A new type of genetic test known as a polygenic risk score could change the way clinicians detect and treat chronic illnesses. But to be widely used, genomic findings in large populations first need to be translated into valid clinical tests for individual patients. Then physicians need meaningful interpretations of test data to help make clinical decisions about patient care.

In a study published in Nature Medicine, researchers report details of how they set up a genetic assay for six common diseases and developed explanatory reports to help bridge the gap between science and clinical care.

The assay and reports were created for the GenoVA study, a clinical trial that aims to determine whether polygenic risk scores (PRSs), also known as polygenic scores (PGSs), could be used effectively in a primary care setting. The randomized trial will enroll 1,000 patients at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and will follow them for 2 years.

The authors report early data from the new laboratory test. For the 227 participants enrolled so far, 11% had a high risk for atrial fibrillation, 7% were at risk for coronary artery disease, 8% for type 2 diabetes, 6% for colorectal cancer, 15% of men had an increased prostate cancer risk, and 13% of women were at increased risk for breast cancer.

Polygenic scores are promising for informing screening and treatment decisions, with the goal of preventing chronic disease. Jason Vassy, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and VA Boston, says, “It is important to think of PRS as one risk factor for disease, not a diagnostic test or an indication that an individual will certainly develop the disease.”

He continues, “Most diseases have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and a high PRS is just one piece of the puzzle. PRSs do not replace the traditional risk factors we usually think about in clinical medicine, such as diet and exercise to prevent type 2 diabetes and smoking cessation to lower cardiovascular disease risk.”

Currently, clinical genetic testing is typically performed when a patient is suspected of having a specific disease or a family history of a condition, such as sickle cell disease or breast cancer. Tests for these types of conditions are often monogenic, detecting only select mutations.

PRS tests have the potential to inform clinical decisions years before patients become symptomatic. The PRS testing in this study combines large quantities of genetic information to assess a patient’s risk for multiple conditions. The risk for common chronic conditions can involve hundreds to millions of small genetic variations. Alone, these variations have minimal impact on a person’s risk for disease, but together they can lead to an increased risk for specific conditions.

Certain PRS tests are currently available from direct-to-consumer laboratories, in oncology, and through some clinical trials, but they’re not commonly used in general practice.

Dr. Vassy and colleagues developed and validated PRSs for atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer at the Mass General Brigham Laboratory for Molecular Medicine.

The team calculated the final PRS on the basis of individual patient genotyping combined with statistical population models.

In the GenoVA study, adults aged 50-70 years who have no previous history of disease provide saliva or blood for PRS testing at the Boston VA. Participants are stratified by risk result and are randomly assigned to receive test results either immediately or after 24 months.

Enrollees are then followed for 2 years to observe how they and their primary care providers use risk score information and whether any preventive measures or other clinical tests are employed. Guidelines are provided to patients and clinicians throughout the study, along with genetic counseling. Ultimately, the study seeks to determine whether PRS implementation improves health outcomes.

Study participants are from diverse backgrounds: 52% of the first 227 patients report non-White, non-Hispanic ethnicity. To adjust for the fact that most genomic research to date has been based on European populations, researchers used statistical methods to calculate scores across racial groups.
 

Is PRS testing the future of chronic disease prevention?

Genome wide association studies (GWASs) from more inclusive datasets are needed to improve the relevance of PRS across ancestry groups, the authors write.

Dr. Vassy points out that “the risk estimates from GWAS are the underpinnings of the polygenic scores, so a score is only as valid as its original.” Fortunately, he adds, “advances are occurring on multiple fronts, and this will be key to promoting the equitable implementation of polygenic scores. Larger, more diverse cohorts are being recruited for GWAS studies, and more sophisticated, trans-ancestry statistical GWAS methods are being developed to analyze these more diverse data.”

In England, researchers are considering the benefits of using polygenic scores in National Health Service checks for cardiovascular disease, a well-studied area of genetic risk. The new article and the English effort draw from the PGS Catalogue, an open database built by Samuel Lambert, of the University of Cambridge Department of Public Health and Primary Care, and his colleagues to provide scores and methods that can be reused and adapted for clinical use.

He says he’d recommend PRS with confidence to his family members – in particular, certain in-depth cancer assays – “provided [the results] would be interpreted in collaboration with a health care professional who understands genetics (for example, a genetic counselor) with carefully vetted information on the validity and actionability of the test result.”

Mr. Lambert feels it’s important to understand that PRS testing isn’t deterministic. “The risk information is inherently probabilistic and relative (for example, you have a four times higher risk than the average person, but if the disease prevalence is 0.5%, this is a small absolute difference),” he says.

“The PRS also explains a fraction of the variability of risk in the population and thus shouldn’t be used alone but in combination with other established risk factors and tools to predict future risk when they exist,” Mr. Lambert says.

“And thirdly, most current PRS are less accurate in those of non-European ancestry due to a lack of ancestral diversity in the cohorts and datasets that have been used to develop these PRS; special attention must be paid to make sure that the PRS results are valid for the individual,” he adds.

Funding for the study was provided by the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute and NIH, the American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Vassy is an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; the views expressed do not represent those of the VA or the U.S. government. Mr. Lambert is an employee of Cambridge-Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care.

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

A new type of genetic test known as a polygenic risk score could change the way clinicians detect and treat chronic illnesses. But to be widely used, genomic findings in large populations first need to be translated into valid clinical tests for individual patients. Then physicians need meaningful interpretations of test data to help make clinical decisions about patient care.

In a study published in Nature Medicine, researchers report details of how they set up a genetic assay for six common diseases and developed explanatory reports to help bridge the gap between science and clinical care.

The assay and reports were created for the GenoVA study, a clinical trial that aims to determine whether polygenic risk scores (PRSs), also known as polygenic scores (PGSs), could be used effectively in a primary care setting. The randomized trial will enroll 1,000 patients at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and will follow them for 2 years.

The authors report early data from the new laboratory test. For the 227 participants enrolled so far, 11% had a high risk for atrial fibrillation, 7% were at risk for coronary artery disease, 8% for type 2 diabetes, 6% for colorectal cancer, 15% of men had an increased prostate cancer risk, and 13% of women were at increased risk for breast cancer.

Polygenic scores are promising for informing screening and treatment decisions, with the goal of preventing chronic disease. Jason Vassy, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and VA Boston, says, “It is important to think of PRS as one risk factor for disease, not a diagnostic test or an indication that an individual will certainly develop the disease.”

He continues, “Most diseases have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and a high PRS is just one piece of the puzzle. PRSs do not replace the traditional risk factors we usually think about in clinical medicine, such as diet and exercise to prevent type 2 diabetes and smoking cessation to lower cardiovascular disease risk.”

Currently, clinical genetic testing is typically performed when a patient is suspected of having a specific disease or a family history of a condition, such as sickle cell disease or breast cancer. Tests for these types of conditions are often monogenic, detecting only select mutations.

PRS tests have the potential to inform clinical decisions years before patients become symptomatic. The PRS testing in this study combines large quantities of genetic information to assess a patient’s risk for multiple conditions. The risk for common chronic conditions can involve hundreds to millions of small genetic variations. Alone, these variations have minimal impact on a person’s risk for disease, but together they can lead to an increased risk for specific conditions.

Certain PRS tests are currently available from direct-to-consumer laboratories, in oncology, and through some clinical trials, but they’re not commonly used in general practice.

Dr. Vassy and colleagues developed and validated PRSs for atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer at the Mass General Brigham Laboratory for Molecular Medicine.

The team calculated the final PRS on the basis of individual patient genotyping combined with statistical population models.

In the GenoVA study, adults aged 50-70 years who have no previous history of disease provide saliva or blood for PRS testing at the Boston VA. Participants are stratified by risk result and are randomly assigned to receive test results either immediately or after 24 months.

Enrollees are then followed for 2 years to observe how they and their primary care providers use risk score information and whether any preventive measures or other clinical tests are employed. Guidelines are provided to patients and clinicians throughout the study, along with genetic counseling. Ultimately, the study seeks to determine whether PRS implementation improves health outcomes.

Study participants are from diverse backgrounds: 52% of the first 227 patients report non-White, non-Hispanic ethnicity. To adjust for the fact that most genomic research to date has been based on European populations, researchers used statistical methods to calculate scores across racial groups.
 

Is PRS testing the future of chronic disease prevention?

Genome wide association studies (GWASs) from more inclusive datasets are needed to improve the relevance of PRS across ancestry groups, the authors write.

Dr. Vassy points out that “the risk estimates from GWAS are the underpinnings of the polygenic scores, so a score is only as valid as its original.” Fortunately, he adds, “advances are occurring on multiple fronts, and this will be key to promoting the equitable implementation of polygenic scores. Larger, more diverse cohorts are being recruited for GWAS studies, and more sophisticated, trans-ancestry statistical GWAS methods are being developed to analyze these more diverse data.”

In England, researchers are considering the benefits of using polygenic scores in National Health Service checks for cardiovascular disease, a well-studied area of genetic risk. The new article and the English effort draw from the PGS Catalogue, an open database built by Samuel Lambert, of the University of Cambridge Department of Public Health and Primary Care, and his colleagues to provide scores and methods that can be reused and adapted for clinical use.

He says he’d recommend PRS with confidence to his family members – in particular, certain in-depth cancer assays – “provided [the results] would be interpreted in collaboration with a health care professional who understands genetics (for example, a genetic counselor) with carefully vetted information on the validity and actionability of the test result.”

Mr. Lambert feels it’s important to understand that PRS testing isn’t deterministic. “The risk information is inherently probabilistic and relative (for example, you have a four times higher risk than the average person, but if the disease prevalence is 0.5%, this is a small absolute difference),” he says.

“The PRS also explains a fraction of the variability of risk in the population and thus shouldn’t be used alone but in combination with other established risk factors and tools to predict future risk when they exist,” Mr. Lambert says.

“And thirdly, most current PRS are less accurate in those of non-European ancestry due to a lack of ancestral diversity in the cohorts and datasets that have been used to develop these PRS; special attention must be paid to make sure that the PRS results are valid for the individual,” he adds.

Funding for the study was provided by the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute and NIH, the American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Vassy is an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; the views expressed do not represent those of the VA or the U.S. government. Mr. Lambert is an employee of Cambridge-Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care.

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

A new type of genetic test known as a polygenic risk score could change the way clinicians detect and treat chronic illnesses. But to be widely used, genomic findings in large populations first need to be translated into valid clinical tests for individual patients. Then physicians need meaningful interpretations of test data to help make clinical decisions about patient care.

In a study published in Nature Medicine, researchers report details of how they set up a genetic assay for six common diseases and developed explanatory reports to help bridge the gap between science and clinical care.

The assay and reports were created for the GenoVA study, a clinical trial that aims to determine whether polygenic risk scores (PRSs), also known as polygenic scores (PGSs), could be used effectively in a primary care setting. The randomized trial will enroll 1,000 patients at the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System and will follow them for 2 years.

The authors report early data from the new laboratory test. For the 227 participants enrolled so far, 11% had a high risk for atrial fibrillation, 7% were at risk for coronary artery disease, 8% for type 2 diabetes, 6% for colorectal cancer, 15% of men had an increased prostate cancer risk, and 13% of women were at increased risk for breast cancer.

Polygenic scores are promising for informing screening and treatment decisions, with the goal of preventing chronic disease. Jason Vassy, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and VA Boston, says, “It is important to think of PRS as one risk factor for disease, not a diagnostic test or an indication that an individual will certainly develop the disease.”

He continues, “Most diseases have complex, multifactorial etiologies, and a high PRS is just one piece of the puzzle. PRSs do not replace the traditional risk factors we usually think about in clinical medicine, such as diet and exercise to prevent type 2 diabetes and smoking cessation to lower cardiovascular disease risk.”

Currently, clinical genetic testing is typically performed when a patient is suspected of having a specific disease or a family history of a condition, such as sickle cell disease or breast cancer. Tests for these types of conditions are often monogenic, detecting only select mutations.

PRS tests have the potential to inform clinical decisions years before patients become symptomatic. The PRS testing in this study combines large quantities of genetic information to assess a patient’s risk for multiple conditions. The risk for common chronic conditions can involve hundreds to millions of small genetic variations. Alone, these variations have minimal impact on a person’s risk for disease, but together they can lead to an increased risk for specific conditions.

Certain PRS tests are currently available from direct-to-consumer laboratories, in oncology, and through some clinical trials, but they’re not commonly used in general practice.

Dr. Vassy and colleagues developed and validated PRSs for atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, type 2 diabetes, breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and prostate cancer at the Mass General Brigham Laboratory for Molecular Medicine.

The team calculated the final PRS on the basis of individual patient genotyping combined with statistical population models.

In the GenoVA study, adults aged 50-70 years who have no previous history of disease provide saliva or blood for PRS testing at the Boston VA. Participants are stratified by risk result and are randomly assigned to receive test results either immediately or after 24 months.

Enrollees are then followed for 2 years to observe how they and their primary care providers use risk score information and whether any preventive measures or other clinical tests are employed. Guidelines are provided to patients and clinicians throughout the study, along with genetic counseling. Ultimately, the study seeks to determine whether PRS implementation improves health outcomes.

Study participants are from diverse backgrounds: 52% of the first 227 patients report non-White, non-Hispanic ethnicity. To adjust for the fact that most genomic research to date has been based on European populations, researchers used statistical methods to calculate scores across racial groups.
 

Is PRS testing the future of chronic disease prevention?

Genome wide association studies (GWASs) from more inclusive datasets are needed to improve the relevance of PRS across ancestry groups, the authors write.

Dr. Vassy points out that “the risk estimates from GWAS are the underpinnings of the polygenic scores, so a score is only as valid as its original.” Fortunately, he adds, “advances are occurring on multiple fronts, and this will be key to promoting the equitable implementation of polygenic scores. Larger, more diverse cohorts are being recruited for GWAS studies, and more sophisticated, trans-ancestry statistical GWAS methods are being developed to analyze these more diverse data.”

In England, researchers are considering the benefits of using polygenic scores in National Health Service checks for cardiovascular disease, a well-studied area of genetic risk. The new article and the English effort draw from the PGS Catalogue, an open database built by Samuel Lambert, of the University of Cambridge Department of Public Health and Primary Care, and his colleagues to provide scores and methods that can be reused and adapted for clinical use.

He says he’d recommend PRS with confidence to his family members – in particular, certain in-depth cancer assays – “provided [the results] would be interpreted in collaboration with a health care professional who understands genetics (for example, a genetic counselor) with carefully vetted information on the validity and actionability of the test result.”

Mr. Lambert feels it’s important to understand that PRS testing isn’t deterministic. “The risk information is inherently probabilistic and relative (for example, you have a four times higher risk than the average person, but if the disease prevalence is 0.5%, this is a small absolute difference),” he says.

“The PRS also explains a fraction of the variability of risk in the population and thus shouldn’t be used alone but in combination with other established risk factors and tools to predict future risk when they exist,” Mr. Lambert says.

