The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued revised milestone guidelines for their developmental surveillance campaign, Learn the Signs, Act Early (LTSAE).

The new guidelines, published in Pediatrics, were drafted in “easy-to-understand” language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children should exhibit at certain ages based on developmental resources, existing data, and clinician experience. The previous milestone checklists, developed in 2004, used 50th percentile or average-age milestones.

The CDC, in collaboration with the AAP, convened a group of eight subject matter experts in various fields of child development, including a developmental pediatrician and researcher from Kennedy Krieger Institute, to develop new and clearer guidelines.

“The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages,” wrote lead author Jennifer M. Zubler, MD, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in Atlanta, and colleagues.
 

Key changes

The experts established 11 criteria for CDC surveillance milestones and tools, including milestones most children (75% or more) would be expected to reach by defined health supervision visit ages and those that are easily recognized in natural settings.

Criteria for developmental milestones and surveillance tools:

• Milestones are included at the age most (≥75%) children would be expected to demonstrate the milestone.
• Eliminate “warning signs.”
• Are easy for families of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to observe and use.
• Are able to be answered with yes, not yet, or not sure.
• Use plain language, avoiding vague terms like may, can, and begins.
• Are organized in developmental domains.
• Show progression of skills with age, when possible.
• Milestones are not repeated across checklists.
• Include open-ended questions.
• Include information for developmental promotion.
• Include information on how to act early if there are concerns.

The previous guidelines were critiqued by some clinicians as being “not helpful to individual families who had concerns about their child’s development,” and in some cases, led to delays in diagnoses as decision-makers opted for a “wait-and-see approach.”

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an accompanying press release. “Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Additional changes included new checklists for children between the ages of 15 and 30 months, additional social and emotional milestones, as well as the removal of complex language and duplicate milestones. The experts also developed new, open-ended questions to aid discussions with families.

“Review of a child’s development with these milestones opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their child’s present and future development,” said Dr. Lipkin.

Originally pioneered in 2005, the LTSAE awareness campaign provides free resources to clinicians and families to support early detection of children with developmental delays and disabilities. After the new guidelines were drafted, they were presented to parents of various racial groups, income levels, and educational backgrounds to confirm ease of use and understandability.

“These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes,” wrote Dr. Zubler.
 

Expert perspective

“These new guidelines will allow us to catch more children with developmental delays as they raise the threshold to 75% of children achieving those milestones at that particular age,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella added that the new guidelines simplify the milestones and reduce redundancy across different developmental domains. “Most importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see just how great the CDC milestone tracker app is – I think parents would really like it.”

This project was supported by the CDC and Prevention of the Department of Health & Human Services. One author is a developer of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires and receives royalties from Brookes Publishing, the company that publishes this tool; the other authors have indicated they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued revised milestone guidelines for their developmental surveillance campaign, Learn the Signs, Act Early (LTSAE).

The new guidelines, published in Pediatrics, were drafted in “easy-to-understand” language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children should exhibit at certain ages based on developmental resources, existing data, and clinician experience. The previous milestone checklists, developed in 2004, used 50th percentile or average-age milestones.

The CDC, in collaboration with the AAP, convened a group of eight subject matter experts in various fields of child development, including a developmental pediatrician and researcher from Kennedy Krieger Institute, to develop new and clearer guidelines.

“The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages,” wrote lead author Jennifer M. Zubler, MD, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in Atlanta, and colleagues.
 

Key changes

The experts established 11 criteria for CDC surveillance milestones and tools, including milestones most children (75% or more) would be expected to reach by defined health supervision visit ages and those that are easily recognized in natural settings.

Criteria for developmental milestones and surveillance tools:

• Milestones are included at the age most (≥75%) children would be expected to demonstrate the milestone.
• Eliminate “warning signs.”
• Are easy for families of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to observe and use.
• Are able to be answered with yes, not yet, or not sure.
• Use plain language, avoiding vague terms like may, can, and begins.
• Are organized in developmental domains.
• Show progression of skills with age, when possible.
• Milestones are not repeated across checklists.
• Include open-ended questions.
• Include information for developmental promotion.
• Include information on how to act early if there are concerns.

The previous guidelines were critiqued by some clinicians as being “not helpful to individual families who had concerns about their child’s development,” and in some cases, led to delays in diagnoses as decision-makers opted for a “wait-and-see approach.”

