr. Rubin: Very few of us are sexual medicine–trained physicians who feel confident and comfortable talking about sexual health issues. How can they find you or follow you?

Dr. Herbenick: I’m on social media as Debby Herbenick. I’m also on our website at Indiana University, the Center for Sexual Health Promotion.

Dr. Rubin: Thank you so much for joining us today.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, is assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and in private practice in North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed financial relationships with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Hi, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Sex Matters. I am Dr Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area, and I am thrilled to bring you this next guest. This is someone I am a huge fan of. I have been following her research for decades now, and we are so blessed to have her: Debby Herbenick. Why don’t you introduce yourself and tell people all about your research?

Debby Herbenick, PhD: I’m a professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health, and I’ve been a sexuality researcher and educator for about 25 years. I’ve studied issues related to women’s orgasm, vibrator use, how people feel about their genitals, and how that impacts whether or not they are comfortable seeking healthcare. Most recently, I’ve been looking at emerging sexual practices.

Dr. Rubin: You can’t be in sexual medicine without knowing Dr. Herbenick’s work. It is just instrumental to our knowledge about what people are actually doing, what people care about, and what’s happening out there. Probably not a day goes by that I don’t quote your research on how women experience sexual pleasure, how women orgasm. Can you talk briefly about that research?

Dr. Herbenick: I’ve done a lot of research related to pleasure and orgasm, some related to the different styles of touch, some related to vibrator use, showing that more than half of women reported having ever used a vibrator. The key is really variety. People need to feel comfortable with the way that they experience their bodies and their own paths to pleasure, and feel supported in being able to explore in that way.

Dr. Rubin: And what are some resources? What I often quote is that everyone thinks, because of Hollywood and pornography, that women orgasm from vaginal penetration alone, which of course we know physiologically doesn’t make sense. The numbers are staggering. People often go to their doctor and say: “I’m not normal. I can’t orgasm from penetration. Is there something wrong with me?”

Dr. Herbenick: Most women are not orgasming from vaginal intercourse alone. Many have added direct clitoral stimulation. Others prefer to receive oral sex. Some are having orgasms with a vibrator or other kinds of sex toys. And for some, it’s not just the behavior, right? It’s having the behavior in a certain amount of intimacy or connection with a partner, so really focusing on that as well.

Dr. Rubin: Your data show that more than 50% of women have used vibration in the past. I tell my male patients as well that the penis and the clitoris are the same. The penis likes vibration too, but many have never tried it. As a clinician, being able to encourage patients to use these devices and tools is really important. Your data help us show that this is an important aspect of pleasure.

Dr. Herbenick: I’m always glad to hear they’re helpful. And, of course, our research really focused on vibrators, but it’s been so interesting to see the sexual enhancement products change over the years. And now we have all these air pressure toys, too, which are especially useful for people who really can’t take or don’t prefer direct contact with their clitoris or other genital parts.

Dr. Rubin: I tell my patients all the time that the sex devices that we use today are not the same things from back in the day. There are so many high technological advances in this space that are really wonderful tools for me as a doctor, that I can really help my patients understand and use just to have more fun.

Dr. Herbenick: Absolutely.

Dr. Rubin: Very few of us are sexual medicine–trained physicians who feel confident and comfortable talking about sexual health issues. How can they find you or follow you?

Dr. Herbenick: I’m on social media as Debby Herbenick. I’m also on our website at Indiana University, the Center for Sexual Health Promotion.

Dr. Rubin: Thank you so much for joining us today.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, is assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and in private practice in North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed financial relationships with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.
 

Rachel S. Rubin, MD: Hi, everybody. Welcome back to another episode of Sex Matters. I am Dr Rachel Rubin. I’m a urologist and sexual medicine specialist in the Washington, DC, area, and I am thrilled to bring you this next guest. This is someone I am a huge fan of. I have been following her research for decades now, and we are so blessed to have her: Debby Herbenick. Why don’t you introduce yourself and tell people all about your research?

Debby Herbenick, PhD: I’m a professor at the Indiana University School of Public Health, and I’ve been a sexuality researcher and educator for about 25 years. I’ve studied issues related to women’s orgasm, vibrator use, how people feel about their genitals, and how that impacts whether or not they are comfortable seeking healthcare. Most recently, I’ve been looking at emerging sexual practices.

Dr. Rubin: You can’t be in sexual medicine without knowing Dr. Herbenick’s work. It is just instrumental to our knowledge about what people are actually doing, what people care about, and what’s happening out there. Probably not a day goes by that I don’t quote your research on how women experience sexual pleasure, how women orgasm. Can you talk briefly about that research?

Dr. Herbenick: I’ve done a lot of research related to pleasure and orgasm, some related to the different styles of touch, some related to vibrator use, showing that more than half of women reported having ever used a vibrator. The key is really variety. People need to feel comfortable with the way that they experience their bodies and their own paths to pleasure, and feel supported in being able to explore in that way.

Dr. Rubin: And what are some resources? What I often quote is that everyone thinks, because of Hollywood and pornography, that women orgasm from vaginal penetration alone, which of course we know physiologically doesn’t make sense. The numbers are staggering. People often go to their doctor and say: “I’m not normal. I can’t orgasm from penetration. Is there something wrong with me?”

Dr. Herbenick: Most women are not orgasming from vaginal intercourse alone. Many have added direct clitoral stimulation. Others prefer to receive oral sex. Some are having orgasms with a vibrator or other kinds of sex toys. And for some, it’s not just the behavior, right? It’s having the behavior in a certain amount of intimacy or connection with a partner, so really focusing on that as well.

Dr. Rubin: Your data show that more than 50% of women have used vibration in the past. I tell my male patients as well that the penis and the clitoris are the same. The penis likes vibration too, but many have never tried it. As a clinician, being able to encourage patients to use these devices and tools is really important. Your data help us show that this is an important aspect of pleasure.

Dr. Herbenick: I’m always glad to hear they’re helpful. And, of course, our research really focused on vibrators, but it’s been so interesting to see the sexual enhancement products change over the years. And now we have all these air pressure toys, too, which are especially useful for people who really can’t take or don’t prefer direct contact with their clitoris or other genital parts.

Dr. Rubin: I tell my patients all the time that the sex devices that we use today are not the same things from back in the day. There are so many high technological advances in this space that are really wonderful tools for me as a doctor, that I can really help my patients understand and use just to have more fun.

Dr. Herbenick: Absolutely.

Dr. Rubin: Very few of us are sexual medicine–trained physicians who feel confident and comfortable talking about sexual health issues. How can they find you or follow you?

Dr. Herbenick: I’m on social media as Debby Herbenick. I’m also on our website at Indiana University, the Center for Sexual Health Promotion.

Dr. Rubin: Thank you so much for joining us today.

Rachel S. Rubin, MD, is assistant clinical professor, Department of Urology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, and in private practice in North Bethesda, Maryland. She disclosed financial relationships with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GSK, and Endo.

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

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.

In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.


Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?

Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.

The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.


Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?

Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.


Q: What’s new about this kind of research?

Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.


Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?

Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.

In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.

This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.


Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?

Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.

[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]



Q: What makes this drug unique?

Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.



Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?

Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.

This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.



Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?

Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.

In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.


Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?

Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.

The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.


Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?

Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.


Q: What’s new about this kind of research?

Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.


Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?

Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.

In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.

This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.


Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?

Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.

[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]



Q: What makes this drug unique?

Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.



Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?

Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.

This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.



Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?

Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.

Research presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has the potential to change practice — and assumptions — about acute myeloid leukemia (AML), chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and blood cancer as a whole, according to the chief science officer of the American Cancer Society.

In an interview following the conference, Arif H. Kamal, MD, MBA, MHS, who practices hematology-oncology at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, recapped several landmark studies and discussed their lessons for clinicians.