“And thirdly, most current PRS are less accurate in those of non-European ancestry due to a lack of ancestral diversity in the cohorts and datasets that have been used to develop these PRS; special attention must be paid to make sure that the PRS results are valid for the individual,” he adds.

Funding for the study was provided by the NIH National Human Genome Research Institute and NIH, the American Heart Association, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, and Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Vassy is an employee of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; the views expressed do not represent those of the VA or the U.S. government. Mr. Lambert is an employee of Cambridge-Baker Systems Genomics Initiative, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care.

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

Impaired vision in older adults is an underrecognized and modifiable dementia risk factor, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) associated with dementia in more than 16,000 older adults. A PAF represents the number of dementia cases that could be prevented if a given risk factor were eliminated.

Results showed the PAF of vision impairment was 1.8%, suggesting that healthy vision had the potential to prevent more than 100,000 cases of dementia in the United States.

“Vision impairment and blindness disproportionately impact older adults, yet vision impairment is often preventable or even correctable,” study investigator Joshua Ehrlich MD, assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Poor vision affects not only how individuals see the world, but also their systemic health and well-being, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“Accordingly, ensuring that older adults receive appropriate eye care is vital to promoting health, independence, and optimal aging,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A surprising omission

There is an “urgent need to identify modifiable risk factors for dementia that can be targeted with interventions to slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia,” the investigators wrote.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission report on dementia prevention, intervention, and care proposed a life-course model of 12 potentially modifiable dementia risk factors. This included lower educational level, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes, and air pollution.

Together, these factors are associated with about 40% of dementia cases worldwide, the report notes.

Vision impairment was not included in this model, “despite considerable evidence that it is associated with an elevated risk of incident dementia and that it may operate through the same pathways as hearing loss,” the current researchers wrote.

“We have known for some time that vision impairment is a risk factor for dementia [and] we also know that a very large fraction of vision impairment, possibly in excess of 80%, is avoidable or has simply yet to be addressed,” Dr. Ehrlich said.

He and his colleagues found it “surprising that vision impairment had been ignored in key models of modifiable dementia risk factors that are used to shape health policy and resource allocation.” They set out to demonstrate that, “in fact, vision impairment is just as influential as a number of other long accepted modifiable dementia risk factors.”

The investigators assessed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a panel study that surveys more than 20,000 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older every 2 years.

The investigators applied the same methods used by the Lancet Commission to the HRS dataset and added vision impairment to the Lancet life-course model. Air pollution was excluded in their model “because those data were not readily available in the HRS,” the researchers wrote.

They noted the PAF is “based on the population prevalence and relative risk of dementia for each risk factor” and is “weighted, based on a principal components analysis, to account for communality (clustering of risk factors).”
 

A missed prevention opportunity

The sample included 16,690 participants (54% were women, 51.5% were at least age 65, 80.2% were White, 10.6% were Black, 9.2% were other).

In total, the 12 potentially modifiable risk factors used in the researchers’ model were associated with an estimated 62.4% of dementia cases in the United States, with hypertension as the most prevalent risk factor with the highest weighted PAF.
 

A new focus for prevention

Commenting for this article, Suzann Pershing, MD, associate professor of ophthalmology, Stanford (Calif.) University, called the study “particularly important because, despite growing recognition of its importance in relation to cognition, visual impairment is often an underrecognized risk factor.”

The current research “builds on increasingly robust medical literature linking visual impairment and dementia, applying analogous methods to those used for the life course model recently presented by the Lancet Commission to evaluate potentially modifiable dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Pershing, who was not involved with the study.

The investigators “make a compelling argument for inclusion of visual impairment as one of the potentially modifiable risk factors; practicing clinicians and health care systems may consider screening and targeted therapies to address visual impairment, with a goal of population health and contributing to a reduction in future dementia disease burden,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial), Jennifer Deal, PhD, department of epidemiology and Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, and Julio Rojas, MD, PhD, Memory and Aging Center, department of neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, call the findings “an important reminder that dementia is a social problem in which potentially treatable risk factors, including visual impairment, are highly prevalent in disadvantaged populations.”

The editorialists noted that 90% of cases of vision impairment are “preventable or have yet to be treated. The two “highly cost-effective interventions” of eyeglasses and/or cataract surgery “remain underused both in the U.S. and globally, especially in disadvantaged communities,” they wrote.

They added that more research is needed to “test the effectiveness of interventions to preserve cognitive health by promoting healthy vision.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Deal reported having received grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rojas reported serving as site principal investigator on clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Eisai and receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Pershing is a consultant for Acumen, and Verana Health (as DigiSight Technologies).

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

Impaired vision in older adults is an underrecognized and modifiable dementia risk factor, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) associated with dementia in more than 16,000 older adults. A PAF represents the number of dementia cases that could be prevented if a given risk factor were eliminated.

Results showed the PAF of vision impairment was 1.8%, suggesting that healthy vision had the potential to prevent more than 100,000 cases of dementia in the United States.

“Vision impairment and blindness disproportionately impact older adults, yet vision impairment is often preventable or even correctable,” study investigator Joshua Ehrlich MD, assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Poor vision affects not only how individuals see the world, but also their systemic health and well-being, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“Accordingly, ensuring that older adults receive appropriate eye care is vital to promoting health, independence, and optimal aging,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A surprising omission

There is an “urgent need to identify modifiable risk factors for dementia that can be targeted with interventions to slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia,” the investigators wrote.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission report on dementia prevention, intervention, and care proposed a life-course model of 12 potentially modifiable dementia risk factors. This included lower educational level, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes, and air pollution.

Together, these factors are associated with about 40% of dementia cases worldwide, the report notes.

Vision impairment was not included in this model, “despite considerable evidence that it is associated with an elevated risk of incident dementia and that it may operate through the same pathways as hearing loss,” the current researchers wrote.

“We have known for some time that vision impairment is a risk factor for dementia [and] we also know that a very large fraction of vision impairment, possibly in excess of 80%, is avoidable or has simply yet to be addressed,” Dr. Ehrlich said.

He and his colleagues found it “surprising that vision impairment had been ignored in key models of modifiable dementia risk factors that are used to shape health policy and resource allocation.” They set out to demonstrate that, “in fact, vision impairment is just as influential as a number of other long accepted modifiable dementia risk factors.”

The investigators assessed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a panel study that surveys more than 20,000 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older every 2 years.

The investigators applied the same methods used by the Lancet Commission to the HRS dataset and added vision impairment to the Lancet life-course model. Air pollution was excluded in their model “because those data were not readily available in the HRS,” the researchers wrote.

They noted the PAF is “based on the population prevalence and relative risk of dementia for each risk factor” and is “weighted, based on a principal components analysis, to account for communality (clustering of risk factors).”
 

A missed prevention opportunity

The sample included 16,690 participants (54% were women, 51.5% were at least age 65, 80.2% were White, 10.6% were Black, 9.2% were other).

In total, the 12 potentially modifiable risk factors used in the researchers’ model were associated with an estimated 62.4% of dementia cases in the United States, with hypertension as the most prevalent risk factor with the highest weighted PAF.
 

A new focus for prevention

Commenting for this article, Suzann Pershing, MD, associate professor of ophthalmology, Stanford (Calif.) University, called the study “particularly important because, despite growing recognition of its importance in relation to cognition, visual impairment is often an underrecognized risk factor.”

The current research “builds on increasingly robust medical literature linking visual impairment and dementia, applying analogous methods to those used for the life course model recently presented by the Lancet Commission to evaluate potentially modifiable dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Pershing, who was not involved with the study.

The investigators “make a compelling argument for inclusion of visual impairment as one of the potentially modifiable risk factors; practicing clinicians and health care systems may consider screening and targeted therapies to address visual impairment, with a goal of population health and contributing to a reduction in future dementia disease burden,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial), Jennifer Deal, PhD, department of epidemiology and Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, and Julio Rojas, MD, PhD, Memory and Aging Center, department of neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, call the findings “an important reminder that dementia is a social problem in which potentially treatable risk factors, including visual impairment, are highly prevalent in disadvantaged populations.”

The editorialists noted that 90% of cases of vision impairment are “preventable or have yet to be treated. The two “highly cost-effective interventions” of eyeglasses and/or cataract surgery “remain underused both in the U.S. and globally, especially in disadvantaged communities,” they wrote.

They added that more research is needed to “test the effectiveness of interventions to preserve cognitive health by promoting healthy vision.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Deal reported having received grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rojas reported serving as site principal investigator on clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Eisai and receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Pershing is a consultant for Acumen, and Verana Health (as DigiSight Technologies).

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

Impaired vision in older adults is an underrecognized and modifiable dementia risk factor, new research suggests.

Investigators analyzed estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) associated with dementia in more than 16,000 older adults. A PAF represents the number of dementia cases that could be prevented if a given risk factor were eliminated.

Results showed the PAF of vision impairment was 1.8%, suggesting that healthy vision had the potential to prevent more than 100,000 cases of dementia in the United States.

“Vision impairment and blindness disproportionately impact older adults, yet vision impairment is often preventable or even correctable,” study investigator Joshua Ehrlich MD, assistant professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.

Poor vision affects not only how individuals see the world, but also their systemic health and well-being, Dr. Ehrlich said.

“Accordingly, ensuring that older adults receive appropriate eye care is vital to promoting health, independence, and optimal aging,” he added.

The findings were published online in JAMA Neurology.
 

A surprising omission

There is an “urgent need to identify modifiable risk factors for dementia that can be targeted with interventions to slow cognitive decline and prevent dementia,” the investigators wrote.

In 2020, the Lancet Commission report on dementia prevention, intervention, and care proposed a life-course model of 12 potentially modifiable dementia risk factors. This included lower educational level, hearing loss, traumatic brain injury, hypertension, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, depression, social isolation, physical inactivity, diabetes, and air pollution.

Together, these factors are associated with about 40% of dementia cases worldwide, the report notes.

Vision impairment was not included in this model, “despite considerable evidence that it is associated with an elevated risk of incident dementia and that it may operate through the same pathways as hearing loss,” the current researchers wrote.

“We have known for some time that vision impairment is a risk factor for dementia [and] we also know that a very large fraction of vision impairment, possibly in excess of 80%, is avoidable or has simply yet to be addressed,” Dr. Ehrlich said.

He and his colleagues found it “surprising that vision impairment had been ignored in key models of modifiable dementia risk factors that are used to shape health policy and resource allocation.” They set out to demonstrate that, “in fact, vision impairment is just as influential as a number of other long accepted modifiable dementia risk factors.”

The investigators assessed data from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a panel study that surveys more than 20,000 U.S. adults aged 50 years or older every 2 years.

The investigators applied the same methods used by the Lancet Commission to the HRS dataset and added vision impairment to the Lancet life-course model. Air pollution was excluded in their model “because those data were not readily available in the HRS,” the researchers wrote.

They noted the PAF is “based on the population prevalence and relative risk of dementia for each risk factor” and is “weighted, based on a principal components analysis, to account for communality (clustering of risk factors).”
 

A missed prevention opportunity

The sample included 16,690 participants (54% were women, 51.5% were at least age 65, 80.2% were White, 10.6% were Black, 9.2% were other).

In total, the 12 potentially modifiable risk factors used in the researchers’ model were associated with an estimated 62.4% of dementia cases in the United States, with hypertension as the most prevalent risk factor with the highest weighted PAF.
 

A new focus for prevention

Commenting for this article, Suzann Pershing, MD, associate professor of ophthalmology, Stanford (Calif.) University, called the study “particularly important because, despite growing recognition of its importance in relation to cognition, visual impairment is often an underrecognized risk factor.”

The current research “builds on increasingly robust medical literature linking visual impairment and dementia, applying analogous methods to those used for the life course model recently presented by the Lancet Commission to evaluate potentially modifiable dementia risk factors,” said Dr. Pershing, who was not involved with the study.

The investigators “make a compelling argument for inclusion of visual impairment as one of the potentially modifiable risk factors; practicing clinicians and health care systems may consider screening and targeted therapies to address visual impairment, with a goal of population health and contributing to a reduction in future dementia disease burden,” she added.

In an accompanying editorial), Jennifer Deal, PhD, department of epidemiology and Cochlear Center for Hearing and Public Health, Baltimore, and Julio Rojas, MD, PhD, Memory and Aging Center, department of neurology, Weill Institute for Neurosciences, University of California, San Francisco, call the findings “an important reminder that dementia is a social problem in which potentially treatable risk factors, including visual impairment, are highly prevalent in disadvantaged populations.”

The editorialists noted that 90% of cases of vision impairment are “preventable or have yet to be treated. The two “highly cost-effective interventions” of eyeglasses and/or cataract surgery “remain underused both in the U.S. and globally, especially in disadvantaged communities,” they wrote.

They added that more research is needed to “test the effectiveness of interventions to preserve cognitive health by promoting healthy vision.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, the National Institutes of Health, and Research to Prevent Blindness. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Deal reported having received grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Rojas reported serving as site principal investigator on clinical trials for Eli Lilly and Eisai and receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Pershing is a consultant for Acumen, and Verana Health (as DigiSight Technologies).

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

More than half of patients taking the two highest doses of tirzepatide as a once-weekly injection lost at least 20% of their body weight in the first phase 3 trial to examine this agent in patients with obesity, but without diabetes, according to preliminary top-line results from the SURMOUNT-1 trial announced by Lilly.  

The full results will be reported at an upcoming medical conference and published at a later date, Lilly added.

There was much excitement in response to the news, but others have urged caution and noted that, even if tirzepatide is eventually approved for obesity, one of the major barriers to use in the United States will be insurance coverage.

“Wow (and a double Wow!) 52lb weight loss (22.5%) at highest dose of tirzepatide,” tweeted Sek Kathiresan, MD, a cardiologist who is cofounder of Verve Therapeutics and on leave from Harvard (@skathire).

“Thus far the challenge with GLP-1s [agonists] for management of obesity is that insurance usually isn’t covering them. This makes them unaffordable for most people,” replied James Marroquin, MD, of the University of Texas at Austin. (@Jamesmarroquin).

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, of the University of Ottawa (Ont.) who writes a column for this news organization on obesity, said if tirzepatide pans out, along with other similar agents already on the market for this indication, “the next few decades should see the pharmaceutical management of obesity rival its surgical management.”

Would compete with ‘game-changer’ semaglutide?

Tirzepatide has been dubbed a “twincretin” because it works not only as an agonist of the glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor, but also of the glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) receptor. It has been much hyped based on the results of the series of SURPASS clinical trials, which have formed the basis of the application for type 2 diabetes approval, about which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision soon.

Several GLP-1 agonists are on the market for both type 2 diabetes and for obesity indications separately, including semaglutide (marketed as Wegovy for obesity, also a once-weekly injection) and liraglutide (Saxenda for obesity, a daily injection), both Novo Nordisk agents.

Wegovy was approved for weight loss in the United States last year, with doctors telling this news organization then that a third of patients who take the drug are likely to lose 20% or more of their starting weight, an outcome that approaches reductions seen with bariatric surgery.