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an accompanying press release. “Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Additional changes included new checklists for children between the ages of 15 and 30 months, additional social and emotional milestones, as well as the removal of complex language and duplicate milestones. The experts also developed new, open-ended questions to aid discussions with families.

“Review of a child’s development with these milestones opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their child’s present and future development,” said Dr. Lipkin.

Originally pioneered in 2005, the LTSAE awareness campaign provides free resources to clinicians and families to support early detection of children with developmental delays and disabilities. After the new guidelines were drafted, they were presented to parents of various racial groups, income levels, and educational backgrounds to confirm ease of use and understandability.

“These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes,” wrote Dr. Zubler.
 

Expert perspective

“These new guidelines will allow us to catch more children with developmental delays as they raise the threshold to 75% of children achieving those milestones at that particular age,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella added that the new guidelines simplify the milestones and reduce redundancy across different developmental domains. “Most importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see just how great the CDC milestone tracker app is – I think parents would really like it.”

This project was supported by the CDC and Prevention of the Department of Health & Human Services. One author is a developer of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires and receives royalties from Brookes Publishing, the company that publishes this tool; the other authors have indicated they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics recently issued revised milestone guidelines for their developmental surveillance campaign, Learn the Signs, Act Early (LTSAE).

The new guidelines, published in Pediatrics, were drafted in “easy-to-understand” language and identify the behaviors that 75% or more of children should exhibit at certain ages based on developmental resources, existing data, and clinician experience. The previous milestone checklists, developed in 2004, used 50th percentile or average-age milestones.

The CDC, in collaboration with the AAP, convened a group of eight subject matter experts in various fields of child development, including a developmental pediatrician and researcher from Kennedy Krieger Institute, to develop new and clearer guidelines.

“The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages,” wrote lead author Jennifer M. Zubler, MD, of the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities in Atlanta, and colleagues.
 

Key changes

The experts established 11 criteria for CDC surveillance milestones and tools, including milestones most children (75% or more) would be expected to reach by defined health supervision visit ages and those that are easily recognized in natural settings.

Criteria for developmental milestones and surveillance tools:

• Milestones are included at the age most (≥75%) children would be expected to demonstrate the milestone.
• Eliminate “warning signs.”
• Are easy for families of different social, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds to observe and use.
• Are able to be answered with yes, not yet, or not sure.
• Use plain language, avoiding vague terms like may, can, and begins.
• Are organized in developmental domains.
• Show progression of skills with age, when possible.
• Milestones are not repeated across checklists.
• Include open-ended questions.
• Include information for developmental promotion.
• Include information on how to act early if there are concerns.

The previous guidelines were critiqued by some clinicians as being “not helpful to individual families who had concerns about their child’s development,” and in some cases, led to delays in diagnoses as decision-makers opted for a “wait-and-see approach.”

“The earlier a child is identified with a developmental delay the better, as treatment as well as learning interventions can begin,” Paul Lipkin, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an accompanying press release. “Revising the guidelines with expertise and data from clinicians in the field accomplishes these goals.”

Additional changes included new checklists for children between the ages of 15 and 30 months, additional social and emotional milestones, as well as the removal of complex language and duplicate milestones. The experts also developed new, open-ended questions to aid discussions with families.

“Review of a child’s development with these milestones opens up a continuous dialogue between a parent and the health care provider about their child’s present and future development,” said Dr. Lipkin.

Originally pioneered in 2005, the LTSAE awareness campaign provides free resources to clinicians and families to support early detection of children with developmental delays and disabilities. After the new guidelines were drafted, they were presented to parents of various racial groups, income levels, and educational backgrounds to confirm ease of use and understandability.

“These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes,” wrote Dr. Zubler.
 

Expert perspective

“These new guidelines will allow us to catch more children with developmental delays as they raise the threshold to 75% of children achieving those milestones at that particular age,” Karalyn Kinsella, MD, a pediatrician in Cheshire, Conn., said in an interview.

Dr. Kinsella added that the new guidelines simplify the milestones and reduce redundancy across different developmental domains. “Most importantly, it gave me the opportunity to see just how great the CDC milestone tracker app is – I think parents would really like it.”