Question: You’ve highlighted a randomized, multisite clinical trialled by a researcher from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The researchers enrolled 115 adult patients with AML or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) who were receiving non–intensive care to usual care or regular meetings with palliative care clinicians (monthly as outpatients and at least twice weekly as inpatients). Among those who died (61.7%), those in the intervention group had their end-of-life preferences documented much earlier (41 days before death vs. 1.5 days, P < .001). They were also more likely to have documented end-of-life care preferences (96.5% vs. 68.4%, P < .001) and less likely to have been hospitalized within the last month of life (70.6% vs. 91.9%, P = .031). Why did this study strike you as especially important?

Dr. Kamal: A few studies have now shown better outcomes in hematology after the use of early palliative care. This has been shown not only in transplant patients but also in non-transplant patients with hematologic malignancies. As a result, you’re seeing a shift toward regular integration of palliative care.

The historical concern has been that palliative care takes the foot off the gas pedal. Another way to look at it is that palliative care helps keep the foot on the gas pedal.


Q: Should the focus be on all hematologic cancer patients or just on those who are more severe cases or whose illness is terminal?

Dr. Kamal: The focus is on patients with acute progressive leukemias rather than those with indolent, long-standing lymphomas. This a reflection of severity and complexity: In leukemia, you can be someone really sick all of a sudden and require intensive treatment.


Q: What’s new about this kind of research?

Dr. Kamal: We’re learning how palliative care is valuable in all cancers, but particularly in blood cancers, where it has historically not been studied. The groundbreaking studies in palliative care over the last 20 years have largely been in solid tumors such as lung cancers and colorectal cancers.


Q: What is unique about the patient experience in hematologic cancers compared to solid tumor cancers?

Dr. Kamal: Blood cancers are a relatively new place to integrate palliative care, but what we’re finding is that it may be even more needed than in solid tumors in terms of improving outcomes.

In pancreatic cancer, you may not know if something is going to work, but it is going to take you months to figure it out. In leukemia, there can be a lot of dynamism: You’re going to find out in a matter of days. You have to be able to pivot really quickly to the next thing, go to transplant very quickly and urgently, or make a decision to pursue supportive care.

This really compresses the normal issues like uncertainty and emotional anxiety that a pancreatic cancer patient may process over a year. Leukemic patients may need to process that over 2, 3, or 4 weeks. Palliative care can be there to help the patient to process options.


Q: You also highlighted the industry-funded phase 3 ASC4FIRST study into asciminib (Scemblix) in newly diagnosed patients with CML. The trial was led by a researcher from the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute and the University of Adelaide, Australia. Asciminib, a STAMP inhibitor, is FDA-approved for certain CML indications. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the new study finds better major molecular response at 48 weeks for the drug vs. investigator-selected tyrosine kinase inhibitors (67.7% vs. 49.0%, P < .001). What do these findings tell you?

Dr. Kamal: CML has been a disease where you had Gleevec — imatinib — and additional options that were all in the second-line or third-line setting after failure. Now, you’re seeing durable responses across the board: an expansion of options and potentially new options in the first-line setting.

[Editor’s note: For more about asciminib, check commentaries from physicians who spoke to Medscape and ASCO Daily News.]



Q: What makes this drug unique?

Dr. Kamal: CML was the leader in helping us to understand that if you identify a mutation, you can create a medication against it. Now, what we’re finding out is that there are other ways to work around mutations. Asciminib is not affected by the most common mutations that lend to drug resistance in the classic drugs that target BCR-ABL cells like imatinib.



Q: Finally, you spotlighted a retrospective study led by researchers at Case Western Reserve University that explored rates of obesity-related cancers — including multiple myeloma — in patients with BMI ≥ 35 who took glucagon-like protein-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or underwent bariatric surgery. Both strategies were linked to lower risk of the cancers vs. no intervention (GLP-1 RAs, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.61; 95% CI 0.46-0.81, and bariatric surgery, HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.67-0.91). What did you learn from this research?

Dr. Kamal: When we think about risk reduction for cancer, we generally think about hormone-driven cancers. Blood cancers are not typically hormone-driven.

This study is hinting at that idea that healthy weight across the board will reduce your cancer risk even in blood cancers, and pharmacologic interventions to reduce your weight may also reduce that cancer risk.



Q: So weight-loss drugs such as Ozempic could potentially lower the risk of hematologic cancer?

Dr. Kamal: We’re going to need more data on this, and you wouldn’t take it for that reason. But there may be a story here that says get to a healthy weight — it doesn’t matter how you do it — and your risk of all cancers goes down.

Dr. Kamal has no disclosures to report.

Every doctor encounters patients who complain of symptoms without identifiable physical causes. According to a recent review in The Lancet, one third of all symptoms lack somatic explanations.

How can these patients be helped, and what crucial question should always be asked? This news organization discussed this topic with Professor Peter Henningsen, a coauthor of the review, at the German Congress for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy. Dr. Henningsen is the director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University Hospital Rechts der Isar of the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
 

One Common Factor

Patients often experience a wide range of symptoms that appear without any obvious cause. These symptoms include persistent pain, dizziness, cardiovascular complaints, digestive disorders, gait disturbances, exhaustion, and fatigue. There’s often a notable gap between perceived distress and the impairment of a patient’s physical functions and examination findings.

In recent years, a descriptive umbrella term has emerged for these health challenges: persistent physical symptoms. This term includes functional physical complaints lasting for months or longer without a clearly identifiable organic cause, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, or multiple chemical sensitivity. It also encompasses persistent complaints in patients with an underlying condition.

According to the review, 70% of people with chronic kidney disease experience fatigue; 63% of patients with coronary artery disease have persistent pain in their arms, legs, or joints; and 31% of patients with ulcerative colitis in remission report persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.

In International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 10th Revision, the term “somatoform disorders” is used when no organic causes are identifiable. However, ICD-11 has replaced this term with the category of “somatic symptom disorders.”

“For this diagnosis, it is no longer necessary to rule out physical causes entirely,” explained Dr. Henningsen. “Instead, the focus is on psychologic and behavioral abnormalities, anxiety, increased attention to symptoms, frequent doctor consultations, and the conviction of having a serious physical illness.”

This new diagnostic approach is considered sensible because it focuses on the patient’s experience of their illness. However, it has also been criticized for potentially “psychiatrizing” patients with genuine physical ailments.
 

The ‘Prediction Machine’

Understanding the new model is crucial. “It’s about grasping what is happening with a person who persistently complains of physical symptoms,” said Dr. Henningsen.

Previously, the bottom-up model of perception, which started from the pain stimulus, was widely accepted. It was believed that pain could secondarily cause psychological symptoms. However, the role of the brain has now come to the forefront. Terms like “predictive processing” or “predictive coding” are key: The brain constantly makes predictions about the most likely interpretation of sensory impressions.

These predictions incorporate expectations, beliefs, and past experiences with symptoms, which unconsciously influence these predictions. Therefore, expectations play a role in perception for all patients regardless of whether they have an organic precondition. This phenomenon can result in patients experiencing symptoms despite minimal or no sensory input.

“Perception is always biopsychosocial,” Dr. Henningsen emphasized, and diseases are not strictly physical or psychological but rather a combination of both. The proportions of these components vary, especially in chronic illnesses, where expectations play a more significant role in pain perception than they do in fresh injuries. Because predictive processing is a general mechanism of perception, it can be involved in various diseases.

The good news is that many factors contributing to persistent physical symptoms, such as increased attention to symptoms, dysfunctional expectations, or avoidance behavior, can be positively influenced.
 

What Can Doctors Do?