Dr. Freedhoff said he’d like to see “reimbursement by insurers who will see these drugs serving as important ancillary treatments for the myriad of weight-responsive conditions they’re already covering.”

SURMOUNT-1 data: ‘Impressive body weight’ reductions

The new tirzepatide data come from the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SURMOUNT-1 trial, which included 2539 participants from the United States, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan Mexico, Russia, and Taiwan. They had obesity or overweight plus at least one comorbidity but not diabetes. They were randomized to 5-mg, 10-mg, or 15-mg once-weekly tirzepatide or placebo injections for 18 months (72 weeks).

Efficacy was analyzed in two ways. Prior to factoring in drug discontinuation, participants taking tirzepatide experienced weight loss of 16.0% (35 lb/16 kg) with 5 mg, 21.4% (49 lb/22 kg) with 10 mg, and 22.5% (52 lb/24 kg) on 15 mg. In contrast, the placebo group lost just 2.4% of body weight (5 lb/2 kg).  

But treatment discontinuation rates because of adverse events were 4.3%, 7.1%, 6.2%, and 2.6%, for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively. Overall treatment discontinuation rates were 14.3%, 16.4%, 15.1%, and 26.4%, respectively.  

When efficacy was assessed regardless of treatment discontinuation, average body weight reductions were 15.0%, 19.5%, 20.9%, and 3.1% for tirzepatide 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and placebo, respectively.  

More than half of patients taking tirzepatide 10 mg and 15 mg (55% and 63%, respectively) lost at least 20% of their body weight, compared with just 1.3% taking placebo.

Overall safety and tolerability were similar to those of other GLP-1 agonists, with adverse events being gastrointestinal in nature and increasing with higher doses. Nausea affected 24.6%, 33.3%, and 31.0% of the tirzepatide 5-mg, 10-mg, and 15-mg dose groups, respectively, and vomiting was experienced by 8.3%, 10.7%, and 12.2% of patients, respectively. Diarrhea and constipation were also reported more often with the drug than placebo.

“Tirzepatide delivered impressive body weight reductions in SURMOUNT-1, which could represent an important step forward for helping the patient and physician partnership treat this complex disease,” said study investigator Louis J. Aronne, MD, director of the Comprehensive Weight Control Center and the Sanford I. Weill Professor of Metabolic Research at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, in a press release.

Further studies are ongoing for tirzepatide as a potential treatment for obesity or overweight, according to the Lilly statement. SURMOUNT is a phase 3 global clinical development program for tirzepatide that began in late 2019 with over 5,000 people with obesity or overweight across six clinical trials. Results from SURMOUNT-2, SURMOUNT-3, and SURMOUNT-4 are expected in 2023.

Tirzepatide is also being studied as a potential treatment for nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Studies of tirzepatide in obstructive sleep apnea and of morbidity/mortality in obesity are also planned.

Dr. Aronne is cofounder, chief scientific advisor, and a member of the board of directors for Intellihealth. He is also a paid scientific advisory board member for Eli Lilly. Dr. Freedhoff has served or is serving as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health and has received a research grant from Novo Nordisk.

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

Moderate to severe anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath indicate increased risk for nonfatal self-injury (NFSI) among patients newly diagnosed with cancer, according to a Canadian study.

In a population-based, case-control study, each of these symptoms was associated with an increase of at least 60% in the risk for NFSI in the following 180 days, the investigators report.

“Clinicians should know that self-injury is a real problem after a cancer diagnosis,” lead investigator Julie Hallet, MD, an associate scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, told this news organization.

Self-injury “does not necessarily represent an attempted suicide,” she added. “While our data do not allow us to know what the intent was, we know from other work that the repercussions of distress in patients with cancer are much broader than suicide. Self-injury can be a means to cope with psychological difficulties for some patients, without intent for suicide.”

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
 

Nine common symptoms

The study included adults who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, and had completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) evaluation within 36 months of their index cancer diagnosis. ESAS evaluates nine common cancer-associated symptoms, including pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, and shortness of breath, on a patient-reported scale of 0 (absence of symptom) to 10 (worst possible symptom).

The analysis included 406 patients who had visited an emergency department for an NFSI within 180 days of their ESAS evaluation, as well as 1,624 matched control patients with cancer who did not have an NFSI. Case patients and control patients were matched according to age at cancer diagnosis, sex, prior self-injury within 5 years of being diagnosed with cancer, and cancer type. Nonmatched covariates included psychiatric illness and therapy received before NFSI, comorbidity burden, material deprivation, and cancer stage.
 

Toward tailored intervention

A higher proportion of case patients than control patients reported moderate to severe scores for all nine ESAS symptoms. In an adjusted analysis, moderate to severe anxiety (odds ratio, 1.61), depression (OR, 1.66), and shortness of breath (OR, 1.65) were independently associated with higher odds of subsequent NFSI. Each 10-point increase in total ESAS score also was associated with increased risk (OR, 1.51).

“These findings are important to enhance the use of screening ESAS scores to better support patients,” say the authors. “Scores from ESAS assessments can be used to identify patients at higher risk of NFSI, indicating higher level of distress, and help direct tailored assessment and intervention.”

In prior work, Dr. Hallet’s group showed that NFSI occurs in 3 of every 1,000 patients with cancer. NFSI is more frequent among younger patients and those with a history of prior mental illness. “Identifying patients at risk in clinical practice requires you to inquire about a patient’s prior history, identify high symptom scores and ask about them, and trigger intervention pathways when risk is identified,” said Dr. Hallet.

“For example, a young patient with head and neck cancer and a prior history of mental illness who reports high scores for anxiety and drowsiness would be at high risk of self-injury,” she added. Such a patient should be referred to psycho-oncology, psychiatry, or social work. “To facilitate this, we are working on prognostic scores that can be integrated in clinical practice, such as an electronic medical record, to flag patients at risk,” said Dr. Hallet. “Future work will also need to identify the optimal care pathways for at-risk patients.”
 

Self-injury vs. suicidality

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Madeline Li, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinician-scientist at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, said that the findings are “underwhelming” because they tell us what is already known – that “NFSI is associated with distress, and cancer is a stressor.” It would have been more interesting to ask how to distinguish patients at risk for suicide from those at risk for self-harm without suicide, she added.

“The way these authors formulated NFSI included both self-harm intent and suicidal intent,” she explained. The researchers compared patients who were at risk for these two types of events with patients without NFSI. “When we see self-harm without suicidal intent in the emergency room, it’s mostly people making cries for help,” said Dr. Li. “These are people who cut their wrists or take small overdoses on purpose without the intent to die. It would have been more interesting to see if there are different risk factors for people who are just going to self-harm vs. those who are actually going to attempt suicide.”

The study’s identification of risk factors for NSFI is important because “it does tell us that when there’s anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath, we should pay attention to these patients and do something about it,” said Dr. Li. Still, research in cancer psychiatry needs to shift its focus from identifying and addressing existing risk factors to preventing them from developing, she added.

“We need to move earlier and provide emotional and mental health support to cancer patients to prevent them from becoming suicidal, rather than intervening when somebody already is,” Dr. Li concluded.

The study was funded by the Hanna Research Award from the division of surgical oncology at the Odette Cancer Centre–Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and by a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Alternate Funding Plan Innovation grant. It was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hallet has received personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and AAA outside the submitted work. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderate to severe anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath indicate increased risk for nonfatal self-injury (NFSI) among patients newly diagnosed with cancer, according to a Canadian study.

In a population-based, case-control study, each of these symptoms was associated with an increase of at least 60% in the risk for NFSI in the following 180 days, the investigators report.

“Clinicians should know that self-injury is a real problem after a cancer diagnosis,” lead investigator Julie Hallet, MD, an associate scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, told this news organization.

Self-injury “does not necessarily represent an attempted suicide,” she added. “While our data do not allow us to know what the intent was, we know from other work that the repercussions of distress in patients with cancer are much broader than suicide. Self-injury can be a means to cope with psychological difficulties for some patients, without intent for suicide.”

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
 

Nine common symptoms

The study included adults who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, and had completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) evaluation within 36 months of their index cancer diagnosis. ESAS evaluates nine common cancer-associated symptoms, including pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, and shortness of breath, on a patient-reported scale of 0 (absence of symptom) to 10 (worst possible symptom).

The analysis included 406 patients who had visited an emergency department for an NFSI within 180 days of their ESAS evaluation, as well as 1,624 matched control patients with cancer who did not have an NFSI. Case patients and control patients were matched according to age at cancer diagnosis, sex, prior self-injury within 5 years of being diagnosed with cancer, and cancer type. Nonmatched covariates included psychiatric illness and therapy received before NFSI, comorbidity burden, material deprivation, and cancer stage.
 

Toward tailored intervention

A higher proportion of case patients than control patients reported moderate to severe scores for all nine ESAS symptoms. In an adjusted analysis, moderate to severe anxiety (odds ratio, 1.61), depression (OR, 1.66), and shortness of breath (OR, 1.65) were independently associated with higher odds of subsequent NFSI. Each 10-point increase in total ESAS score also was associated with increased risk (OR, 1.51).

“These findings are important to enhance the use of screening ESAS scores to better support patients,” say the authors. “Scores from ESAS assessments can be used to identify patients at higher risk of NFSI, indicating higher level of distress, and help direct tailored assessment and intervention.”

In prior work, Dr. Hallet’s group showed that NFSI occurs in 3 of every 1,000 patients with cancer. NFSI is more frequent among younger patients and those with a history of prior mental illness. “Identifying patients at risk in clinical practice requires you to inquire about a patient’s prior history, identify high symptom scores and ask about them, and trigger intervention pathways when risk is identified,” said Dr. Hallet.

“For example, a young patient with head and neck cancer and a prior history of mental illness who reports high scores for anxiety and drowsiness would be at high risk of self-injury,” she added. Such a patient should be referred to psycho-oncology, psychiatry, or social work. “To facilitate this, we are working on prognostic scores that can be integrated in clinical practice, such as an electronic medical record, to flag patients at risk,” said Dr. Hallet. “Future work will also need to identify the optimal care pathways for at-risk patients.”
 

Self-injury vs. suicidality

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Madeline Li, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinician-scientist at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, said that the findings are “underwhelming” because they tell us what is already known – that “NFSI is associated with distress, and cancer is a stressor.” It would have been more interesting to ask how to distinguish patients at risk for suicide from those at risk for self-harm without suicide, she added.

“The way these authors formulated NFSI included both self-harm intent and suicidal intent,” she explained. The researchers compared patients who were at risk for these two types of events with patients without NFSI. “When we see self-harm without suicidal intent in the emergency room, it’s mostly people making cries for help,” said Dr. Li. “These are people who cut their wrists or take small overdoses on purpose without the intent to die. It would have been more interesting to see if there are different risk factors for people who are just going to self-harm vs. those who are actually going to attempt suicide.”

The study’s identification of risk factors for NSFI is important because “it does tell us that when there’s anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath, we should pay attention to these patients and do something about it,” said Dr. Li. Still, research in cancer psychiatry needs to shift its focus from identifying and addressing existing risk factors to preventing them from developing, she added.

“We need to move earlier and provide emotional and mental health support to cancer patients to prevent them from becoming suicidal, rather than intervening when somebody already is,” Dr. Li concluded.

The study was funded by the Hanna Research Award from the division of surgical oncology at the Odette Cancer Centre–Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and by a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Alternate Funding Plan Innovation grant. It was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hallet has received personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and AAA outside the submitted work. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Moderate to severe anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath indicate increased risk for nonfatal self-injury (NFSI) among patients newly diagnosed with cancer, according to a Canadian study.

In a population-based, case-control study, each of these symptoms was associated with an increase of at least 60% in the risk for NFSI in the following 180 days, the investigators report.

“Clinicians should know that self-injury is a real problem after a cancer diagnosis,” lead investigator Julie Hallet, MD, an associate scientist at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto, told this news organization.

Self-injury “does not necessarily represent an attempted suicide,” she added. “While our data do not allow us to know what the intent was, we know from other work that the repercussions of distress in patients with cancer are much broader than suicide. Self-injury can be a means to cope with psychological difficulties for some patients, without intent for suicide.”

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.
 

Nine common symptoms

The study included adults who were diagnosed with cancer between Jan. 1, 2007, and March 31, 2019, and had completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) evaluation within 36 months of their index cancer diagnosis. ESAS evaluates nine common cancer-associated symptoms, including pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, and shortness of breath, on a patient-reported scale of 0 (absence of symptom) to 10 (worst possible symptom).

The analysis included 406 patients who had visited an emergency department for an NFSI within 180 days of their ESAS evaluation, as well as 1,624 matched control patients with cancer who did not have an NFSI. Case patients and control patients were matched according to age at cancer diagnosis, sex, prior self-injury within 5 years of being diagnosed with cancer, and cancer type. Nonmatched covariates included psychiatric illness and therapy received before NFSI, comorbidity burden, material deprivation, and cancer stage.
 

Toward tailored intervention

A higher proportion of case patients than control patients reported moderate to severe scores for all nine ESAS symptoms. In an adjusted analysis, moderate to severe anxiety (odds ratio, 1.61), depression (OR, 1.66), and shortness of breath (OR, 1.65) were independently associated with higher odds of subsequent NFSI. Each 10-point increase in total ESAS score also was associated with increased risk (OR, 1.51).

“These findings are important to enhance the use of screening ESAS scores to better support patients,” say the authors. “Scores from ESAS assessments can be used to identify patients at higher risk of NFSI, indicating higher level of distress, and help direct tailored assessment and intervention.”

In prior work, Dr. Hallet’s group showed that NFSI occurs in 3 of every 1,000 patients with cancer. NFSI is more frequent among younger patients and those with a history of prior mental illness. “Identifying patients at risk in clinical practice requires you to inquire about a patient’s prior history, identify high symptom scores and ask about them, and trigger intervention pathways when risk is identified,” said Dr. Hallet.

“For example, a young patient with head and neck cancer and a prior history of mental illness who reports high scores for anxiety and drowsiness would be at high risk of self-injury,” she added. Such a patient should be referred to psycho-oncology, psychiatry, or social work. “To facilitate this, we are working on prognostic scores that can be integrated in clinical practice, such as an electronic medical record, to flag patients at risk,” said Dr. Hallet. “Future work will also need to identify the optimal care pathways for at-risk patients.”
 

Self-injury vs. suicidality

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Madeline Li, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist and clinician-scientist at Toronto’s Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, said that the findings are “underwhelming” because they tell us what is already known – that “NFSI is associated with distress, and cancer is a stressor.” It would have been more interesting to ask how to distinguish patients at risk for suicide from those at risk for self-harm without suicide, she added.

“The way these authors formulated NFSI included both self-harm intent and suicidal intent,” she explained. The researchers compared patients who were at risk for these two types of events with patients without NFSI. “When we see self-harm without suicidal intent in the emergency room, it’s mostly people making cries for help,” said Dr. Li. “These are people who cut their wrists or take small overdoses on purpose without the intent to die. It would have been more interesting to see if there are different risk factors for people who are just going to self-harm vs. those who are actually going to attempt suicide.”