This project was supported by the CDC and Prevention of the Department of Health & Human Services. One author is a developer of the Ages & Stages Questionnaires and receives royalties from Brookes Publishing, the company that publishes this tool; the other authors have indicated they have no relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) has issued new recommendations for exercise/physical activity in people with type 2 diabetes, which update a 2010 joint ACSM/American Diabetes Association position statement.

kali9/Getty Images

The guidance has been published in the February issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

“This consensus statement provides a brief summary of the current evidence and extends and updates the prior recommendations,” the authors explain.

In the past decade, there has been a “considerable amount” of research about exercise in people with type 2 diabetes, they add, while the prevalence of diabetes has steadily increased.

The updated recommendations have been “expanded to include physical activity – a broader, more comprehensive definition of human movement than planned exercise – and reducing sedentary time,” the authors note.

“The latest guidelines are applicable to most individuals with diabetes, including youth, with a few exceptions and modifications,” lead author Jill A. Kanaley, PhD, said in a press release from the ACSM.

The key takeaway is that “all individuals [with type 2 diabetes] should engage in regular physical activity, reduce sedentary time, and break up sitting time with frequent activity breaks,” said Dr. Kanaley, a professor in the department of nutrition and exercise physiology, University of Missouri, Columbia.

“Exercise can play an important role in managing type 2 diabetes, and workouts can be modified to fit the abilities of most people,” she stressed.

And those with type 2 diabetes who want to lose weight “should consider workouts of moderately high volume for 4 to 5 days per week,” she added.
 

Six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes

The consensus statement gives six key tips for physical activity in adults with type 2 diabetes, as follows.

• Regular aerobic exercise improves glycemic management; meta-analyses have reported fewer daily hyperglycemic episodes and reductions in A1c of 0.5%-0.7%.
• High-intensity resistance exercise, when performed safely, is better than low-to-moderate intensity resistance exercise for glucose management and attenuation of insulin levels. Resistance exercise typically results in improvements of 10% to 15% in strength, bone mineral density, blood pressure, lipid profile, skeletal muscle mass, and insulin sensitivity.
• Exercise after meals, such as taking a walk after dinner at one’s own pace, takes advantage of the blood glucose-stabilizing effects of exercise.
• Reduce sedentary time by taking regular breaks for small “doses” of physical activity, which can modestly attenuate postprandial glucose and insulin levels, particularly in individuals with insulin resistance and a higher body mass index.
• To prevent hypoglycemia during or after exercise, people taking insulin or insulin secretagogues should increase carbohydrate intake, or if possible, reduce insulin.
• People who are taking beta blockers should not rely on a heart monitor to measure workout intensity. They could ask a certified exercise professional about using ratings of perceived exertion to track how a workout feels.

Other recommendations

The consensus statement also summarizes precautions that people with complications of type 2 diabetes (such as neuropathy, retinopathy, kidney disease, and hypertension) should take.

Low impact exercises for flexibility can help introduce sedentary people to physical activity, the consensus group writes. Balance exercises can be helpful for older adults.

Weight loss greater than 5% can benefit A1c, blood lipid, and blood pressure levels. Moderate exercise 4 to 5 days a week can reduce visceral fat.  

In studies of youth with type 2 diabetes, intensive lifestyle interventions plus metformin were not superior to metformin alone for managing glycemia. Physical activity goals are the same for youth with or without diabetes.

Pregnant women with diabetes should participate in at least 20 to 30 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise most days of the week.

Participating in an exercise program before and after bariatric surgery may enhance surgical outcomes.  

Dr. Kanaley has reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Disclosures for the other authors are listed in the article.

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

Global climate change is hitting home for dermatologists, according to a recent survey in which the majority of participants said their patients are already being impacted.

Almost 80% of the 148 participants who responded to an electronic survey reported this belief.

The survey was designed and distributed to the membership of various dermatological organizations by Misha Rosenbach, MD, and coauthors. The results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Asked also about specific types of climate-driven phenomena with a current – or future – impact on their patients, 80.1% reported that they believed that increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is impactful, or will be. Changes in temporal or geographic patterns of vector-borne illnesses were affirmed by 78.7%, and an increase in social displacement caused by extreme weather or other events was affirmed by 67.1% as having an impact on their patients currently or in the future.

Other phenomena affirmed by respondents as already having an impact or impacting patients in the future were an increased incidence of heat exposure or heat-related illness (58.2%); an increase in rates of inflammatory skin disease flares (43.2%); increased incidence of waterborne infections (42.5%); and increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis (29.5%).

The survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Climate Change Expert Resource Group (ERG), among other organizations.

The study design and membership overlap made it impossible to calculate a response rate, the authors said, but they estimated it to be about 10%.

Almost all respondents were from the United States, and most (86.3%) practiced in an academic setting. The findings are similar to those of an online survey of members of the International Society of Dermatology (ISD), published in 2020, which found that 89% of 158 respondents believed climate change will impact the incidence of skin diseases in their area.

“Physicians, including dermatologists, are starting to understand the impact of the climate crisis on both their patients and themselves ... both through lived experiences and [issues raised] more in the scientific literature and in meetings,” Dr. Rosenbach, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

A majority of participants in the U.S. survey agreed they have a responsibility to bring awareness of the health effects of climate change to patients (77.2%) and to policymakers (88.6%). (In the ISD survey, 88% said they believed that dermatologists should play an advocacy role in climate change-related issues).

Only a minority of respondents in the U.S. survey said that they would feel comfortable discussing climate change with their patients (37.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents said they would like to be better informed about climate change before doing so. And 81.8% said they would like to read more about the dermatological effects of climate change in scientific journals.

“There continues to be unfilled interest in education and advocacy regarding climate change, suggesting a ‘practice gap’ even among dermatologists,” Dr. Rosenbach and his colleagues wrote, noting opportunities for professional organizations and journals to provide more resources and “actionable items” regarding climate change.

Some dermatologists have been taking action, in the meantime, to reduce the carbon footprint of their practices and institutions. Reductions in facility energy consumption, and reductions in medical waste/optimization of recycling, were each reported by more than one-third of survey respondents.

And almost half indicated that their practice or institution had increased capacity for telemedicine or telecommuting in response to climate change. Only 8% said their practice or institution had divested from fossil fuel stocks and/or bonds.

“There are a lot of sustainability-in-medicine solutions that are actually cost-neutral or cost-saving for practices,” said Dr. Rosenbach, who is a founder and co-chair of the AAD’s ERG on Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Research in dermatology is starting to quantify the environmental impact of some of these changes. In a research letter also published in the British Journal of Dermatology, researchers from Cardiff University and the department of dermatology at University Hospital of Wales, described how they determined that reusable surgical packs used for skin surgery are more sustainable than single-use packs because of their reduced cost and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Such single-site reports are “early feeders” into what will become a stream of larger studies quantifying the impact of measures taken in dermatology, Dr. Rosenbach said.

Across medicine, there is evidence that health care professionals are now seeing climate change as a threat to their patients. In a multinational survey published last year in The Lancet Planetary Health, 77% of 3,977 participants said that climate change will cause a moderate or great deal of harm for their patients.

Climate change will be discussed at the AAD’s annual meeting in late March in a session devoted to the topic, and as part of a broader session on controversies in dermatology.

Dr. Rosenbach and two of the five authors of the dermatology research letter are members of the AAD’s ERG on climate change, but in the publication they noted that they were not writing on behalf of the AAD. None of the authors reported any disclosures, and there was no funding source for the survey.

Global climate change is hitting home for dermatologists, according to a recent survey in which the majority of participants said their patients are already being impacted.

Almost 80% of the 148 participants who responded to an electronic survey reported this belief.

The survey was designed and distributed to the membership of various dermatological organizations by Misha Rosenbach, MD, and coauthors. The results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Asked also about specific types of climate-driven phenomena with a current – or future – impact on their patients, 80.1% reported that they believed that increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is impactful, or will be. Changes in temporal or geographic patterns of vector-borne illnesses were affirmed by 78.7%, and an increase in social displacement caused by extreme weather or other events was affirmed by 67.1% as having an impact on their patients currently or in the future.

Other phenomena affirmed by respondents as already having an impact or impacting patients in the future were an increased incidence of heat exposure or heat-related illness (58.2%); an increase in rates of inflammatory skin disease flares (43.2%); increased incidence of waterborne infections (42.5%); and increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis (29.5%).

The survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Climate Change Expert Resource Group (ERG), among other organizations.

The study design and membership overlap made it impossible to calculate a response rate, the authors said, but they estimated it to be about 10%.