Dr. Henningsen recommended that doctors treating patients with functional physical complaints focus on the following three key aspects:

• Consider the subjective experience. “The psychologic aspect is relevant in every illness. Always ask, ‘How are you coping with your symptoms? What are your expectations for the future?’ ” Dr. Henningsen explained. For instance, if a patient has been experiencing back pain for weeks, feels it’s getting worse, and believes that they will no longer be able to work, this is a significant prognostic factor. Such a patient is less likely to return to work compared with someone who is confident in their recovery.
• Communicate mindfully. The way doctors communicate with patients about their symptoms is crucial. Dr. Henningsen illustrated this with a patient with tension headaches. “An MRI might show a slight increase in signal intensity. If the doctor casually says, ‘It could be MS, but I don’t think so,’ the patient will fixate on the mention of MS.”
• Treat body and mind. There is no either-or in therapy. For example, medications can help with irritable bowel syndrome but so can psychotherapeutic measures — without implying that the condition is purely psychological. Exercise therapy can demonstrate that pain does not increase with movement, thus positively changing a patient’s expectations and reducing symptoms.

A Doctor’s ‘Toolbox’

A Norwegian study published last year in eClinicalMedicine, a Lancet journal, demonstrated the effectiveness of such an approach for treating medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in general practice.

In this study, 541 patients with MUPS participated in a two-arm, cluster-randomized trial. In total, 10 clusters of 103 general practitioners were each divided into two groups. One group used the Individual Challenge Inventory Tool (ICIT) for 11 weeks, while the other received usual treatment.

The ICIT, a structured communication tool based on cognitive-behavioral therapy, was developed by the study’s lead author, a general practitioner. Participating general practitioners were trained in using the ICIT.

Patients in the study received two or more sessions with their general practitioners. Outcomes were assessed individually, and the primary outcome was patient-reported change in function, symptoms, and quality of life as measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change. Secondary end points included work capability.

In the intervention group, 76% (n = 223) experienced significant overall improvement in function, symptoms, and the quality of life compared with 38% (n = 236) in the control group receiving usual care (mean difference, −0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.0 to −0.6; P < .0001).

After 11 weeks, sick leave decreased by 27 percentage points in the intervention group (from 52.0 to 25.2), while it dropped by only four percentage points in the usual care group (from 49.7 to 45.7).

“ICIT in primary care led to significant improvements in treatment outcomes and a reduction in sickness absence for patients with MUPS,” the authors concluded.
 

Guideline Under Revision

Medications alone often fail to adequately alleviate persistent physical symptoms. The S3 guideline “Functional Physical Complaints” lists various alternative therapies such as yoga and psychological interventions.

Dr. Henningsen and his team are revising this guideline, and publication is expected later this year. While no major changes in therapy recommendations are anticipated, the focus will be on making the guideline more user-friendly.

“It is crucial for doctors to consider psychosocial factors,” said Dr. Henningsen. “ ‘Both-and’ instead of ‘either-or’ is our motto.”

Dr. Henningsen declared no conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Every doctor encounters patients who complain of symptoms without identifiable physical causes. According to a recent review in The Lancet, one third of all symptoms lack somatic explanations.

How can these patients be helped, and what crucial question should always be asked? This news organization discussed this topic with Professor Peter Henningsen, a coauthor of the review, at the German Congress for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy. Dr. Henningsen is the director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University Hospital Rechts der Isar of the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
 

One Common Factor

Patients often experience a wide range of symptoms that appear without any obvious cause. These symptoms include persistent pain, dizziness, cardiovascular complaints, digestive disorders, gait disturbances, exhaustion, and fatigue. There’s often a notable gap between perceived distress and the impairment of a patient’s physical functions and examination findings.

In recent years, a descriptive umbrella term has emerged for these health challenges: persistent physical symptoms. This term includes functional physical complaints lasting for months or longer without a clearly identifiable organic cause, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, or multiple chemical sensitivity. It also encompasses persistent complaints in patients with an underlying condition.

According to the review, 70% of people with chronic kidney disease experience fatigue; 63% of patients with coronary artery disease have persistent pain in their arms, legs, or joints; and 31% of patients with ulcerative colitis in remission report persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.

In International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 10th Revision, the term “somatoform disorders” is used when no organic causes are identifiable. However, ICD-11 has replaced this term with the category of “somatic symptom disorders.”

“For this diagnosis, it is no longer necessary to rule out physical causes entirely,” explained Dr. Henningsen. “Instead, the focus is on psychologic and behavioral abnormalities, anxiety, increased attention to symptoms, frequent doctor consultations, and the conviction of having a serious physical illness.”

This new diagnostic approach is considered sensible because it focuses on the patient’s experience of their illness. However, it has also been criticized for potentially “psychiatrizing” patients with genuine physical ailments.
 

The ‘Prediction Machine’

Understanding the new model is crucial. “It’s about grasping what is happening with a person who persistently complains of physical symptoms,” said Dr. Henningsen.

Previously, the bottom-up model of perception, which started from the pain stimulus, was widely accepted. It was believed that pain could secondarily cause psychological symptoms. However, the role of the brain has now come to the forefront. Terms like “predictive processing” or “predictive coding” are key: The brain constantly makes predictions about the most likely interpretation of sensory impressions.

These predictions incorporate expectations, beliefs, and past experiences with symptoms, which unconsciously influence these predictions. Therefore, expectations play a role in perception for all patients regardless of whether they have an organic precondition. This phenomenon can result in patients experiencing symptoms despite minimal or no sensory input.

“Perception is always biopsychosocial,” Dr. Henningsen emphasized, and diseases are not strictly physical or psychological but rather a combination of both. The proportions of these components vary, especially in chronic illnesses, where expectations play a more significant role in pain perception than they do in fresh injuries. Because predictive processing is a general mechanism of perception, it can be involved in various diseases.

The good news is that many factors contributing to persistent physical symptoms, such as increased attention to symptoms, dysfunctional expectations, or avoidance behavior, can be positively influenced.
 

What Can Doctors Do?

Dr. Henningsen recommended that doctors treating patients with functional physical complaints focus on the following three key aspects:

• Consider the subjective experience. “The psychologic aspect is relevant in every illness. Always ask, ‘How are you coping with your symptoms? What are your expectations for the future?’ ” Dr. Henningsen explained. For instance, if a patient has been experiencing back pain for weeks, feels it’s getting worse, and believes that they will no longer be able to work, this is a significant prognostic factor. Such a patient is less likely to return to work compared with someone who is confident in their recovery.
• Communicate mindfully. The way doctors communicate with patients about their symptoms is crucial. Dr. Henningsen illustrated this with a patient with tension headaches. “An MRI might show a slight increase in signal intensity. If the doctor casually says, ‘It could be MS, but I don’t think so,’ the patient will fixate on the mention of MS.”
• Treat body and mind. There is no either-or in therapy. For example, medications can help with irritable bowel syndrome but so can psychotherapeutic measures — without implying that the condition is purely psychological. Exercise therapy can demonstrate that pain does not increase with movement, thus positively changing a patient’s expectations and reducing symptoms.

A Doctor’s ‘Toolbox’

A Norwegian study published last year in eClinicalMedicine, a Lancet journal, demonstrated the effectiveness of such an approach for treating medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in general practice.

In this study, 541 patients with MUPS participated in a two-arm, cluster-randomized trial. In total, 10 clusters of 103 general practitioners were each divided into two groups. One group used the Individual Challenge Inventory Tool (ICIT) for 11 weeks, while the other received usual treatment.

The ICIT, a structured communication tool based on cognitive-behavioral therapy, was developed by the study’s lead author, a general practitioner. Participating general practitioners were trained in using the ICIT.

Patients in the study received two or more sessions with their general practitioners. Outcomes were assessed individually, and the primary outcome was patient-reported change in function, symptoms, and quality of life as measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change. Secondary end points included work capability.

In the intervention group, 76% (n = 223) experienced significant overall improvement in function, symptoms, and the quality of life compared with 38% (n = 236) in the control group receiving usual care (mean difference, −0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.0 to −0.6; P < .0001).