The study’s identification of risk factors for NSFI is important because “it does tell us that when there’s anxiety, depression, and shortness of breath, we should pay attention to these patients and do something about it,” said Dr. Li. Still, research in cancer psychiatry needs to shift its focus from identifying and addressing existing risk factors to preventing them from developing, she added.

“We need to move earlier and provide emotional and mental health support to cancer patients to prevent them from becoming suicidal, rather than intervening when somebody already is,” Dr. Li concluded.

The study was funded by the Hanna Research Award from the division of surgical oncology at the Odette Cancer Centre–Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and by a Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Alternate Funding Plan Innovation grant. It was also supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Dr. Hallet has received personal fees from Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals Canada and AAA outside the submitted work. Dr. Li reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Fat shaming doesn’t work. If it did, obesity as we know it wouldn’t exist because if the one thing society ensures isn’t lacking for people with obesity, it’s shame. We know that fat shaming doesn’t lead to weight loss and that it’s actually correlated with weight gain: More shame leads to more gain (Puhl and Suh; Sutin and Terracciano; Tomiyama et al).

Shaming and weight stigma have far more concerning associations than weight gain. People who report experiencing more weight stigma have an increased risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor body image, substance abuse, suicidality, unhealthy eating behaviors, disordered eating, increased caloric intake, exercise avoidance, decreased exercise motivation potentially due to heightened cortisol reactivity, elevated C-reactive protein, and elevated blood pressure.

Meanwhile, people with obesity – likely in part owing to negative weight-biased experiences in health care – are reluctant to discuss weight with their health care providers and are less likely to seek care at all for any conditions. When care is sought, people with obesity are more likely to receive substandard treatment, including receiving fewer preventive health screenings, decreased health education, and decreased time spent in appointments.
 

Remember that obesity is not a conscious choice

A fact that is conveniently forgotten by those who are most prone to fat shaming is that obesity, like every chronic noncommunicable disease, isn’t a choice that is consciously made by patients.

And yes, though there are lifestyle means that might affect weight, there are lifestyle means that might affect all chronic diseases – yet obesity is the only one we seem to moralize about. It’s also worth noting that other chronic diseases’ lifestyle levers tend not to be governed by thousands of genes and dozens of hormones; those trying to “lifestyle” their way out of obesity are swimming against strong physiologic currents that influence our most seminally important survival drive: eating.

But forgetting about physiologic currents, there is also staggering privilege associated with intentional perpetual behavior change around food and fitness in the name of health.

Whereas medicine and the world are right and quick to embrace the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the push to confront weight bias is far rarer, despite the fact that it’s been shown to be rampant among health care professionals.
 

Protecting the rights of people with obesity

Perhaps though, times are changing. Movements are popping up to protect the rights of people with obesity while combating hate.

Of note, Brazil seems to have embraced a campaign to fight gordofobia — the Portuguese term used to describe weight-based discrimination. For instance, laws are being passed to ensure appropriate seating is supplied in schools for children with obesity, an annual day was formalized to promote the rights of people with obesity, preferential seating is provided on subways for people with obesity, and fines have been levied against at least one comedian for making fat jokes on the grounds of the state’s duty to protect minorities.

We need to take this fight to medicine. Given the incredibly depressing prevalence of weight bias among trainees, medical schools and residency programs should ensure countering weight bias is not only part of the curriculum but that it’s explicitly examined. National medical licensing examinations should include weight bias as well.

Though we’re closer than ever before to widely effective treatment options for obesity, it’s likely to still be decades before pharmaceutical options to treat obesity are as effective, accepted, and encouraged as medications to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and more are today.

If you’re curious about your own implicit weight biases, consider taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test for Weight. You might also want to take a few moments and review the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliances’ Weight Can’t Wait guide for advice on the management of obesity in primary care.

Treat patients with obesity the same as you would those with any chronic condition.

Also, consider your physical office space. Do you have chairs suitable for patients with obesity (wide base and with arms to help patients rise)? A scale that measures up to high weights that’s in a private location? Appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs?

If not, do you know who is deserving of shame?

Doctors who fat shame or who treat patients with obesity differently than they would any other patient with a chronic medical condition.

Examples include the family doctor who hadn’t checked my patient’s blood pressure in over a decade because he couldn’t be bothered buying an appropriately sized blood pressure cuff. Or the fertility doctor who told one of my patients that perhaps her weight reflected God’s will that she does not have children.

Finally, if reading this article about treating people with obesity the same as you would patients with other chronic, noncommunicable, lifestyle responsive diseases made you angry, there’s a great chance that you’re part of the problem.
 

Dr. Freedhoff, is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work. He has disclosed the following: He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and has publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fat shaming doesn’t work. If it did, obesity as we know it wouldn’t exist because if the one thing society ensures isn’t lacking for people with obesity, it’s shame. We know that fat shaming doesn’t lead to weight loss and that it’s actually correlated with weight gain: More shame leads to more gain (Puhl and Suh; Sutin and Terracciano; Tomiyama et al).

Shaming and weight stigma have far more concerning associations than weight gain. People who report experiencing more weight stigma have an increased risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor body image, substance abuse, suicidality, unhealthy eating behaviors, disordered eating, increased caloric intake, exercise avoidance, decreased exercise motivation potentially due to heightened cortisol reactivity, elevated C-reactive protein, and elevated blood pressure.

Meanwhile, people with obesity – likely in part owing to negative weight-biased experiences in health care – are reluctant to discuss weight with their health care providers and are less likely to seek care at all for any conditions. When care is sought, people with obesity are more likely to receive substandard treatment, including receiving fewer preventive health screenings, decreased health education, and decreased time spent in appointments.
 

Remember that obesity is not a conscious choice

A fact that is conveniently forgotten by those who are most prone to fat shaming is that obesity, like every chronic noncommunicable disease, isn’t a choice that is consciously made by patients.

And yes, though there are lifestyle means that might affect weight, there are lifestyle means that might affect all chronic diseases – yet obesity is the only one we seem to moralize about. It’s also worth noting that other chronic diseases’ lifestyle levers tend not to be governed by thousands of genes and dozens of hormones; those trying to “lifestyle” their way out of obesity are swimming against strong physiologic currents that influence our most seminally important survival drive: eating.

But forgetting about physiologic currents, there is also staggering privilege associated with intentional perpetual behavior change around food and fitness in the name of health.

Whereas medicine and the world are right and quick to embrace the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the push to confront weight bias is far rarer, despite the fact that it’s been shown to be rampant among health care professionals.
 

Protecting the rights of people with obesity

Perhaps though, times are changing. Movements are popping up to protect the rights of people with obesity while combating hate.

Of note, Brazil seems to have embraced a campaign to fight gordofobia — the Portuguese term used to describe weight-based discrimination. For instance, laws are being passed to ensure appropriate seating is supplied in schools for children with obesity, an annual day was formalized to promote the rights of people with obesity, preferential seating is provided on subways for people with obesity, and fines have been levied against at least one comedian for making fat jokes on the grounds of the state’s duty to protect minorities.

We need to take this fight to medicine. Given the incredibly depressing prevalence of weight bias among trainees, medical schools and residency programs should ensure countering weight bias is not only part of the curriculum but that it’s explicitly examined. National medical licensing examinations should include weight bias as well.

Though we’re closer than ever before to widely effective treatment options for obesity, it’s likely to still be decades before pharmaceutical options to treat obesity are as effective, accepted, and encouraged as medications to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and more are today.

If you’re curious about your own implicit weight biases, consider taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test for Weight. You might also want to take a few moments and review the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliances’ Weight Can’t Wait guide for advice on the management of obesity in primary care.

Treat patients with obesity the same as you would those with any chronic condition.

Also, consider your physical office space. Do you have chairs suitable for patients with obesity (wide base and with arms to help patients rise)? A scale that measures up to high weights that’s in a private location? Appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs?

If not, do you know who is deserving of shame?

Doctors who fat shame or who treat patients with obesity differently than they would any other patient with a chronic medical condition.

Examples include the family doctor who hadn’t checked my patient’s blood pressure in over a decade because he couldn’t be bothered buying an appropriately sized blood pressure cuff. Or the fertility doctor who told one of my patients that perhaps her weight reflected God’s will that she does not have children.

Finally, if reading this article about treating people with obesity the same as you would patients with other chronic, noncommunicable, lifestyle responsive diseases made you angry, there’s a great chance that you’re part of the problem.
 

Dr. Freedhoff, is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work. He has disclosed the following: He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and has publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Fat shaming doesn’t work. If it did, obesity as we know it wouldn’t exist because if the one thing society ensures isn’t lacking for people with obesity, it’s shame. We know that fat shaming doesn’t lead to weight loss and that it’s actually correlated with weight gain: More shame leads to more gain (Puhl and Suh; Sutin and Terracciano; Tomiyama et al).

Shaming and weight stigma have far more concerning associations than weight gain. People who report experiencing more weight stigma have an increased risk for depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, poor body image, substance abuse, suicidality, unhealthy eating behaviors, disordered eating, increased caloric intake, exercise avoidance, decreased exercise motivation potentially due to heightened cortisol reactivity, elevated C-reactive protein, and elevated blood pressure.

Meanwhile, people with obesity – likely in part owing to negative weight-biased experiences in health care – are reluctant to discuss weight with their health care providers and are less likely to seek care at all for any conditions. When care is sought, people with obesity are more likely to receive substandard treatment, including receiving fewer preventive health screenings, decreased health education, and decreased time spent in appointments.
 

Remember that obesity is not a conscious choice

A fact that is conveniently forgotten by those who are most prone to fat shaming is that obesity, like every chronic noncommunicable disease, isn’t a choice that is consciously made by patients.

And yes, though there are lifestyle means that might affect weight, there are lifestyle means that might affect all chronic diseases – yet obesity is the only one we seem to moralize about. It’s also worth noting that other chronic diseases’ lifestyle levers tend not to be governed by thousands of genes and dozens of hormones; those trying to “lifestyle” their way out of obesity are swimming against strong physiologic currents that influence our most seminally important survival drive: eating.

But forgetting about physiologic currents, there is also staggering privilege associated with intentional perpetual behavior change around food and fitness in the name of health.

Whereas medicine and the world are right and quick to embrace the fights against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the push to confront weight bias is far rarer, despite the fact that it’s been shown to be rampant among health care professionals.
 

Protecting the rights of people with obesity

Perhaps though, times are changing. Movements are popping up to protect the rights of people with obesity while combating hate.

Of note, Brazil seems to have embraced a campaign to fight gordofobia — the Portuguese term used to describe weight-based discrimination. For instance, laws are being passed to ensure appropriate seating is supplied in schools for children with obesity, an annual day was formalized to promote the rights of people with obesity, preferential seating is provided on subways for people with obesity, and fines have been levied against at least one comedian for making fat jokes on the grounds of the state’s duty to protect minorities.

We need to take this fight to medicine. Given the incredibly depressing prevalence of weight bias among trainees, medical schools and residency programs should ensure countering weight bias is not only part of the curriculum but that it’s explicitly examined. National medical licensing examinations should include weight bias as well.

Though we’re closer than ever before to widely effective treatment options for obesity, it’s likely to still be decades before pharmaceutical options to treat obesity are as effective, accepted, and encouraged as medications to treat hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and more are today.

If you’re curious about your own implicit weight biases, consider taking Harvard’s Implicit Association Test for Weight. You might also want to take a few moments and review the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity Alliances’ Weight Can’t Wait guide for advice on the management of obesity in primary care.

Treat patients with obesity the same as you would those with any chronic condition.

Also, consider your physical office space. Do you have chairs suitable for patients with obesity (wide base and with arms to help patients rise)? A scale that measures up to high weights that’s in a private location? Appropriately sized blood pressure cuffs?

If not, do you know who is deserving of shame?

Doctors who fat shame or who treat patients with obesity differently than they would any other patient with a chronic medical condition.

Examples include the family doctor who hadn’t checked my patient’s blood pressure in over a decade because he couldn’t be bothered buying an appropriately sized blood pressure cuff. Or the fertility doctor who told one of my patients that perhaps her weight reflected God’s will that she does not have children.

Finally, if reading this article about treating people with obesity the same as you would patients with other chronic, noncommunicable, lifestyle responsive diseases made you angry, there’s a great chance that you’re part of the problem.
 

Dr. Freedhoff, is associate professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa and medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, a nonsurgical weight management center. He is one of Canada’s most outspoken obesity experts and the author of The Diet Fix: Why Diets Fail and How to Make Yours Work. He has disclosed the following: He served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health; has received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and has publicly shared opinions via Weighty Matters and social media. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

An estimated 15% of Americans over age 65 years who aren’t living in institutions are considered frail – a complex geriatric syndrome that raises the odds of disability, hospitalization, the need for nursing care, and death.

But while the word frailty may conjure images of wizened and weakened men and women, the clinical picture is far less clear.

“We’ve made a lot of progress in some ways, but still a lot of work to be done in others,” George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, the chair in geriatrics and gerontology and director of the UConn Center on Aging in Farmington, Conn., said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“You have to be very careful about generalizations,” Dr. Kuchel said. “This is very important when you are thinking about managing it.”

One of the key take-home messages, Dr. Kuchel said, “and one of the first things I learned as a geriatrics fellow, is that when you have seen one older person, all you have seen is one older person.”

What this means is that while all people age, there is tremendous variance in how they age. “Some become quite frail and disabled and need to be in a nursing home, while some age gracefully and are living well,” he said. “Most fall somewhere in between.”

The second major take-home is that frailty is multifactorial – a critical consideration when it comes to managing elderly patients.

“Unlike other conditions, there is no single medication, there is no one single thing you can do – it is really multifactorial,” he said. “What it means is to match the components to target unique needs, and that is something that we are calling ‘precision gerontology,’ as opposed to precision medicine.”

The definitions of frailty vary but can involve increased vulnerability; enhanced risk of declining function, disability, and death; and a decline in functioning across multiple physiologic systems, accompanied by an increased vulnerability to stressors.

Key features that clinicians should emphasize include multifactorial etiology with each risk factor contributing only modestly:

• Multidimensional nature, with physical and psychosocial factors playing a part.
• Frailty represents an extreme consequence of the normal aging process.
• The process is dynamic, and individuals can fluctuate between frailty states.

Diagnosing frailty

Diagnosing frailty in the average clinical setting can be a challenge. Unlike other disorders, no single test or assessment tool exists for the condition. Most settings or patients, for example, do not even have the device to measure hand grip strength, Dr. Kuchel said. Other obstacles include a lack of time and reimbursement.

However, clinicians can quickly and easily assess patients for several warning signs, including the presence of multimorbidity (>5 diseases), slow walking speed (<1 m/sec), inability to climb a flight of stairs, and/or walk a block or rise from chair five times with arms folded.

“These are simple questions that can be asked by a medical assistant or even over the phone ahead of time,” he said.