After 11 weeks, sick leave decreased by 27 percentage points in the intervention group (from 52.0 to 25.2), while it dropped by only four percentage points in the usual care group (from 49.7 to 45.7).

“ICIT in primary care led to significant improvements in treatment outcomes and a reduction in sickness absence for patients with MUPS,” the authors concluded.
 

Guideline Under Revision

Medications alone often fail to adequately alleviate persistent physical symptoms. The S3 guideline “Functional Physical Complaints” lists various alternative therapies such as yoga and psychological interventions.

Dr. Henningsen and his team are revising this guideline, and publication is expected later this year. While no major changes in therapy recommendations are anticipated, the focus will be on making the guideline more user-friendly.

“It is crucial for doctors to consider psychosocial factors,” said Dr. Henningsen. “ ‘Both-and’ instead of ‘either-or’ is our motto.”

Dr. Henningsen declared no conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Every doctor encounters patients who complain of symptoms without identifiable physical causes. According to a recent review in The Lancet, one third of all symptoms lack somatic explanations.

How can these patients be helped, and what crucial question should always be asked? This news organization discussed this topic with Professor Peter Henningsen, a coauthor of the review, at the German Congress for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy. Dr. Henningsen is the director of the Clinic and Polyclinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University Hospital Rechts der Isar of the Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
 

One Common Factor

Patients often experience a wide range of symptoms that appear without any obvious cause. These symptoms include persistent pain, dizziness, cardiovascular complaints, digestive disorders, gait disturbances, exhaustion, and fatigue. There’s often a notable gap between perceived distress and the impairment of a patient’s physical functions and examination findings.

In recent years, a descriptive umbrella term has emerged for these health challenges: persistent physical symptoms. This term includes functional physical complaints lasting for months or longer without a clearly identifiable organic cause, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, fibromyalgia, or multiple chemical sensitivity. It also encompasses persistent complaints in patients with an underlying condition.

According to the review, 70% of people with chronic kidney disease experience fatigue; 63% of patients with coronary artery disease have persistent pain in their arms, legs, or joints; and 31% of patients with ulcerative colitis in remission report persistent gastrointestinal symptoms.

In International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 10th Revision, the term “somatoform disorders” is used when no organic causes are identifiable. However, ICD-11 has replaced this term with the category of “somatic symptom disorders.”

“For this diagnosis, it is no longer necessary to rule out physical causes entirely,” explained Dr. Henningsen. “Instead, the focus is on psychologic and behavioral abnormalities, anxiety, increased attention to symptoms, frequent doctor consultations, and the conviction of having a serious physical illness.”

This new diagnostic approach is considered sensible because it focuses on the patient’s experience of their illness. However, it has also been criticized for potentially “psychiatrizing” patients with genuine physical ailments.
 

The ‘Prediction Machine’

Understanding the new model is crucial. “It’s about grasping what is happening with a person who persistently complains of physical symptoms,” said Dr. Henningsen.

Previously, the bottom-up model of perception, which started from the pain stimulus, was widely accepted. It was believed that pain could secondarily cause psychological symptoms. However, the role of the brain has now come to the forefront. Terms like “predictive processing” or “predictive coding” are key: The brain constantly makes predictions about the most likely interpretation of sensory impressions.

These predictions incorporate expectations, beliefs, and past experiences with symptoms, which unconsciously influence these predictions. Therefore, expectations play a role in perception for all patients regardless of whether they have an organic precondition. This phenomenon can result in patients experiencing symptoms despite minimal or no sensory input.

“Perception is always biopsychosocial,” Dr. Henningsen emphasized, and diseases are not strictly physical or psychological but rather a combination of both. The proportions of these components vary, especially in chronic illnesses, where expectations play a more significant role in pain perception than they do in fresh injuries. Because predictive processing is a general mechanism of perception, it can be involved in various diseases.

The good news is that many factors contributing to persistent physical symptoms, such as increased attention to symptoms, dysfunctional expectations, or avoidance behavior, can be positively influenced.
 

What Can Doctors Do?

Dr. Henningsen recommended that doctors treating patients with functional physical complaints focus on the following three key aspects:

• Consider the subjective experience. “The psychologic aspect is relevant in every illness. Always ask, ‘How are you coping with your symptoms? What are your expectations for the future?’ ” Dr. Henningsen explained. For instance, if a patient has been experiencing back pain for weeks, feels it’s getting worse, and believes that they will no longer be able to work, this is a significant prognostic factor. Such a patient is less likely to return to work compared with someone who is confident in their recovery.
• Communicate mindfully. The way doctors communicate with patients about their symptoms is crucial. Dr. Henningsen illustrated this with a patient with tension headaches. “An MRI might show a slight increase in signal intensity. If the doctor casually says, ‘It could be MS, but I don’t think so,’ the patient will fixate on the mention of MS.”
• Treat body and mind. There is no either-or in therapy. For example, medications can help with irritable bowel syndrome but so can psychotherapeutic measures — without implying that the condition is purely psychological. Exercise therapy can demonstrate that pain does not increase with movement, thus positively changing a patient’s expectations and reducing symptoms.

A Doctor’s ‘Toolbox’

A Norwegian study published last year in eClinicalMedicine, a Lancet journal, demonstrated the effectiveness of such an approach for treating medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in general practice.

In this study, 541 patients with MUPS participated in a two-arm, cluster-randomized trial. In total, 10 clusters of 103 general practitioners were each divided into two groups. One group used the Individual Challenge Inventory Tool (ICIT) for 11 weeks, while the other received usual treatment.

The ICIT, a structured communication tool based on cognitive-behavioral therapy, was developed by the study’s lead author, a general practitioner. Participating general practitioners were trained in using the ICIT.

Patients in the study received two or more sessions with their general practitioners. Outcomes were assessed individually, and the primary outcome was patient-reported change in function, symptoms, and quality of life as measured by the Patient Global Impression of Change. Secondary end points included work capability.

In the intervention group, 76% (n = 223) experienced significant overall improvement in function, symptoms, and the quality of life compared with 38% (n = 236) in the control group receiving usual care (mean difference, −0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.0 to −0.6; P < .0001).

After 11 weeks, sick leave decreased by 27 percentage points in the intervention group (from 52.0 to 25.2), while it dropped by only four percentage points in the usual care group (from 49.7 to 45.7).

“ICIT in primary care led to significant improvements in treatment outcomes and a reduction in sickness absence for patients with MUPS,” the authors concluded.
 

Guideline Under Revision

Medications alone often fail to adequately alleviate persistent physical symptoms. The S3 guideline “Functional Physical Complaints” lists various alternative therapies such as yoga and psychological interventions.

Dr. Henningsen and his team are revising this guideline, and publication is expected later this year. While no major changes in therapy recommendations are anticipated, the focus will be on making the guideline more user-friendly.

“It is crucial for doctors to consider psychosocial factors,” said Dr. Henningsen. “ ‘Both-and’ instead of ‘either-or’ is our motto.”

Dr. Henningsen declared no conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

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

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

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

Concerned about your patient’s type 2 diabetes risk? Along with the usual preventive strategies — like diet and exercise and, when appropriate, glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists — there’s another simple, no-risk strategy that just might help: Turning off the light at night.

A study in The Lancet found that people who were exposed to the most light between 12:30 a.m. and 6 a.m. were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those who remained in darkness during that time frame.

The study builds on growing evidence linking nighttime light exposure to type 2 diabetes risk. But unlike previous large studies that relied on satellite data of outdoor light levels (an indirect measure of light exposure), the recent study looked at personal light exposure — that is, light measured directly on individuals — as recorded by a wrist-worn sensor.

“Those previous studies likely underestimated the effect,” said study author Andrew Phillips, PhD, professor of sleep health at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, “since they did not capture indoor light environments.”