Frailty and sarcopenia are closely linked but are not equivalent. As a result, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which can measure both bone mineral density and muscle mass, is not a good assessment of frailty because muscle mass by itself is not necessarily tied to weakness. Instead, Dr. Kuchel said, measuring muscle function and quality is much more effective at identifying frail patients.  

“Gait velocity is potentially the greatest single measure, and if there is one thing you should do with your patient, it is to check gait velocity,” Dr. Kuchel said. Researchers at his facility are working on radio technology identification-based device that allows for measuring gait when a patient walks down the hallway.

“Measuring gait should be the sixth vital sign, and you need to have that information in front of you when working with older patients,” he said. “We are working on integrating it into our system.”
 

Managing frailty

Although no single intervention for frailty exists, physical activity has been shown to delay its onset. Still, Dr. Kuchel said, clinicians can try a range of approaches, both biologic and social, to address the condition.

Assessing for and treating depression, for example, may help reduce frailty fatigue, as can stopping medications – including benzodiazepines, and corticosteroids – that might be worsening the condition. Another step is to check for low vitamin D levels and hypothyroidism, he said.

Some patients have unexplained anemia that could be corrected, as well as correcting basal and orthostatic hypotension, which can arise from overtreatment, Dr. Kuchel added.

People with HIV can experience accelerated aging, as can adults who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation as children. “We are also beginning to see some of this with long COVID, so there seems to be some overlap,” he said.

Finally, socioeconomic considerations include the possibility of elder neglect and/or abuse, and the effects of poverty on nutrition and the ability to pay for needed medications.

The bottom line, Dr. Kuchel said, is that managing frailty is possible, but doing so effectively may require stops and starts.

“Correct what is correctable, such as nutrition, vitamin D, depression, and stopping offending meds,” he said. “Match multicomponent interventions with deficits and interventions targeting health care systems will include better care coordination. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is important in the care of this geriatric syndrome.

Dr. Kuchel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An estimated 15% of Americans over age 65 years who aren’t living in institutions are considered frail – a complex geriatric syndrome that raises the odds of disability, hospitalization, the need for nursing care, and death.

But while the word frailty may conjure images of wizened and weakened men and women, the clinical picture is far less clear.

“We’ve made a lot of progress in some ways, but still a lot of work to be done in others,” George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, the chair in geriatrics and gerontology and director of the UConn Center on Aging in Farmington, Conn., said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“You have to be very careful about generalizations,” Dr. Kuchel said. “This is very important when you are thinking about managing it.”

One of the key take-home messages, Dr. Kuchel said, “and one of the first things I learned as a geriatrics fellow, is that when you have seen one older person, all you have seen is one older person.”

What this means is that while all people age, there is tremendous variance in how they age. “Some become quite frail and disabled and need to be in a nursing home, while some age gracefully and are living well,” he said. “Most fall somewhere in between.”

The second major take-home is that frailty is multifactorial – a critical consideration when it comes to managing elderly patients.

“Unlike other conditions, there is no single medication, there is no one single thing you can do – it is really multifactorial,” he said. “What it means is to match the components to target unique needs, and that is something that we are calling ‘precision gerontology,’ as opposed to precision medicine.”

The definitions of frailty vary but can involve increased vulnerability; enhanced risk of declining function, disability, and death; and a decline in functioning across multiple physiologic systems, accompanied by an increased vulnerability to stressors.

Key features that clinicians should emphasize include multifactorial etiology with each risk factor contributing only modestly:

• Multidimensional nature, with physical and psychosocial factors playing a part.
• Frailty represents an extreme consequence of the normal aging process.
• The process is dynamic, and individuals can fluctuate between frailty states.

Diagnosing frailty

Diagnosing frailty in the average clinical setting can be a challenge. Unlike other disorders, no single test or assessment tool exists for the condition. Most settings or patients, for example, do not even have the device to measure hand grip strength, Dr. Kuchel said. Other obstacles include a lack of time and reimbursement.

However, clinicians can quickly and easily assess patients for several warning signs, including the presence of multimorbidity (>5 diseases), slow walking speed (<1 m/sec), inability to climb a flight of stairs, and/or walk a block or rise from chair five times with arms folded.

“These are simple questions that can be asked by a medical assistant or even over the phone ahead of time,” he said.

Frailty and sarcopenia are closely linked but are not equivalent. As a result, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which can measure both bone mineral density and muscle mass, is not a good assessment of frailty because muscle mass by itself is not necessarily tied to weakness. Instead, Dr. Kuchel said, measuring muscle function and quality is much more effective at identifying frail patients.  

“Gait velocity is potentially the greatest single measure, and if there is one thing you should do with your patient, it is to check gait velocity,” Dr. Kuchel said. Researchers at his facility are working on radio technology identification-based device that allows for measuring gait when a patient walks down the hallway.

“Measuring gait should be the sixth vital sign, and you need to have that information in front of you when working with older patients,” he said. “We are working on integrating it into our system.”
 

Managing frailty

Although no single intervention for frailty exists, physical activity has been shown to delay its onset. Still, Dr. Kuchel said, clinicians can try a range of approaches, both biologic and social, to address the condition.

Assessing for and treating depression, for example, may help reduce frailty fatigue, as can stopping medications – including benzodiazepines, and corticosteroids – that might be worsening the condition. Another step is to check for low vitamin D levels and hypothyroidism, he said.

Some patients have unexplained anemia that could be corrected, as well as correcting basal and orthostatic hypotension, which can arise from overtreatment, Dr. Kuchel added.

People with HIV can experience accelerated aging, as can adults who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation as children. “We are also beginning to see some of this with long COVID, so there seems to be some overlap,” he said.

Finally, socioeconomic considerations include the possibility of elder neglect and/or abuse, and the effects of poverty on nutrition and the ability to pay for needed medications.

The bottom line, Dr. Kuchel said, is that managing frailty is possible, but doing so effectively may require stops and starts.

“Correct what is correctable, such as nutrition, vitamin D, depression, and stopping offending meds,” he said. “Match multicomponent interventions with deficits and interventions targeting health care systems will include better care coordination. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is important in the care of this geriatric syndrome.

Dr. Kuchel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

An estimated 15% of Americans over age 65 years who aren’t living in institutions are considered frail – a complex geriatric syndrome that raises the odds of disability, hospitalization, the need for nursing care, and death.

But while the word frailty may conjure images of wizened and weakened men and women, the clinical picture is far less clear.

“We’ve made a lot of progress in some ways, but still a lot of work to be done in others,” George A. Kuchel, MD, CM, the chair in geriatrics and gerontology and director of the UConn Center on Aging in Farmington, Conn., said at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

“You have to be very careful about generalizations,” Dr. Kuchel said. “This is very important when you are thinking about managing it.”

One of the key take-home messages, Dr. Kuchel said, “and one of the first things I learned as a geriatrics fellow, is that when you have seen one older person, all you have seen is one older person.”

What this means is that while all people age, there is tremendous variance in how they age. “Some become quite frail and disabled and need to be in a nursing home, while some age gracefully and are living well,” he said. “Most fall somewhere in between.”

The second major take-home is that frailty is multifactorial – a critical consideration when it comes to managing elderly patients.

“Unlike other conditions, there is no single medication, there is no one single thing you can do – it is really multifactorial,” he said. “What it means is to match the components to target unique needs, and that is something that we are calling ‘precision gerontology,’ as opposed to precision medicine.”

The definitions of frailty vary but can involve increased vulnerability; enhanced risk of declining function, disability, and death; and a decline in functioning across multiple physiologic systems, accompanied by an increased vulnerability to stressors.

Key features that clinicians should emphasize include multifactorial etiology with each risk factor contributing only modestly:

• Multidimensional nature, with physical and psychosocial factors playing a part.
• Frailty represents an extreme consequence of the normal aging process.
• The process is dynamic, and individuals can fluctuate between frailty states.

Diagnosing frailty

Diagnosing frailty in the average clinical setting can be a challenge. Unlike other disorders, no single test or assessment tool exists for the condition. Most settings or patients, for example, do not even have the device to measure hand grip strength, Dr. Kuchel said. Other obstacles include a lack of time and reimbursement.

However, clinicians can quickly and easily assess patients for several warning signs, including the presence of multimorbidity (>5 diseases), slow walking speed (<1 m/sec), inability to climb a flight of stairs, and/or walk a block or rise from chair five times with arms folded.

“These are simple questions that can be asked by a medical assistant or even over the phone ahead of time,” he said.

Frailty and sarcopenia are closely linked but are not equivalent. As a result, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), which can measure both bone mineral density and muscle mass, is not a good assessment of frailty because muscle mass by itself is not necessarily tied to weakness. Instead, Dr. Kuchel said, measuring muscle function and quality is much more effective at identifying frail patients.  

“Gait velocity is potentially the greatest single measure, and if there is one thing you should do with your patient, it is to check gait velocity,” Dr. Kuchel said. Researchers at his facility are working on radio technology identification-based device that allows for measuring gait when a patient walks down the hallway.

“Measuring gait should be the sixth vital sign, and you need to have that information in front of you when working with older patients,” he said. “We are working on integrating it into our system.”
 

Managing frailty

Although no single intervention for frailty exists, physical activity has been shown to delay its onset. Still, Dr. Kuchel said, clinicians can try a range of approaches, both biologic and social, to address the condition.

Assessing for and treating depression, for example, may help reduce frailty fatigue, as can stopping medications – including benzodiazepines, and corticosteroids – that might be worsening the condition. Another step is to check for low vitamin D levels and hypothyroidism, he said.

Some patients have unexplained anemia that could be corrected, as well as correcting basal and orthostatic hypotension, which can arise from overtreatment, Dr. Kuchel added.

People with HIV can experience accelerated aging, as can adults who were treated with chemotherapy and radiation as children. “We are also beginning to see some of this with long COVID, so there seems to be some overlap,” he said.

Finally, socioeconomic considerations include the possibility of elder neglect and/or abuse, and the effects of poverty on nutrition and the ability to pay for needed medications.

The bottom line, Dr. Kuchel said, is that managing frailty is possible, but doing so effectively may require stops and starts.

“Correct what is correctable, such as nutrition, vitamin D, depression, and stopping offending meds,” he said. “Match multicomponent interventions with deficits and interventions targeting health care systems will include better care coordination. A comprehensive geriatric assessment is important in the care of this geriatric syndrome.

Dr. Kuchel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BOSTON – Though hydroquinone, retinoids, steroids, and triple combination cream remain gold standards for the topical treatment of melasma, new synthetic and botanical topicals are emerging as adjuvant and alternative treatments, according to Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc.

One such agent is topical tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic medication that inhibits plasminogen activator from converting plasminogen in epidermal basal cells and keratinocytes to plasmin. “What makes tranexamic acid exciting is that it’s not just targeting melanogenesis; it’s also targeting the vascular component of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk, director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Program, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We really don’t have any topical agents that are doing that.”

Topical tranexamic acid is available in cream and solution formulations ranging from 2% to 5%. It has been studied in different drug delivery carriers (liposomal, liquid crystalline nanoparticle, and glycol co-enhancer carriers), has been combined with other lightening agents, and has been found to reduce Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores and reduce melanin while also improving erythema. “That’s where it really stands out from hydroquinone and triple combination cream,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

One study of patients with melasma found that topical tranexamic acid can decrease the number of CD31-positive vessels and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and downregulated endothelin-1.

“Compared to hydroquinone, some studies have found a similar efficacy; others have found it inferior,” she continued. “But none of our patients can be on hydroquinone yearlong, so you have to bring in other agents that are efficacious. This is why you could consider having patients on topical tranexamic acid at different times of the year. It can cause some irritation for patients, but overall, it’s pretty well tolerated, and patients are often very happy with the overall improvement in the texture and appearance of their skin.”

Another emerging option, flutamide, is an anti-androgenic agent used topically and orally to treat acne, hirsutism, and hair loss. “It has not been excessively studied for melasma, but it may improve the condition through modifying alpha-MSH [alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone] or cAMP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate] agents that play a role in melanin synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk said. A randomized, controlled trial of 74 women with melasma treated with 1% flutamide vs. 4% hydroquinone showed a significant improvement in the MASI score and patient satisfaction but no difference in the mexameter melanin assay results.

“We need more data, but I think this is the right approach for us to start thinking about different factors that are addressing all of the components of the pathogenesis of melasma,” she said.

Other synthetic topicals that are being used or studied for melasma include N-acetyl glucosamine, linoleic acid, pidobenzone, methimazole, metformin, magnolignan, N-acetyl-4-S-cysteaminylphenol, dioic acid, melatonin, and silymarin.


 

Botanicals

Botanically-derived topicals for melasma are also being evaluated, including niacinamide, an anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits melanosome transfer to keratinocytes. Niacinamide decreases mast cell infiltrate and solar elastosis and enhances the epidermal barrier.

The antioxidants ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and zinc are also being studied. Ascorbic acid has photoprotective effects, inhibits tyrosinase, and promotes collagen synthesis. “One of the challenges with vitamin C is that it’s not very stable and it has limited permeability and bioavailability in the skin,” Dr. Elbuluk said. Zinc, meanwhile, boasts anti-inflammatory, photoprotective, and exfoliative properties and is a cofactor in wound healing.

Other botanical lightening agents being studied, in addition to silymarin, include arbutin, aloe vera, bakuchiol, soy, Ananas comosus (pineapple), parsley, Bellis perennis (daisy), mulberry extract, ellagic acid, gentisic acid, cinnamic acid, Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), Cassia fistula extracts, licorice root extract, lignin peroxidase, and Polypodium leucotomos.

“I do think there really is a place for these in our therapeutic armamentarium, but we need more studies,” she said. “There aren’t many randomized, controlled studies looking at these agents specifically.” A recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of topical therapy with botanical products for treating melasma included 12 trials composed of 695 patients from seven countries. The authors concluded that the trials lacked sufficient pooled evidence on efficacy and safety. However, many of the studies showed that these agents did improve melasma and MASI scores.

Platelet-rich plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as monotherapy and adjuvant therapy for melasma. “It’s believed to release platelet-derived growth factors, which can affect collagen synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk explained. “It also has effects on TGF-B1 [transforming growth factor-beta 1], which inhibits melanin synthesis and epidermal growth factor, which has a downstream effect on lowering melanin production.”

A 2021 systematic review of 10 studies involving 395 adults with melasma found that PRP plus microneedling was most efficacious compared with PRP alone or combined with intradermal injection.

A separate systematic review of seven trials evaluating PRP for melasma found that most studies showed moderate improvements in melasma, which led the researchers to assign a moderate grade recommendation to PRP for melasma.

“I think we need more studies, but you may see PRP being used more commonly for melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said. “The reality with melasma is that you are rarely using just one agent. Combination therapies are often superior to monotherapies in efficacy.” Combination therapy does not include just topicals, she added, but consideration of topicals with procedural modalities “and figuring out what your patient can tolerate and what they can afford.”

Since melasma is a chronic condition, “you want to emphasize to your patients that there is no cure for melasma. We are constantly trying to keep it in remission and keep it in control. That’s an active process.”



Other emerging topical therapies

Meanwhile, researchers continue to evaluate new targets for emerging treatments including a topical combination of an anti-estrogen with a VEGF inhibitor. In a separate pilot study of six women with melasma, investigators described treatment success with a novel combination of 12% hydroquinone, 6% kojic acid, and 5% vitamin C cream. “It’s the right thinking, combining different factors that address different aspects of pathogenesis of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

The mode of topical drug delivery also plays a role in treatment success. For example, she said, liposomal formulations have been found to enhance drug delivery and skin permeation and to improve the moisturizing effect, stability, and tolerability.

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she is a consultant for Avita, Scientis, VisualDx, Zosana, Incyte, La Roche-Posay, and Beiersdorf. She is an advisory board member for Allergan, Galderma, Incyte, and Janssen.

BOSTON – Though hydroquinone, retinoids, steroids, and triple combination cream remain gold standards for the topical treatment of melasma, new synthetic and botanical topicals are emerging as adjuvant and alternative treatments, according to Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc.

One such agent is topical tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic medication that inhibits plasminogen activator from converting plasminogen in epidermal basal cells and keratinocytes to plasmin. “What makes tranexamic acid exciting is that it’s not just targeting melanogenesis; it’s also targeting the vascular component of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk, director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Program, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We really don’t have any topical agents that are doing that.”

Topical tranexamic acid is available in cream and solution formulations ranging from 2% to 5%. It has been studied in different drug delivery carriers (liposomal, liquid crystalline nanoparticle, and glycol co-enhancer carriers), has been combined with other lightening agents, and has been found to reduce Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores and reduce melanin while also improving erythema. “That’s where it really stands out from hydroquinone and triple combination cream,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

One study of patients with melasma found that topical tranexamic acid can decrease the number of CD31-positive vessels and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and downregulated endothelin-1.

“Compared to hydroquinone, some studies have found a similar efficacy; others have found it inferior,” she continued. “But none of our patients can be on hydroquinone yearlong, so you have to bring in other agents that are efficacious. This is why you could consider having patients on topical tranexamic acid at different times of the year. It can cause some irritation for patients, but overall, it’s pretty well tolerated, and patients are often very happy with the overall improvement in the texture and appearance of their skin.”

Another emerging option, flutamide, is an anti-androgenic agent used topically and orally to treat acne, hirsutism, and hair loss. “It has not been excessively studied for melasma, but it may improve the condition through modifying alpha-MSH [alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone] or cAMP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate] agents that play a role in melanin synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk said. A randomized, controlled trial of 74 women with melasma treated with 1% flutamide vs. 4% hydroquinone showed a significant improvement in the MASI score and patient satisfaction but no difference in the mexameter melanin assay results.

“We need more data, but I think this is the right approach for us to start thinking about different factors that are addressing all of the components of the pathogenesis of melasma,” she said.

Other synthetic topicals that are being used or studied for melasma include N-acetyl glucosamine, linoleic acid, pidobenzone, methimazole, metformin, magnolignan, N-acetyl-4-S-cysteaminylphenol, dioic acid, melatonin, and silymarin.


 

Botanicals

Botanically-derived topicals for melasma are also being evaluated, including niacinamide, an anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits melanosome transfer to keratinocytes. Niacinamide decreases mast cell infiltrate and solar elastosis and enhances the epidermal barrier.

The antioxidants ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and zinc are also being studied. Ascorbic acid has photoprotective effects, inhibits tyrosinase, and promotes collagen synthesis. “One of the challenges with vitamin C is that it’s not very stable and it has limited permeability and bioavailability in the skin,” Dr. Elbuluk said. Zinc, meanwhile, boasts anti-inflammatory, photoprotective, and exfoliative properties and is a cofactor in wound healing.

Other botanical lightening agents being studied, in addition to silymarin, include arbutin, aloe vera, bakuchiol, soy, Ananas comosus (pineapple), parsley, Bellis perennis (daisy), mulberry extract, ellagic acid, gentisic acid, cinnamic acid, Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), Cassia fistula extracts, licorice root extract, lignin peroxidase, and Polypodium leucotomos.

“I do think there really is a place for these in our therapeutic armamentarium, but we need more studies,” she said. “There aren’t many randomized, controlled studies looking at these agents specifically.” A recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of topical therapy with botanical products for treating melasma included 12 trials composed of 695 patients from seven countries. The authors concluded that the trials lacked sufficient pooled evidence on efficacy and safety. However, many of the studies showed that these agents did improve melasma and MASI scores.

Platelet-rich plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as monotherapy and adjuvant therapy for melasma. “It’s believed to release platelet-derived growth factors, which can affect collagen synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk explained. “It also has effects on TGF-B1 [transforming growth factor-beta 1], which inhibits melanin synthesis and epidermal growth factor, which has a downstream effect on lowering melanin production.”

A 2021 systematic review of 10 studies involving 395 adults with melasma found that PRP plus microneedling was most efficacious compared with PRP alone or combined with intradermal injection.

A separate systematic review of seven trials evaluating PRP for melasma found that most studies showed moderate improvements in melasma, which led the researchers to assign a moderate grade recommendation to PRP for melasma.

“I think we need more studies, but you may see PRP being used more commonly for melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said. “The reality with melasma is that you are rarely using just one agent. Combination therapies are often superior to monotherapies in efficacy.” Combination therapy does not include just topicals, she added, but consideration of topicals with procedural modalities “and figuring out what your patient can tolerate and what they can afford.”

Since melasma is a chronic condition, “you want to emphasize to your patients that there is no cure for melasma. We are constantly trying to keep it in remission and keep it in control. That’s an active process.”



Other emerging topical therapies

Meanwhile, researchers continue to evaluate new targets for emerging treatments including a topical combination of an anti-estrogen with a VEGF inhibitor. In a separate pilot study of six women with melasma, investigators described treatment success with a novel combination of 12% hydroquinone, 6% kojic acid, and 5% vitamin C cream. “It’s the right thinking, combining different factors that address different aspects of pathogenesis of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

The mode of topical drug delivery also plays a role in treatment success. For example, she said, liposomal formulations have been found to enhance drug delivery and skin permeation and to improve the moisturizing effect, stability, and tolerability.

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she is a consultant for Avita, Scientis, VisualDx, Zosana, Incyte, La Roche-Posay, and Beiersdorf. She is an advisory board member for Allergan, Galderma, Incyte, and Janssen.

BOSTON – Though hydroquinone, retinoids, steroids, and triple combination cream remain gold standards for the topical treatment of melasma, new synthetic and botanical topicals are emerging as adjuvant and alternative treatments, according to Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc.

One such agent is topical tranexamic acid, an antifibrinolytic medication that inhibits plasminogen activator from converting plasminogen in epidermal basal cells and keratinocytes to plasmin. “What makes tranexamic acid exciting is that it’s not just targeting melanogenesis; it’s also targeting the vascular component of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk, director of the University of Southern California Skin of Color Center and Pigmentary Disorders Program, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We really don’t have any topical agents that are doing that.”

Topical tranexamic acid is available in cream and solution formulations ranging from 2% to 5%. It has been studied in different drug delivery carriers (liposomal, liquid crystalline nanoparticle, and glycol co-enhancer carriers), has been combined with other lightening agents, and has been found to reduce Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores and reduce melanin while also improving erythema. “That’s where it really stands out from hydroquinone and triple combination cream,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

One study of patients with melasma found that topical tranexamic acid can decrease the number of CD31-positive vessels and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and downregulated endothelin-1.

“Compared to hydroquinone, some studies have found a similar efficacy; others have found it inferior,” she continued. “But none of our patients can be on hydroquinone yearlong, so you have to bring in other agents that are efficacious. This is why you could consider having patients on topical tranexamic acid at different times of the year. It can cause some irritation for patients, but overall, it’s pretty well tolerated, and patients are often very happy with the overall improvement in the texture and appearance of their skin.”

Another emerging option, flutamide, is an anti-androgenic agent used topically and orally to treat acne, hirsutism, and hair loss. “It has not been excessively studied for melasma, but it may improve the condition through modifying alpha-MSH [alpha melanocyte-stimulating hormone] or cAMP [cyclic adenosine monophosphate] agents that play a role in melanin synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk said. A randomized, controlled trial of 74 women with melasma treated with 1% flutamide vs. 4% hydroquinone showed a significant improvement in the MASI score and patient satisfaction but no difference in the mexameter melanin assay results.

“We need more data, but I think this is the right approach for us to start thinking about different factors that are addressing all of the components of the pathogenesis of melasma,” she said.

Other synthetic topicals that are being used or studied for melasma include N-acetyl glucosamine, linoleic acid, pidobenzone, methimazole, metformin, magnolignan, N-acetyl-4-S-cysteaminylphenol, dioic acid, melatonin, and silymarin.


 

Botanicals

Botanically-derived topicals for melasma are also being evaluated, including niacinamide, an anti-inflammatory agent that inhibits melanosome transfer to keratinocytes. Niacinamide decreases mast cell infiltrate and solar elastosis and enhances the epidermal barrier.

The antioxidants ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and zinc are also being studied. Ascorbic acid has photoprotective effects, inhibits tyrosinase, and promotes collagen synthesis. “One of the challenges with vitamin C is that it’s not very stable and it has limited permeability and bioavailability in the skin,” Dr. Elbuluk said. Zinc, meanwhile, boasts anti-inflammatory, photoprotective, and exfoliative properties and is a cofactor in wound healing.

Other botanical lightening agents being studied, in addition to silymarin, include arbutin, aloe vera, bakuchiol, soy, Ananas comosus (pineapple), parsley, Bellis perennis (daisy), mulberry extract, ellagic acid, gentisic acid, cinnamic acid, Hippophae rhamnoides (sea buckthorn), Cassia fistula extracts, licorice root extract, lignin peroxidase, and Polypodium leucotomos.

“I do think there really is a place for these in our therapeutic armamentarium, but we need more studies,” she said. “There aren’t many randomized, controlled studies looking at these agents specifically.” A recent systematic review on the efficacy and safety of topical therapy with botanical products for treating melasma included 12 trials composed of 695 patients from seven countries. The authors concluded that the trials lacked sufficient pooled evidence on efficacy and safety. However, many of the studies showed that these agents did improve melasma and MASI scores.

Platelet-rich plasma

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is being used as monotherapy and adjuvant therapy for melasma. “It’s believed to release platelet-derived growth factors, which can affect collagen synthesis,” Dr. Elbuluk explained. “It also has effects on TGF-B1 [transforming growth factor-beta 1], which inhibits melanin synthesis and epidermal growth factor, which has a downstream effect on lowering melanin production.”

A 2021 systematic review of 10 studies involving 395 adults with melasma found that PRP plus microneedling was most efficacious compared with PRP alone or combined with intradermal injection.

A separate systematic review of seven trials evaluating PRP for melasma found that most studies showed moderate improvements in melasma, which led the researchers to assign a moderate grade recommendation to PRP for melasma.

“I think we need more studies, but you may see PRP being used more commonly for melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said. “The reality with melasma is that you are rarely using just one agent. Combination therapies are often superior to monotherapies in efficacy.” Combination therapy does not include just topicals, she added, but consideration of topicals with procedural modalities “and figuring out what your patient can tolerate and what they can afford.”

Since melasma is a chronic condition, “you want to emphasize to your patients that there is no cure for melasma. We are constantly trying to keep it in remission and keep it in control. That’s an active process.”



Other emerging topical therapies

Meanwhile, researchers continue to evaluate new targets for emerging treatments including a topical combination of an anti-estrogen with a VEGF inhibitor. In a separate pilot study of six women with melasma, investigators described treatment success with a novel combination of 12% hydroquinone, 6% kojic acid, and 5% vitamin C cream. “It’s the right thinking, combining different factors that address different aspects of pathogenesis of melasma,” Dr. Elbuluk said.

The mode of topical drug delivery also plays a role in treatment success. For example, she said, liposomal formulations have been found to enhance drug delivery and skin permeation and to improve the moisturizing effect, stability, and tolerability.

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she is a consultant for Avita, Scientis, VisualDx, Zosana, Incyte, La Roche-Posay, and Beiersdorf. She is an advisory board member for Allergan, Galderma, Incyte, and Janssen.

A clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes has just been published by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which is comprised of experts representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,” lead author C. Richard Boland, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

According to the investigators, “there are essentially no long-term prospective controlled studies of comparative effectiveness of management strategies for these syndromes.” As a result, their recommendations are based on “low-quality” evidence according to GRADE criteria.

Still, Dr. Boland and colleagues highlighted that “there has been tremendous progress in recent years, both in understanding the underlying genetics that underpin these disorders and in elucidating the biology of associated premalignant and malignant conditions.”

The guideline was published online in Gastroenterology .
 

Four syndromes reviewed

The investigators gathered these data to provide an overview of genetic and clinical features for each syndrome, as well as management strategies. Four disorders are included: juvenile polyposis syndrome; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome; and PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, encompassing Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome.

Although all gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are caused by germline alterations, Dr. Boland and colleagues pointed out that diagnoses are typically made based on clinical criteria, with germline results serving as confirmatory evidence.

The guideline recommends that any patient with a family history of hamartomatous polyps, or with a history of at least two hamartomatous polyps, should undergo genetic testing. The guideline also provides more nuanced genetic testing algorithms for each syndrome.

Among all the hamartomatous polyp disorders, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is most understood, according to the investigators. It is caused by aberrations in the STK11 gene, and is characterized by polyps with “branching bands of smooth muscle covered by hyperplastic glandular mucosa” that may occur in the stomach, small intestine, and colon. Patients are also at risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

For management of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, the guideline advises frequent endoscopic surveillance to prevent mechanical obstruction and bleeding, as well as multidisciplinary surveillance of the breasts, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and lungs.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is most often characterized by solitary, sporadic polyps in the colorectum (98% of patients affected), followed distantly by polyps in the stomach (14%), ileum (7%), jejunum (7%), and duodenum (7%). The condition is linked with abnormalities in BMPR1A or SMAD4 genes, with SMAD4 germline abnormalities more often leading to “massive” gastric polyps, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy, and a higher incidence of gastric cancer in adulthood. Most patients with SMAD4 mutations also have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, characterized by gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, arteriovenous malformations, and epistaxis.

Management of juvenile polyposis syndrome depends on frequent colonoscopies with polypectomies beginning at 12-15 years.

“The goal of surveillance in juvenile polyposis syndrome is to mitigate symptoms related to the disorder and decrease the risk of complications from the manifestations, including cancer,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote.

PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes both Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome, is caused by abnormalities in the eponymous PTEN gene. Patients with the condition have an increased risk of colon cancer and polyposis, as well as extraintestinal cancers.

Diagnosis of PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome may be complex, involving “clinical examination, mammography and breast MRI, thyroid ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and renal ultrasound,” according to the guideline.

After diagnosis, frequent colonoscopies are recommended, typically starting at age 35 years, as well as continued surveillance of other organs.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome, which involves attenuated colonic polyposis, is the rarest of the four disorders, having been reported in only “a few families,” according to the guideline. The condition has been linked with “large duplications of the promoter region or entire GREM1 gene.”