Using data from 85,000 participants from the UK Biobank, the recent study is the largest to date linking diabetes risk to personal light exposure at night.

“This is really a phenomenal study,” said Courtney Peterson, PhD, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved in the study. “This is the first large-scale study we have looking at people’s light exposure patterns and linking it to their long-term health.”
 

What the Study Showed

The participants wore the light sensors for a week, recording day and night light from all sources — whether from sunlight, lamps, streetlights, or digital screens. The researchers then tracked participants for 8 years.

“About half of the people that we looked at had very dim levels of light at night, so less than 1 lux — that basically means less than candlelight,” said Dr. Phillips. “They were the people who were protected against type 2 diabetes.”

Those exposed to more light at night — defined in the study as 12:30 a.m.–6 a.m. — had a higher risk for type 2 diabetes. The risk went up as a dose response, Phillips said: The brighter the light exposure, the higher the diabetes risk.

Participants in the top 10% of light exposure — who were exposed to about 48 lux , or the equivalent of relatively dim overhead lighting — were 1.5 times more likely to develop diabetes than those in the dark. That’s about the risk increase you’d get from having a family history of type 2 diabetes, the researchers said.

Even when they controlled for factors like socioeconomic status, smoking, diet, exercise, and shift work, “we still found there was this very strong relationship between light exposure and risk of type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.
 

How Light at Night May Increase Diabetes Risk

The results are not entirely surprising, said endocrinologist Susanne Miedlich, MD, a professor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, who was not involved in the study.

Light at night can disrupt the circadian rhythm, or your body’s internal 24-hour cycle. And scientists have long known that circadian rhythm is important for all kinds of biologic processes, including how the body manages blood sugar.

One’s internal clock regulates food intake, sugar absorption, and the release of insulin. Dysregulation in the circadian rhythm is associated with insulin resistance, a precursor to type 2 diabetes.

Dr. Phillips speculated that the sleep hormone melatonin also plays a role.

“Melatonin does a lot of things, but one of the things that it does is it manages our glucose and our insulin responses,” Dr. Phillips said. “So if you’re chronically getting light exposure at night, that’s reducing a level of melatonin that, in the long term, could lead to poor metabolic outcomes.”

Previous studies have explored melatonin supplementation to help manage diabetes. “However, while melatonin clearly regulates circadian rhythms, its utility as a drug to prevent diabetes has not really panned out thus far,” Dr. Miedlich said.
 

Takeaways

Interventional studies are needed to confirm whether strategies like powering down screens, turning off lights, or using blackout curtains could reduce diabetes risk.

That said, “there’s no reason not to tell people to get healthy light exposure patterns and sleep, especially in the context of diabetes,” said Dr. Phillips.

Other known strategies for reducing diabetes risk include intensive lifestyle programs, which reduce risk by up to 58%, and GLP-1 agonists.

“Probably a GLP-1 agonist is going to be more effective,” Dr. Peterson said. “But this is still a fairly large effect without having to go through the expense of buying a GLP-1 or losing a lot of weight or making a big lifestyle change.”

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Agitation is a neuropsychiatric symptom in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia. The prevalence of this symptom is about 40%-65%, with the higher end of the range applying to patients who have moderate to severe dementia. Agitation often begins early in the course of the disease and is persistent, which contributes to increased healthcare costs and significantly increases both caregiver burden and patient distress. The DICE approach is a collaborative process for managing behavioral symptoms in dementia, wherein the caregiver describes the behaviors, the provider investigates the etiology, the provider and caregiver create a treatment plan, and the provider evaluates the outcome of the interventions. We use this widely adopted approach as the framework for discussing recent advances in the management of agitation.

Here are five things to know about managing agitation in AD.
 

1. There is a new operational definition for agitation in dementia.

Agitation in dementia is a syndrome that encompasses specific behaviors across all dementia types. The 2023 operational definition of agitation in dementia by the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) includes three domains: excessive motor activity (including pacing, rocking, restlessness, and performing repetitious mannerisms), verbal aggression (including using profanity, screaming, and shouting), and physical aggression (including interpersonal aggression and mishandling or destruction of property). These behaviors must be persistent or recurrent for at least 2 weeks or represent a dramatic change from the person’s baseline behavior, must be associated with excessive distress or disability beyond what is caused by the cognitive impairment itself, and result in significant impairment in at least one of the three specified functional domains. Behavioral symptoms in dementia frequently co-occur, which affects treatment and prognosis. For instance, the risk for stroke associated with antipsychotic treatments appears to be higher in dementia-related psychosis without agitation than in agitation alone or in psychosis with agitation. Therefore, the use of a rating scale such as the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Questionnaire (NPI-Q), which takes 5 minutes or less to administer, is recommended to identify and track behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress.

2. The etiology of agitation in dementia may be multifactorial.

It is important in every case to identify all underlying etiologies so that presumed causal and/or exacerbating factors are not inadvertently missed. Agitation may be a means of communicating distress owing to unmet needs or a patient-environment mismatch (function-focused approach) or may be a direct consequence of the dementia itself (behavioral-symptom approach). These approaches are not mutually exclusive. A patient can present with agitation as a direct consequence of dementia and inadequately treated pain concurrently. 

The new IPA definition specifies several exclusion criteria for agitation in dementia, including underlying medical conditions, delirium, substance use, and suboptimal care conditions. It is especially crucial to accurately identify delirium because dementia is an independent risk factor for delirium, which in turn may accelerate the progression of cognitive and functional decline. Even subsyndromal delirium in older adults leads to a higher 3-year mortality rate that is comparable to that seen in delirium. Older adults with acute-onset agitation in the context of dementia should undergo a comprehensive assessment for delirium, as agitation may be the only indication of a serious underlying medical condition. 
 

3. Nonpharmacologic interventions should be used whenever possible. 

The wider adoption of nonpharmacologic interventions in clinical practice has been greatly limited by the heterogeneity in study protocols, including in selection of participants, in the types of dementias included, and in defining and applying the intervention strategies. Nevertheless, there is general consensus that individualized behavioral strategies that build on the patients’ interests and preserved abilities are more effective, at least in the short term. Patients best suited for these interventions are those with less cognitive decline, better communication skills, less impairment in activities of daily living, and higher responsiveness. A systematic review of systematic reviews found music therapy to be the most effective intervention for reducing agitation and aggression in dementia, along with behavioral management techniques when supervised by healthcare professionals. On the other hand, physical restraints are best avoided, as their use in hospitalized patients has been associated with longer stays, higher costs, lower odds of being discharged to home, and in long-term care patients with longer stays, with increased risk for medical complications and functional decline. 

4. Antidepressants are not all equally safe or efficacious in managing agitation.

In a network meta-analysis that looked at the effects of several antidepressants on agitation in dementia, citalopram had just under 95% probability of efficacy and was the only antidepressant that was significantly more efficacious than placebo. In the multicenter CitAD trial, citalopram was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of agitation in AD, but the mean dose of citalopram used, 30 mg/d, was higher than the maximum dose of 20 mg/d recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in those aged 60 years or above. The optimal candidates for citalopram were those under the age of 85 with mild to moderate AD and mild to moderate nonpsychotic agitation, and it took up to 9 weeks for it to be fully effective. Due to the risk for dose-dependent QTc prolongation with citalopram, a baseline ECG must be done, and a second ECG is recommended if a clinical decision is made to exceed the recommended maximum daily dose. In the CitAD trial, 66% of patients in the citalopram arm received cholinesterase inhibitors concurrently while 44% received memantine, so these symptomatic treatments for AD should not be stopped solely for initiating a citalopram trial. 

The antiagitation effect of citalopram may well be a class effect of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), given that there is also evidence favoring the use of sertraline and escitalopram. The S-CitAD trial, the first large, randomized controlled study of escitalopram for the treatment of agitation in dementia, is expected to announce its top-line results sometime this year. However, not all antidepressant classes appear to be equally efficacious or safe. In the large, 12-week randomized placebo-controlled trial SYMBAD, mirtazapine was not only ineffective in treating nonpsychotic agitation in AD but was also associated with a higher mortality rate that just missed statistical significance. Trazodone is also often used for treating agitation, but there is insufficient evidence regarding efficacy and a high probability of adverse effects, even at low doses.
 

5. Antipsychotics may be effective drugs for treating severe dementia-related agitation.

The CATIE-AD study found that the small beneficial effects of antipsychotics for treating agitation and psychosis in AD were offset by their adverse effects and high discontinuation rates, and the FDA-imposed boxed warnings in 2005 and 2008 cautioned against the use of both first- and second-generation antipsychotics to manage dementia-related psychosis owing to an increased risk for death. Subsequently, the quest for safer and more effective alternatives culminated in the FDA approval of brexpiprazole in 2023 for the treatment of agitation in AD, but the black box warning was left in place. Three randomized controlled trials found brexpiprazole to be relatively safe, with statistically significant improvement in agitation. It was especially efficacious for severe agitation, but there is controversy about whether such improvement is clinically meaningful and whether brexpiprazole is truly superior to other antipsychotics for treating dementia-related agitation. As in the previously mentioned citalopram studies, most patients in the brexpiprazole studies received the drug as an add-on to memantine and/or a cholinesterase inhibitor, and it was proven effective over a period of up to 12 weeks across the three trials. Regarding other antipsychotics, aripiprazole and risperidone have been shown to be effective in treating agitation in patients with mixed dementia, but risperidone has also been associated with the highest risk for strokes (about 80% probability). Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of the boxed warnings on antipsychotics has been an increase in off-label substitution of psychotropic drugs with unproven efficacy and a questionable safety profile, such as valproic acid preparations, that have been linked to an increased short-term risk for accelerated brain volume loss and rapid cognitive decline, as well as a higher risk for mortality.

Lisa M. Wise, assistant professor, Psychiatry, at Oregon Health & Science University, and staff psychiatrist, Department of Psychiatry, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and Vimal M. Aga, adjunct assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, and geriatric psychiatrist, Layton Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Portland, Oregon, have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Agitation is a neuropsychiatric symptom in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia. The prevalence of this symptom is about 40%-65%, with the higher end of the range applying to patients who have moderate to severe dementia. Agitation often begins early in the course of the disease and is persistent, which contributes to increased healthcare costs and significantly increases both caregiver burden and patient distress. The DICE approach is a collaborative process for managing behavioral symptoms in dementia, wherein the caregiver describes the behaviors, the provider investigates the etiology, the provider and caregiver create a treatment plan, and the provider evaluates the outcome of the interventions. We use this widely adopted approach as the framework for discussing recent advances in the management of agitation.

Here are five things to know about managing agitation in AD.
 

1. There is a new operational definition for agitation in dementia.

Agitation in dementia is a syndrome that encompasses specific behaviors across all dementia types. The 2023 operational definition of agitation in dementia by the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) includes three domains: excessive motor activity (including pacing, rocking, restlessness, and performing repetitious mannerisms), verbal aggression (including using profanity, screaming, and shouting), and physical aggression (including interpersonal aggression and mishandling or destruction of property). These behaviors must be persistent or recurrent for at least 2 weeks or represent a dramatic change from the person’s baseline behavior, must be associated with excessive distress or disability beyond what is caused by the cognitive impairment itself, and result in significant impairment in at least one of the three specified functional domains. Behavioral symptoms in dementia frequently co-occur, which affects treatment and prognosis. For instance, the risk for stroke associated with antipsychotic treatments appears to be higher in dementia-related psychosis without agitation than in agitation alone or in psychosis with agitation. Therefore, the use of a rating scale such as the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Questionnaire (NPI-Q), which takes 5 minutes or less to administer, is recommended to identify and track behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress.

2. The etiology of agitation in dementia may be multifactorial.

It is important in every case to identify all underlying etiologies so that presumed causal and/or exacerbating factors are not inadvertently missed. Agitation may be a means of communicating distress owing to unmet needs or a patient-environment mismatch (function-focused approach) or may be a direct consequence of the dementia itself (behavioral-symptom approach). These approaches are not mutually exclusive. A patient can present with agitation as a direct consequence of dementia and inadequately treated pain concurrently. 

The new IPA definition specifies several exclusion criteria for agitation in dementia, including underlying medical conditions, delirium, substance use, and suboptimal care conditions. It is especially crucial to accurately identify delirium because dementia is an independent risk factor for delirium, which in turn may accelerate the progression of cognitive and functional decline. Even subsyndromal delirium in older adults leads to a higher 3-year mortality rate that is comparable to that seen in delirium. Older adults with acute-onset agitation in the context of dementia should undergo a comprehensive assessment for delirium, as agitation may be the only indication of a serious underlying medical condition. 
 

3. Nonpharmacologic interventions should be used whenever possible. 

The wider adoption of nonpharmacologic interventions in clinical practice has been greatly limited by the heterogeneity in study protocols, including in selection of participants, in the types of dementias included, and in defining and applying the intervention strategies. Nevertheless, there is general consensus that individualized behavioral strategies that build on the patients’ interests and preserved abilities are more effective, at least in the short term. Patients best suited for these interventions are those with less cognitive decline, better communication skills, less impairment in activities of daily living, and higher responsiveness. A systematic review of systematic reviews found music therapy to be the most effective intervention for reducing agitation and aggression in dementia, along with behavioral management techniques when supervised by healthcare professionals. On the other hand, physical restraints are best avoided, as their use in hospitalized patients has been associated with longer stays, higher costs, lower odds of being discharged to home, and in long-term care patients with longer stays, with increased risk for medical complications and functional decline. 

4. Antidepressants are not all equally safe or efficacious in managing agitation.

In a network meta-analysis that looked at the effects of several antidepressants on agitation in dementia, citalopram had just under 95% probability of efficacy and was the only antidepressant that was significantly more efficacious than placebo. In the multicenter CitAD trial, citalopram was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of agitation in AD, but the mean dose of citalopram used, 30 mg/d, was higher than the maximum dose of 20 mg/d recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in those aged 60 years or above. The optimal candidates for citalopram were those under the age of 85 with mild to moderate AD and mild to moderate nonpsychotic agitation, and it took up to 9 weeks for it to be fully effective. Due to the risk for dose-dependent QTc prolongation with citalopram, a baseline ECG must be done, and a second ECG is recommended if a clinical decision is made to exceed the recommended maximum daily dose. In the CitAD trial, 66% of patients in the citalopram arm received cholinesterase inhibitors concurrently while 44% received memantine, so these symptomatic treatments for AD should not be stopped solely for initiating a citalopram trial. 

The antiagitation effect of citalopram may well be a class effect of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), given that there is also evidence favoring the use of sertraline and escitalopram. The S-CitAD trial, the first large, randomized controlled study of escitalopram for the treatment of agitation in dementia, is expected to announce its top-line results sometime this year. However, not all antidepressant classes appear to be equally efficacious or safe. In the large, 12-week randomized placebo-controlled trial SYMBAD, mirtazapine was not only ineffective in treating nonpsychotic agitation in AD but was also associated with a higher mortality rate that just missed statistical significance. Trazodone is also often used for treating agitation, but there is insufficient evidence regarding efficacy and a high probability of adverse effects, even at low doses.
 