Onset is typically in the late 20s, “which is when colonoscopic surveillance should begin,” the investigators wrote. More data are needed to determine appropriate surveillance intervals and if the condition is associated with increased risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

This call for more research into gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes carried through to the conclusion of the guideline.

“Long-term prospective studies of mutation carriers are still needed to further clarify the risk of cancer and the role of surveillance in these syndromes,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote. “With increases in genetic testing and evaluation, future studies will be conducted with more robust cohorts of genetically characterized, less heterogeneous populations. However, there is also a need to study patients and families with unusual phenotypes where no genotype can be found.”

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest with the current guideline; however, they provided a list of industry relationships, including Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, among others.

A clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes has just been published by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which is comprised of experts representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,” lead author C. Richard Boland, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

According to the investigators, “there are essentially no long-term prospective controlled studies of comparative effectiveness of management strategies for these syndromes.” As a result, their recommendations are based on “low-quality” evidence according to GRADE criteria.

Still, Dr. Boland and colleagues highlighted that “there has been tremendous progress in recent years, both in understanding the underlying genetics that underpin these disorders and in elucidating the biology of associated premalignant and malignant conditions.”

The guideline was published online in Gastroenterology .
 

Four syndromes reviewed

The investigators gathered these data to provide an overview of genetic and clinical features for each syndrome, as well as management strategies. Four disorders are included: juvenile polyposis syndrome; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome; and PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, encompassing Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome.

Although all gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are caused by germline alterations, Dr. Boland and colleagues pointed out that diagnoses are typically made based on clinical criteria, with germline results serving as confirmatory evidence.

The guideline recommends that any patient with a family history of hamartomatous polyps, or with a history of at least two hamartomatous polyps, should undergo genetic testing. The guideline also provides more nuanced genetic testing algorithms for each syndrome.

Among all the hamartomatous polyp disorders, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is most understood, according to the investigators. It is caused by aberrations in the STK11 gene, and is characterized by polyps with “branching bands of smooth muscle covered by hyperplastic glandular mucosa” that may occur in the stomach, small intestine, and colon. Patients are also at risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

For management of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, the guideline advises frequent endoscopic surveillance to prevent mechanical obstruction and bleeding, as well as multidisciplinary surveillance of the breasts, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and lungs.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is most often characterized by solitary, sporadic polyps in the colorectum (98% of patients affected), followed distantly by polyps in the stomach (14%), ileum (7%), jejunum (7%), and duodenum (7%). The condition is linked with abnormalities in BMPR1A or SMAD4 genes, with SMAD4 germline abnormalities more often leading to “massive” gastric polyps, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy, and a higher incidence of gastric cancer in adulthood. Most patients with SMAD4 mutations also have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, characterized by gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, arteriovenous malformations, and epistaxis.

Management of juvenile polyposis syndrome depends on frequent colonoscopies with polypectomies beginning at 12-15 years.

“The goal of surveillance in juvenile polyposis syndrome is to mitigate symptoms related to the disorder and decrease the risk of complications from the manifestations, including cancer,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote.

PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes both Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome, is caused by abnormalities in the eponymous PTEN gene. Patients with the condition have an increased risk of colon cancer and polyposis, as well as extraintestinal cancers.

Diagnosis of PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome may be complex, involving “clinical examination, mammography and breast MRI, thyroid ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and renal ultrasound,” according to the guideline.

After diagnosis, frequent colonoscopies are recommended, typically starting at age 35 years, as well as continued surveillance of other organs.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome, which involves attenuated colonic polyposis, is the rarest of the four disorders, having been reported in only “a few families,” according to the guideline. The condition has been linked with “large duplications of the promoter region or entire GREM1 gene.”

Onset is typically in the late 20s, “which is when colonoscopic surveillance should begin,” the investigators wrote. More data are needed to determine appropriate surveillance intervals and if the condition is associated with increased risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

This call for more research into gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes carried through to the conclusion of the guideline.

“Long-term prospective studies of mutation carriers are still needed to further clarify the risk of cancer and the role of surveillance in these syndromes,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote. “With increases in genetic testing and evaluation, future studies will be conducted with more robust cohorts of genetically characterized, less heterogeneous populations. However, there is also a need to study patients and families with unusual phenotypes where no genotype can be found.”

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest with the current guideline; however, they provided a list of industry relationships, including Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, among others.

A clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes has just been published by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which is comprised of experts representing the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are rare, autosomal dominant disorders associated with intestinal and extraintestinal tumors. Expert consensus statements have previously offered some recommendations for managing these syndromes, but clinical data are scarce, so the present review “is intended to establish a starting point for future research,” lead author C. Richard Boland, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues reported.

According to the investigators, “there are essentially no long-term prospective controlled studies of comparative effectiveness of management strategies for these syndromes.” As a result, their recommendations are based on “low-quality” evidence according to GRADE criteria.

Still, Dr. Boland and colleagues highlighted that “there has been tremendous progress in recent years, both in understanding the underlying genetics that underpin these disorders and in elucidating the biology of associated premalignant and malignant conditions.”

The guideline was published online in Gastroenterology .
 

Four syndromes reviewed

The investigators gathered these data to provide an overview of genetic and clinical features for each syndrome, as well as management strategies. Four disorders are included: juvenile polyposis syndrome; Peutz-Jeghers syndrome; hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome; and PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, encompassing Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome.

Although all gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes are caused by germline alterations, Dr. Boland and colleagues pointed out that diagnoses are typically made based on clinical criteria, with germline results serving as confirmatory evidence.

The guideline recommends that any patient with a family history of hamartomatous polyps, or with a history of at least two hamartomatous polyps, should undergo genetic testing. The guideline also provides more nuanced genetic testing algorithms for each syndrome.

Among all the hamartomatous polyp disorders, Peutz-Jeghers syndrome is most understood, according to the investigators. It is caused by aberrations in the STK11 gene, and is characterized by polyps with “branching bands of smooth muscle covered by hyperplastic glandular mucosa” that may occur in the stomach, small intestine, and colon. Patients are also at risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

For management of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, the guideline advises frequent endoscopic surveillance to prevent mechanical obstruction and bleeding, as well as multidisciplinary surveillance of the breasts, pancreas, ovaries, testes, and lungs.

Juvenile polyposis syndrome is most often characterized by solitary, sporadic polyps in the colorectum (98% of patients affected), followed distantly by polyps in the stomach (14%), ileum (7%), jejunum (7%), and duodenum (7%). The condition is linked with abnormalities in BMPR1A or SMAD4 genes, with SMAD4 germline abnormalities more often leading to “massive” gastric polyps, gastrointestinal bleeding, protein-losing enteropathy, and a higher incidence of gastric cancer in adulthood. Most patients with SMAD4 mutations also have hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, characterized by gastrointestinal bleeding from mucocutaneous telangiectasias, arteriovenous malformations, and epistaxis.

Management of juvenile polyposis syndrome depends on frequent colonoscopies with polypectomies beginning at 12-15 years.

“The goal of surveillance in juvenile polyposis syndrome is to mitigate symptoms related to the disorder and decrease the risk of complications from the manifestations, including cancer,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote.

PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome, which includes both Bannayan-Riley-Ruvalcaba syndrome and Cowden’s syndrome, is caused by abnormalities in the eponymous PTEN gene. Patients with the condition have an increased risk of colon cancer and polyposis, as well as extraintestinal cancers.

Diagnosis of PTEN-hamartoma tumor syndrome may be complex, involving “clinical examination, mammography and breast MRI, thyroid ultrasound, transvaginal ultrasound, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, colonoscopy, and renal ultrasound,” according to the guideline.

After diagnosis, frequent colonoscopies are recommended, typically starting at age 35 years, as well as continued surveillance of other organs.

Hereditary mixed polyposis syndrome, which involves attenuated colonic polyposis, is the rarest of the four disorders, having been reported in only “a few families,” according to the guideline. The condition has been linked with “large duplications of the promoter region or entire GREM1 gene.”

Onset is typically in the late 20s, “which is when colonoscopic surveillance should begin,” the investigators wrote. More data are needed to determine appropriate surveillance intervals and if the condition is associated with increased risk of extraintestinal neoplasia.

This call for more research into gastrointestinal hamartomatous polyposis syndromes carried through to the conclusion of the guideline.

“Long-term prospective studies of mutation carriers are still needed to further clarify the risk of cancer and the role of surveillance in these syndromes,” Dr. Boland and colleagues wrote. “With increases in genetic testing and evaluation, future studies will be conducted with more robust cohorts of genetically characterized, less heterogeneous populations. However, there is also a need to study patients and families with unusual phenotypes where no genotype can be found.”

The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest with the current guideline; however, they provided a list of industry relationships, including Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Pfizer, among others.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience worse outcomes after an acute stroke than does the general population, but men with SLE do not, according to an analysis of the U.S. National Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

In a study of more than 1.5 million cases of acute stroke recorded in the United States between 2015 and 2018, women with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized for longer and less likely to be routinely discharged into their home environment than were those without SLE. No such association was found for men with SLE.

“The findings imply that primary stroke prevention is of utmost importance, especially in females with SLE,” said Sona Jesenakova, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).

“There might be a need to explore more effective and targeted treatment strategies to try and minimize these excessive adverse acute stroke outcomes, especially in females with SLE suffering from stroke,” she suggested.

“Even though males form only a minority of the SLE patient population, some studies have shown that they are prone to suffer from worse disease outcomes,” Ms. Jesenakova said.

Importantly, “male sex has been identified as a risk factor for death early in the course of SLE,” she added, highlighting that sex differences do seem to exist in SLE.

Stroke is an important outcome to look at because people with SLE are known to be at higher risk for developing atherosclerosis, which is a widely known risk factor for ischemic stroke, and with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and uncontrolled disease activity, that risk can be increased. A meta-analysis of older studies has suggested that the risk for death after a stroke is 68% higher in people with SLE than in those without.

To examine the risk for death and other in-hospital outcomes in a more contemporary population, Ms. Jesenakova and associates used data from the National Inpatient Sample, a large, publicly available database that contains inpatient health care information from across the United States. Their sample population consisted of 1,581,430 individuals who had been hospitalized for stroke. Of these, there were 6,100 women and 940 men who had SLE; the remainder served as the ‘no-SLE’ control population.

As might be expected, patients with SLE were about 10 years younger than those without SLE; the median age of women and men with SLE and those without SLE were a respective 60, 61, and 71 years.

There was no difference in the type of stroke between the SLE and no-SLE groups; most had an ischemic stroke (around 89%) rather than a hemorrhagic stroke (around 11%).

The researchers analyzed three key outcomes: mortality at discharge, hospitalization prolonged to a stay of more than 4 days, and routine home discharge, meaning that the patient was able to be discharged home versus more specialist facilities such as a nursing home.

They conducted a multivariate analysis with adjustments made for potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, type of stroke, and revascularization treatment. Comorbidities, including major cardiovascular disease, were also accounted for.

Although women with SLE were 21% more likely to die than patients without SLE, men with SLE were 24% less likely to die than was the no-SLE population. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Women with SLE were 20% more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay and 28% less likely to have a routine home discharge, compared with patients who did not have SLE. The 95% confidence intervals were statistically significant, which was not seen when comparing the same outcomes in men with SLE (odds ratios of 1.06 and 1.18, respectively).

“As for males, even though we didn’t find anything of statistical significance, we have to bear in mind that the sample we had was quite small, and thus these results need to be interpreted with caution,” Ms. Jesenakova said. “We also think that we identified a gap in the current knowledge, and as such, further research is needed to help us understand the influence of male sex on acute stroke outcomes in patients with comorbid SLE.”

The researchers performed a secondary analysis looking at the use of revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke and found that there were no differences between individuals with and without SLE. This analysis considered the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in just over 1.4 million cases but did not look at sex-specific differences.

Ms. Jesenakova had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience worse outcomes after an acute stroke than does the general population, but men with SLE do not, according to an analysis of the U.S. National Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

In a study of more than 1.5 million cases of acute stroke recorded in the United States between 2015 and 2018, women with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized for longer and less likely to be routinely discharged into their home environment than were those without SLE. No such association was found for men with SLE.

“The findings imply that primary stroke prevention is of utmost importance, especially in females with SLE,” said Sona Jesenakova, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).

“There might be a need to explore more effective and targeted treatment strategies to try and minimize these excessive adverse acute stroke outcomes, especially in females with SLE suffering from stroke,” she suggested.

“Even though males form only a minority of the SLE patient population, some studies have shown that they are prone to suffer from worse disease outcomes,” Ms. Jesenakova said.

Importantly, “male sex has been identified as a risk factor for death early in the course of SLE,” she added, highlighting that sex differences do seem to exist in SLE.

Stroke is an important outcome to look at because people with SLE are known to be at higher risk for developing atherosclerosis, which is a widely known risk factor for ischemic stroke, and with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and uncontrolled disease activity, that risk can be increased. A meta-analysis of older studies has suggested that the risk for death after a stroke is 68% higher in people with SLE than in those without.

To examine the risk for death and other in-hospital outcomes in a more contemporary population, Ms. Jesenakova and associates used data from the National Inpatient Sample, a large, publicly available database that contains inpatient health care information from across the United States. Their sample population consisted of 1,581,430 individuals who had been hospitalized for stroke. Of these, there were 6,100 women and 940 men who had SLE; the remainder served as the ‘no-SLE’ control population.

As might be expected, patients with SLE were about 10 years younger than those without SLE; the median age of women and men with SLE and those without SLE were a respective 60, 61, and 71 years.

There was no difference in the type of stroke between the SLE and no-SLE groups; most had an ischemic stroke (around 89%) rather than a hemorrhagic stroke (around 11%).

The researchers analyzed three key outcomes: mortality at discharge, hospitalization prolonged to a stay of more than 4 days, and routine home discharge, meaning that the patient was able to be discharged home versus more specialist facilities such as a nursing home.

They conducted a multivariate analysis with adjustments made for potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, type of stroke, and revascularization treatment. Comorbidities, including major cardiovascular disease, were also accounted for.

Although women with SLE were 21% more likely to die than patients without SLE, men with SLE were 24% less likely to die than was the no-SLE population. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Women with SLE were 20% more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay and 28% less likely to have a routine home discharge, compared with patients who did not have SLE. The 95% confidence intervals were statistically significant, which was not seen when comparing the same outcomes in men with SLE (odds ratios of 1.06 and 1.18, respectively).

“As for males, even though we didn’t find anything of statistical significance, we have to bear in mind that the sample we had was quite small, and thus these results need to be interpreted with caution,” Ms. Jesenakova said. “We also think that we identified a gap in the current knowledge, and as such, further research is needed to help us understand the influence of male sex on acute stroke outcomes in patients with comorbid SLE.”

The researchers performed a secondary analysis looking at the use of revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke and found that there were no differences between individuals with and without SLE. This analysis considered the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in just over 1.4 million cases but did not look at sex-specific differences.