5. Antipsychotics may be effective drugs for treating severe dementia-related agitation.

The CATIE-AD study found that the small beneficial effects of antipsychotics for treating agitation and psychosis in AD were offset by their adverse effects and high discontinuation rates, and the FDA-imposed boxed warnings in 2005 and 2008 cautioned against the use of both first- and second-generation antipsychotics to manage dementia-related psychosis owing to an increased risk for death. Subsequently, the quest for safer and more effective alternatives culminated in the FDA approval of brexpiprazole in 2023 for the treatment of agitation in AD, but the black box warning was left in place. Three randomized controlled trials found brexpiprazole to be relatively safe, with statistically significant improvement in agitation. It was especially efficacious for severe agitation, but there is controversy about whether such improvement is clinically meaningful and whether brexpiprazole is truly superior to other antipsychotics for treating dementia-related agitation. As in the previously mentioned citalopram studies, most patients in the brexpiprazole studies received the drug as an add-on to memantine and/or a cholinesterase inhibitor, and it was proven effective over a period of up to 12 weeks across the three trials. Regarding other antipsychotics, aripiprazole and risperidone have been shown to be effective in treating agitation in patients with mixed dementia, but risperidone has also been associated with the highest risk for strokes (about 80% probability). Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of the boxed warnings on antipsychotics has been an increase in off-label substitution of psychotropic drugs with unproven efficacy and a questionable safety profile, such as valproic acid preparations, that have been linked to an increased short-term risk for accelerated brain volume loss and rapid cognitive decline, as well as a higher risk for mortality.

Lisa M. Wise, assistant professor, Psychiatry, at Oregon Health & Science University, and staff psychiatrist, Department of Psychiatry, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and Vimal M. Aga, adjunct assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, and geriatric psychiatrist, Layton Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Portland, Oregon, have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Agitation is a neuropsychiatric symptom in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), the most common form of dementia. The prevalence of this symptom is about 40%-65%, with the higher end of the range applying to patients who have moderate to severe dementia. Agitation often begins early in the course of the disease and is persistent, which contributes to increased healthcare costs and significantly increases both caregiver burden and patient distress. The DICE approach is a collaborative process for managing behavioral symptoms in dementia, wherein the caregiver describes the behaviors, the provider investigates the etiology, the provider and caregiver create a treatment plan, and the provider evaluates the outcome of the interventions. We use this widely adopted approach as the framework for discussing recent advances in the management of agitation.

Here are five things to know about managing agitation in AD.
 

1. There is a new operational definition for agitation in dementia.

Agitation in dementia is a syndrome that encompasses specific behaviors across all dementia types. The 2023 operational definition of agitation in dementia by the International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) includes three domains: excessive motor activity (including pacing, rocking, restlessness, and performing repetitious mannerisms), verbal aggression (including using profanity, screaming, and shouting), and physical aggression (including interpersonal aggression and mishandling or destruction of property). These behaviors must be persistent or recurrent for at least 2 weeks or represent a dramatic change from the person’s baseline behavior, must be associated with excessive distress or disability beyond what is caused by the cognitive impairment itself, and result in significant impairment in at least one of the three specified functional domains. Behavioral symptoms in dementia frequently co-occur, which affects treatment and prognosis. For instance, the risk for stroke associated with antipsychotic treatments appears to be higher in dementia-related psychosis without agitation than in agitation alone or in psychosis with agitation. Therefore, the use of a rating scale such as the Neuropsychiatric Inventory–Questionnaire (NPI-Q), which takes 5 minutes or less to administer, is recommended to identify and track behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress.

2. The etiology of agitation in dementia may be multifactorial.

It is important in every case to identify all underlying etiologies so that presumed causal and/or exacerbating factors are not inadvertently missed. Agitation may be a means of communicating distress owing to unmet needs or a patient-environment mismatch (function-focused approach) or may be a direct consequence of the dementia itself (behavioral-symptom approach). These approaches are not mutually exclusive. A patient can present with agitation as a direct consequence of dementia and inadequately treated pain concurrently. 

The new IPA definition specifies several exclusion criteria for agitation in dementia, including underlying medical conditions, delirium, substance use, and suboptimal care conditions. It is especially crucial to accurately identify delirium because dementia is an independent risk factor for delirium, which in turn may accelerate the progression of cognitive and functional decline. Even subsyndromal delirium in older adults leads to a higher 3-year mortality rate that is comparable to that seen in delirium. Older adults with acute-onset agitation in the context of dementia should undergo a comprehensive assessment for delirium, as agitation may be the only indication of a serious underlying medical condition. 
 

3. Nonpharmacologic interventions should be used whenever possible. 

The wider adoption of nonpharmacologic interventions in clinical practice has been greatly limited by the heterogeneity in study protocols, including in selection of participants, in the types of dementias included, and in defining and applying the intervention strategies. Nevertheless, there is general consensus that individualized behavioral strategies that build on the patients’ interests and preserved abilities are more effective, at least in the short term. Patients best suited for these interventions are those with less cognitive decline, better communication skills, less impairment in activities of daily living, and higher responsiveness. A systematic review of systematic reviews found music therapy to be the most effective intervention for reducing agitation and aggression in dementia, along with behavioral management techniques when supervised by healthcare professionals. On the other hand, physical restraints are best avoided, as their use in hospitalized patients has been associated with longer stays, higher costs, lower odds of being discharged to home, and in long-term care patients with longer stays, with increased risk for medical complications and functional decline. 

4. Antidepressants are not all equally safe or efficacious in managing agitation.

In a network meta-analysis that looked at the effects of several antidepressants on agitation in dementia, citalopram had just under 95% probability of efficacy and was the only antidepressant that was significantly more efficacious than placebo. In the multicenter CitAD trial, citalopram was efficacious and well tolerated for the treatment of agitation in AD, but the mean dose of citalopram used, 30 mg/d, was higher than the maximum dose of 20 mg/d recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in those aged 60 years or above. The optimal candidates for citalopram were those under the age of 85 with mild to moderate AD and mild to moderate nonpsychotic agitation, and it took up to 9 weeks for it to be fully effective. Due to the risk for dose-dependent QTc prolongation with citalopram, a baseline ECG must be done, and a second ECG is recommended if a clinical decision is made to exceed the recommended maximum daily dose. In the CitAD trial, 66% of patients in the citalopram arm received cholinesterase inhibitors concurrently while 44% received memantine, so these symptomatic treatments for AD should not be stopped solely for initiating a citalopram trial. 

The antiagitation effect of citalopram may well be a class effect of all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), given that there is also evidence favoring the use of sertraline and escitalopram. The S-CitAD trial, the first large, randomized controlled study of escitalopram for the treatment of agitation in dementia, is expected to announce its top-line results sometime this year. However, not all antidepressant classes appear to be equally efficacious or safe. In the large, 12-week randomized placebo-controlled trial SYMBAD, mirtazapine was not only ineffective in treating nonpsychotic agitation in AD but was also associated with a higher mortality rate that just missed statistical significance. Trazodone is also often used for treating agitation, but there is insufficient evidence regarding efficacy and a high probability of adverse effects, even at low doses.
 

5. Antipsychotics may be effective drugs for treating severe dementia-related agitation.

The CATIE-AD study found that the small beneficial effects of antipsychotics for treating agitation and psychosis in AD were offset by their adverse effects and high discontinuation rates, and the FDA-imposed boxed warnings in 2005 and 2008 cautioned against the use of both first- and second-generation antipsychotics to manage dementia-related psychosis owing to an increased risk for death. Subsequently, the quest for safer and more effective alternatives culminated in the FDA approval of brexpiprazole in 2023 for the treatment of agitation in AD, but the black box warning was left in place. Three randomized controlled trials found brexpiprazole to be relatively safe, with statistically significant improvement in agitation. It was especially efficacious for severe agitation, but there is controversy about whether such improvement is clinically meaningful and whether brexpiprazole is truly superior to other antipsychotics for treating dementia-related agitation. As in the previously mentioned citalopram studies, most patients in the brexpiprazole studies received the drug as an add-on to memantine and/or a cholinesterase inhibitor, and it was proven effective over a period of up to 12 weeks across the three trials. Regarding other antipsychotics, aripiprazole and risperidone have been shown to be effective in treating agitation in patients with mixed dementia, but risperidone has also been associated with the highest risk for strokes (about 80% probability). Unfortunately, an unintended consequence of the boxed warnings on antipsychotics has been an increase in off-label substitution of psychotropic drugs with unproven efficacy and a questionable safety profile, such as valproic acid preparations, that have been linked to an increased short-term risk for accelerated brain volume loss and rapid cognitive decline, as well as a higher risk for mortality.