Ms. Jesenakova had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience worse outcomes after an acute stroke than does the general population, but men with SLE do not, according to an analysis of the U.S. National Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.

In a study of more than 1.5 million cases of acute stroke recorded in the United States between 2015 and 2018, women with SLE were more likely to be hospitalized for longer and less likely to be routinely discharged into their home environment than were those without SLE. No such association was found for men with SLE.

“The findings imply that primary stroke prevention is of utmost importance, especially in females with SLE,” said Sona Jesenakova, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Aberdeen (Scotland).

“There might be a need to explore more effective and targeted treatment strategies to try and minimize these excessive adverse acute stroke outcomes, especially in females with SLE suffering from stroke,” she suggested.

“Even though males form only a minority of the SLE patient population, some studies have shown that they are prone to suffer from worse disease outcomes,” Ms. Jesenakova said.

Importantly, “male sex has been identified as a risk factor for death early in the course of SLE,” she added, highlighting that sex differences do seem to exist in SLE.

Stroke is an important outcome to look at because people with SLE are known to be at higher risk for developing atherosclerosis, which is a widely known risk factor for ischemic stroke, and with antiphospholipid antibody positivity and uncontrolled disease activity, that risk can be increased. A meta-analysis of older studies has suggested that the risk for death after a stroke is 68% higher in people with SLE than in those without.

To examine the risk for death and other in-hospital outcomes in a more contemporary population, Ms. Jesenakova and associates used data from the National Inpatient Sample, a large, publicly available database that contains inpatient health care information from across the United States. Their sample population consisted of 1,581,430 individuals who had been hospitalized for stroke. Of these, there were 6,100 women and 940 men who had SLE; the remainder served as the ‘no-SLE’ control population.

As might be expected, patients with SLE were about 10 years younger than those without SLE; the median age of women and men with SLE and those without SLE were a respective 60, 61, and 71 years.

There was no difference in the type of stroke between the SLE and no-SLE groups; most had an ischemic stroke (around 89%) rather than a hemorrhagic stroke (around 11%).

The researchers analyzed three key outcomes: mortality at discharge, hospitalization prolonged to a stay of more than 4 days, and routine home discharge, meaning that the patient was able to be discharged home versus more specialist facilities such as a nursing home.

They conducted a multivariate analysis with adjustments made for potential confounding factors such as age, ethnicity, type of stroke, and revascularization treatment. Comorbidities, including major cardiovascular disease, were also accounted for.

Although women with SLE were 21% more likely to die than patients without SLE, men with SLE were 24% less likely to die than was the no-SLE population. However, these differences were not statistically significant.

Women with SLE were 20% more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay and 28% less likely to have a routine home discharge, compared with patients who did not have SLE. The 95% confidence intervals were statistically significant, which was not seen when comparing the same outcomes in men with SLE (odds ratios of 1.06 and 1.18, respectively).

“As for males, even though we didn’t find anything of statistical significance, we have to bear in mind that the sample we had was quite small, and thus these results need to be interpreted with caution,” Ms. Jesenakova said. “We also think that we identified a gap in the current knowledge, and as such, further research is needed to help us understand the influence of male sex on acute stroke outcomes in patients with comorbid SLE.”

The researchers performed a secondary analysis looking at the use of revascularization treatments for ischemic stroke and found that there were no differences between individuals with and without SLE. This analysis considered the use of intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular thrombectomy in just over 1.4 million cases but did not look at sex-specific differences.

Ms. Jesenakova had no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Based on the work you do at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, what is your standard approach to managing  early stage cancer patients?

Dr. Roesch: The approach to managing patients with early stage breast cancer very much depends on the subtype of breast cancer. Clinical stage at presentation and patient factors are considered here. For example, patients with small hormone receptor-positive tumors will often have surgery first, while patients with triple-negative or HER2-positive tumors will often receive preoperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In situations where there is a need or a desire for downstaging or shrinking of the primary tumor or lymph nodes in the axilla, we will also discuss neoadjuvant systemic therapy. For hormone receptor-positive tumors, endocrine or anti-estrogen therapy will be incorporated into their treatment regimen at some point in the future.

The role of chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer depends on a variety of factors, including pathologic staging, which we obtain at the time of surgery. Exceptions may include very small tumors or patients who have medical comorbidities that affect their candidacy for chemotherapy where the risk may outweigh the benefit.

Are there specific steps you take in managing and treating early stage triple-negative breast cancer?

Dr. Roesch: Most patients with early stage triple-negative breast cancer receive neoadjuvant or preoperative chemotherapy. As I mentioned above, this has the benefits of downstaging the primary tumor itself and the lymph nodes in the axilla as well as providing prognostic information. This approach can also help guide adjuvant therapy recommendations. Additionally, we often discuss the role of genetic counseling for these patients.

Are there targeted therapies you rely upon?

Dr. Roesch: This has been an evolving field with dramatic advances in the past couple of years. One is immunotherapy. There was a phase III study called the KEYONTE-522 trial, which demonstrated improvements in pathologic response rate and event-free survival with a regimen of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by the pembrolizumab given in the adjuvant setting, compared to chemotherapy approach alone (1).

For patients who meet criteria for this study, which is essentially stage II/III triple-negative breast cancer, we have adopted this regimen in the neoadjuvant setting. Additionally, we consider adjuvant capecitabine for patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline, taxane or both and who have residual disease at the time of surgery. This is based on the CREATE-X trial, which showed a survival benefit for patients with triple-negative breast cancer in this situation (2).

Lastly, the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, was recently approved by the FDA in the adjuvant setting for BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed with HER-2-negative high-risk early breast cancer who have received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. This treatment also demonstrated survival benefit and is an exciting new option for these patients (3).

A critical question in my mind that has arisen out of these new developments is sequencing of these therapies. For example, if I have a patient who received the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with the immunotherapy agent, pembrolizumab, and has residual disease after surgery, how do we administer the capecitabine with the pembrolizumab? And what about radiation? What if a patient is a BRCA mutation carrier? These are all very relevant questions, which we are encountering every day, and the approach we take is often individualized.

This sounds very exciting. Can you talk about the research on managing early triple-negative breast cancer and what the future might hold?

Dr. Roesch: This is a very exciting time for both us as oncologists and our patients as there is a very rapid pace of new therapies being explored in the context of clinical trials. First, I'd like to mention the adjuvant vaccine trial we have at Cleveland Clinic for patients diagnosed with early stage triple-negative breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. This trial is investigating an alpha lactalbumin vaccine, which has been selected as a vaccine target because it is a breast-specific differentiation protein expressed at high levels in many human breast cancers, particularly in triple-negative breast cancer. The current trial's main objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the vaccine, and other endpoints include looking at biomarkers of immune responses (4).

The I-SPY2 trial is another very exciting study we have open at Cleveland Clinic. This is a multicenter phase II trial using response adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes, which is defined by the receptor status and MammaPrint risk, which is a genomic assay, to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. Patients undergo serial MRIs and biopsies with information on the likelihood of them achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) provided back in real time, which will then allow for therapy escalation or de-escalation. The goal here is individualized precision therapy based on the specific intrinsic subtype of the tumor itself and response with the ultimate goal being to achieve a pCR (5).

Again, this is a very exciting time for us as medical providers and our patients because new therapies are being developed and studied in clinical trials every day.

Based on the work you do at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, what is your standard approach to managing  early stage cancer patients?

Dr. Roesch: The approach to managing patients with early stage breast cancer very much depends on the subtype of breast cancer. Clinical stage at presentation and patient factors are considered here. For example, patients with small hormone receptor-positive tumors will often have surgery first, while patients with triple-negative or HER2-positive tumors will often receive preoperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In situations where there is a need or a desire for downstaging or shrinking of the primary tumor or lymph nodes in the axilla, we will also discuss neoadjuvant systemic therapy. For hormone receptor-positive tumors, endocrine or anti-estrogen therapy will be incorporated into their treatment regimen at some point in the future.

The role of chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer depends on a variety of factors, including pathologic staging, which we obtain at the time of surgery. Exceptions may include very small tumors or patients who have medical comorbidities that affect their candidacy for chemotherapy where the risk may outweigh the benefit.

Are there specific steps you take in managing and treating early stage triple-negative breast cancer?

Dr. Roesch: Most patients with early stage triple-negative breast cancer receive neoadjuvant or preoperative chemotherapy. As I mentioned above, this has the benefits of downstaging the primary tumor itself and the lymph nodes in the axilla as well as providing prognostic information. This approach can also help guide adjuvant therapy recommendations. Additionally, we often discuss the role of genetic counseling for these patients.

Are there targeted therapies you rely upon?

Dr. Roesch: This has been an evolving field with dramatic advances in the past couple of years. One is immunotherapy. There was a phase III study called the KEYONTE-522 trial, which demonstrated improvements in pathologic response rate and event-free survival with a regimen of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by the pembrolizumab given in the adjuvant setting, compared to chemotherapy approach alone (1).

For patients who meet criteria for this study, which is essentially stage II/III triple-negative breast cancer, we have adopted this regimen in the neoadjuvant setting. Additionally, we consider adjuvant capecitabine for patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline, taxane or both and who have residual disease at the time of surgery. This is based on the CREATE-X trial, which showed a survival benefit for patients with triple-negative breast cancer in this situation (2).

Lastly, the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, was recently approved by the FDA in the adjuvant setting for BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed with HER-2-negative high-risk early breast cancer who have received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. This treatment also demonstrated survival benefit and is an exciting new option for these patients (3).

A critical question in my mind that has arisen out of these new developments is sequencing of these therapies. For example, if I have a patient who received the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with the immunotherapy agent, pembrolizumab, and has residual disease after surgery, how do we administer the capecitabine with the pembrolizumab? And what about radiation? What if a patient is a BRCA mutation carrier? These are all very relevant questions, which we are encountering every day, and the approach we take is often individualized.

This sounds very exciting. Can you talk about the research on managing early triple-negative breast cancer and what the future might hold?

Dr. Roesch: This is a very exciting time for both us as oncologists and our patients as there is a very rapid pace of new therapies being explored in the context of clinical trials. First, I'd like to mention the adjuvant vaccine trial we have at Cleveland Clinic for patients diagnosed with early stage triple-negative breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. This trial is investigating an alpha lactalbumin vaccine, which has been selected as a vaccine target because it is a breast-specific differentiation protein expressed at high levels in many human breast cancers, particularly in triple-negative breast cancer. The current trial's main objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the vaccine, and other endpoints include looking at biomarkers of immune responses (4).

The I-SPY2 trial is another very exciting study we have open at Cleveland Clinic. This is a multicenter phase II trial using response adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes, which is defined by the receptor status and MammaPrint risk, which is a genomic assay, to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. Patients undergo serial MRIs and biopsies with information on the likelihood of them achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) provided back in real time, which will then allow for therapy escalation or de-escalation. The goal here is individualized precision therapy based on the specific intrinsic subtype of the tumor itself and response with the ultimate goal being to achieve a pCR (5).

Again, this is a very exciting time for us as medical providers and our patients because new therapies are being developed and studied in clinical trials every day.

Based on the work you do at the Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, what is your standard approach to managing  early stage cancer patients?

Dr. Roesch: The approach to managing patients with early stage breast cancer very much depends on the subtype of breast cancer. Clinical stage at presentation and patient factors are considered here. For example, patients with small hormone receptor-positive tumors will often have surgery first, while patients with triple-negative or HER2-positive tumors will often receive preoperative or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

In situations where there is a need or a desire for downstaging or shrinking of the primary tumor or lymph nodes in the axilla, we will also discuss neoadjuvant systemic therapy. For hormone receptor-positive tumors, endocrine or anti-estrogen therapy will be incorporated into their treatment regimen at some point in the future.

The role of chemotherapy for hormone receptor-positive breast cancer depends on a variety of factors, including pathologic staging, which we obtain at the time of surgery. Exceptions may include very small tumors or patients who have medical comorbidities that affect their candidacy for chemotherapy where the risk may outweigh the benefit.

Are there specific steps you take in managing and treating early stage triple-negative breast cancer?

Dr. Roesch: Most patients with early stage triple-negative breast cancer receive neoadjuvant or preoperative chemotherapy. As I mentioned above, this has the benefits of downstaging the primary tumor itself and the lymph nodes in the axilla as well as providing prognostic information. This approach can also help guide adjuvant therapy recommendations. Additionally, we often discuss the role of genetic counseling for these patients.

Are there targeted therapies you rely upon?

Dr. Roesch: This has been an evolving field with dramatic advances in the past couple of years. One is immunotherapy. There was a phase III study called the KEYONTE-522 trial, which demonstrated improvements in pathologic response rate and event-free survival with a regimen of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy followed by the pembrolizumab given in the adjuvant setting, compared to chemotherapy approach alone (1).

For patients who meet criteria for this study, which is essentially stage II/III triple-negative breast cancer, we have adopted this regimen in the neoadjuvant setting. Additionally, we consider adjuvant capecitabine for patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with an anthracycline, taxane or both and who have residual disease at the time of surgery. This is based on the CREATE-X trial, which showed a survival benefit for patients with triple-negative breast cancer in this situation (2).

Lastly, the PARP inhibitor, olaparib, was recently approved by the FDA in the adjuvant setting for BRCA mutation carriers diagnosed with HER-2-negative high-risk early breast cancer who have received neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. This treatment also demonstrated survival benefit and is an exciting new option for these patients (3).

A critical question in my mind that has arisen out of these new developments is sequencing of these therapies. For example, if I have a patient who received the KEYNOTE-522 regimen with the immunotherapy agent, pembrolizumab, and has residual disease after surgery, how do we administer the capecitabine with the pembrolizumab? And what about radiation? What if a patient is a BRCA mutation carrier? These are all very relevant questions, which we are encountering every day, and the approach we take is often individualized.

This sounds very exciting. Can you talk about the research on managing early triple-negative breast cancer and what the future might hold?

Dr. Roesch: This is a very exciting time for both us as oncologists and our patients as there is a very rapid pace of new therapies being explored in the context of clinical trials. First, I'd like to mention the adjuvant vaccine trial we have at Cleveland Clinic for patients diagnosed with early stage triple-negative breast cancer at high risk of recurrence. This trial is investigating an alpha lactalbumin vaccine, which has been selected as a vaccine target because it is a breast-specific differentiation protein expressed at high levels in many human breast cancers, particularly in triple-negative breast cancer. The current trial's main objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the vaccine, and other endpoints include looking at biomarkers of immune responses (4).

The I-SPY2 trial is another very exciting study we have open at Cleveland Clinic. This is a multicenter phase II trial using response adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes, which is defined by the receptor status and MammaPrint risk, which is a genomic assay, to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk breast cancer. Patients undergo serial MRIs and biopsies with information on the likelihood of them achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) provided back in real time, which will then allow for therapy escalation or de-escalation. The goal here is individualized precision therapy based on the specific intrinsic subtype of the tumor itself and response with the ultimate goal being to achieve a pCR (5).

Again, this is a very exciting time for us as medical providers and our patients because new therapies are being developed and studied in clinical trials every day.