Lisa M. Wise, assistant professor, Psychiatry, at Oregon Health & Science University, and staff psychiatrist, Department of Psychiatry, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland, Oregon, and Vimal M. Aga, adjunct assistant professor, Department of Neurology, Oregon Health & Science University, and geriatric psychiatrist, Layton Aging and Alzheimer’s Disease Center, Portland, Oregon, have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

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

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

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

MILAN — Liver transplantation improves survival in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), according to interim clinical outcomes of the large, international CHANCE study.

To date, the results show that 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality rates in patients with ACLF grades 2 and 3 were only 9%, which is not significantly different than that of patients with decompensated cirrhosis, with a mortality of 7%.

University College London Hospitals

“Treatment of ACLF is an unmet medical need,” said Rajiv Jalan, MD, professor of hepatology and honorary consultant in hepatology, University College London Hospitals, London, England.

These findings highlight “the inadequacy of current transplant allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3,” which is leading to excess mortality on the wait list, he added.

Dr. Jalan presented the interim results at the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) Congress 2024.

If confirmed in the full analysis, these results argue strongly for increasing access to liver transplantation and changing organ allocation for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, he said.
 

Organ Allocation Principally Based on MELD Scores

ACLF, which occurs in patients with cirrhosis and acutely decompensated liver disease admitted to hospital, carries a high, short-term risk for death. The risk for 28-day mortality for ACLF 2 and 3 is between 30% and 90% and characterized by multiorgan failure.

As seen in previous data, even patients on the transplant waiting list with a low Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score have a risk for death between 20% and 30% if they are ACLF 2 and 3, Dr. Jalan said.

MELD scores do not consider the risk for death because of failure of extrahepatic organs, he added. Existing worldwide organ allocation systems are principally based on patient MELD scores or its variations; therefore, many patients die on the waiting list.

With this in mind, the CHANCE study aimed to compare 1-year graft and patient survival rates after liver transplantation in patients with ACLF 2 or 3 at the time of transplantation with patients with decompensated cirrhosis without ACLF and transplantation-free survival of patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation.

The multicenter observational study comprised 66 liver transplant centers from 21 countries and over 500 investigators. Recruitment was closed after 1000 patients were enrolled.

Patients were aged 54-56 years, 31%-35% were women, 48%-70% had alcohol-related cirrhosis, and 19%-24% had metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis. MELD scores ranged from 25 to 36.

For the interim results, Dr. Jalan and colleagues assessed mortality on the waiting list and 3-month post–liver transplantation mortality.

Secondary endpoints included quality of life and cost of care.

Of the 823 patients in the study, they were grouped as follows: 376 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 listed for liver transplantation (group 1), 313 patients with ACLF 0 or 1 and MELD score > 20 listed for liver transplantation (group 2), and 134 patients with ACLF 2 or 3 not listed for liver transplantation (group 3).

Overall, patients in group 1 had very severe ACLF; 177 patients with ACLF 3 had three or more organ failures, Dr. Jalan noted.

“It is interesting to note that, in group 3, there is an overrepresentation of alcohol-related cirrhosis, and this might reflect a bias in transplantation,” he added.

Dr. Jalan highlighted geographical points of difference. Patients in the United States were younger, which could be important when interpreting results of post-transplantation outcomes. In Asia, the majority of the patients were men and primarily from India, where living donor transplantation is commonly performed. In Latin America, only 33% of study participants had alcohol-related cirrhosis in contrast to 67% of those in North America.

However, “comorbidities across the world were similar, and MELD scores were also similar,” Dr. Jalan said.
 

Death or Delisting

Between listing and transplantation, 28% of patients in group 1 either died or were delisted, compared with 16% of those in group 2. In group 3, 85% of patients who were not listed for transplantation in the first place died.

Similar to what has been seen in other studies, nearly 50% of patients with ACLF 3 but a MELD score < 25 on the wait list died or were delisted, Dr. Jalan pointed out, suggesting that these patients are disadvantaged under the current system of waiting list priority.

Geographically, deaths on the wait list were significantly higher in Latin America at 40% than in North America, Europe, and Asia at 20%, 18%, and 13%, respectively.

“This is likely due to low donation rates in Latin America,” Dr. Jalan said.

Turning to 3-month post-transplantation mortality, the rates in groups 1 and 2 were 9% and 7%, respectively.

“This demonstrates very nicely the clear benefit of transplant,” Dr. Jalan said. “The risk of death post transplant, even with ACLF 2 or 3, is not significantly different to those patients with decompensated cirrhosis.”

There was a slightly higher risk for death in patients with ACLF 3 than in those with ACLF 2 at 14% vs 7%, but “the risk of death in these patients if they don’t have transportation is 70%-80%,” he said.

Looking at 3-month post-transplantation mortality by continent, Dr. Jalan highlighted that Latin America showed 16% risk, compared with Asia, Europe, and North America that showed 12%, 7%, and 3% risk, respectively.

“This is probably multifactorial and likely to be influenced by time on the waiting list, quality of organs available, and patient demographics, among other factors,” Dr. Jalan said. When very sick people undergo transplantation, “there is a higher risk of death.”

The patients in this study have waited a long time, “which worsens their situation,” said Dr. Jalan, reinforcing his argument for changing the international organ allocation system to allow earlier access for these patients.
 

‘The Landscape of Organ Allocation Is Extremely Complex’

Comoderator Ana Lleo, MD, PhD, full professor of internal medicine and hepatology, Humanitas University, Milan, Italy, commented that “the number of patients included in this international study is significant,” and that the issue of mortality on the wait list is of great clinical interest.

“The landscape of organ allocation is extremely complex,” she added.

The system for liver transplantation considers a large number of clinical conditions with very diverse benefit profiles, she explained.

“While we would like to offer liver transplantation for all patients with any range of benefit, the current donations are not sufficient to cover the request,” Dr. Lleo said. “Therefore, prioritization remains key.”

The findings do illustrate the inadequacy of current transplantation allocation criteria for patients with ACLF 2 and 3, said Debbie Shawcross, MBBS, PhD, professor of hepatology and chronic liver failure, King’s College Hospital, London, England, who is also serving as vice-secretary of the EASL Governing Board.

However, “this must be balanced by the recognition that the global donor pool of organs available is a finite resource,” she said, echoing Dr. Lleo’s comments.

This calls for wider ethical discussions to avoid disadvantaging more stable, often younger patients with cirrhosis who are listed for transplantation, she added.

Dr. Jalan declared he is the inventor of Ornithine Phenylacetate, licensed by UCL to Mallinckrodt Pharma; a speaker and grant reviewer for Grifols Research Collaboration: Yaqrit; and the founder of Yaqrit, Hepyx, CyberLiver, and Gigabiome. Dr. Lleo declared that she does not have any conflicts relevant to this work but received lecture fees from Gilead, Advanz Pharma, Alfasigma, GSK, Incyte, Gore, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen and consulted for Advanz Pharma, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, GSK, and Dr Falk. Dr. Shawcross declared advisory board/consultancy for EnteroBiotix, Norgine, Satellite Bio, and MRN Health.

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