Almost all respondents were from the United States, and most (86.3%) practiced in an academic setting. The findings are similar to those of an online survey of members of the International Society of Dermatology (ISD), published in 2020, which found that 89% of 158 respondents believed climate change will impact the incidence of skin diseases in their area.

“Physicians, including dermatologists, are starting to understand the impact of the climate crisis on both their patients and themselves ... both through lived experiences and [issues raised] more in the scientific literature and in meetings,” Dr. Rosenbach, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

A majority of participants in the U.S. survey agreed they have a responsibility to bring awareness of the health effects of climate change to patients (77.2%) and to policymakers (88.6%). (In the ISD survey, 88% said they believed that dermatologists should play an advocacy role in climate change-related issues).

Only a minority of respondents in the U.S. survey said that they would feel comfortable discussing climate change with their patients (37.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents said they would like to be better informed about climate change before doing so. And 81.8% said they would like to read more about the dermatological effects of climate change in scientific journals.

“There continues to be unfilled interest in education and advocacy regarding climate change, suggesting a ‘practice gap’ even among dermatologists,” Dr. Rosenbach and his colleagues wrote, noting opportunities for professional organizations and journals to provide more resources and “actionable items” regarding climate change.

Some dermatologists have been taking action, in the meantime, to reduce the carbon footprint of their practices and institutions. Reductions in facility energy consumption, and reductions in medical waste/optimization of recycling, were each reported by more than one-third of survey respondents.

And almost half indicated that their practice or institution had increased capacity for telemedicine or telecommuting in response to climate change. Only 8% said their practice or institution had divested from fossil fuel stocks and/or bonds.

“There are a lot of sustainability-in-medicine solutions that are actually cost-neutral or cost-saving for practices,” said Dr. Rosenbach, who is a founder and co-chair of the AAD’s ERG on Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Research in dermatology is starting to quantify the environmental impact of some of these changes. In a research letter also published in the British Journal of Dermatology, researchers from Cardiff University and the department of dermatology at University Hospital of Wales, described how they determined that reusable surgical packs used for skin surgery are more sustainable than single-use packs because of their reduced cost and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Such single-site reports are “early feeders” into what will become a stream of larger studies quantifying the impact of measures taken in dermatology, Dr. Rosenbach said.

Across medicine, there is evidence that health care professionals are now seeing climate change as a threat to their patients. In a multinational survey published last year in The Lancet Planetary Health, 77% of 3,977 participants said that climate change will cause a moderate or great deal of harm for their patients.

Climate change will be discussed at the AAD’s annual meeting in late March in a session devoted to the topic, and as part of a broader session on controversies in dermatology.

Dr. Rosenbach and two of the five authors of the dermatology research letter are members of the AAD’s ERG on climate change, but in the publication they noted that they were not writing on behalf of the AAD. None of the authors reported any disclosures, and there was no funding source for the survey.

Global climate change is hitting home for dermatologists, according to a recent survey in which the majority of participants said their patients are already being impacted.

Almost 80% of the 148 participants who responded to an electronic survey reported this belief.

The survey was designed and distributed to the membership of various dermatological organizations by Misha Rosenbach, MD, and coauthors. The results were published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Asked also about specific types of climate-driven phenomena with a current – or future – impact on their patients, 80.1% reported that they believed that increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is impactful, or will be. Changes in temporal or geographic patterns of vector-borne illnesses were affirmed by 78.7%, and an increase in social displacement caused by extreme weather or other events was affirmed by 67.1% as having an impact on their patients currently or in the future.

Other phenomena affirmed by respondents as already having an impact or impacting patients in the future were an increased incidence of heat exposure or heat-related illness (58.2%); an increase in rates of inflammatory skin disease flares (43.2%); increased incidence of waterborne infections (42.5%); and increased rates of allergic contact dermatitis (29.5%).

The survey was sent to the membership of the American Society of Dermatologic Surgery, the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, the Society for Investigative Dermatology, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s Climate Change Expert Resource Group (ERG), among other organizations.

The study design and membership overlap made it impossible to calculate a response rate, the authors said, but they estimated it to be about 10%.

Almost all respondents were from the United States, and most (86.3%) practiced in an academic setting. The findings are similar to those of an online survey of members of the International Society of Dermatology (ISD), published in 2020, which found that 89% of 158 respondents believed climate change will impact the incidence of skin diseases in their area.

“Physicians, including dermatologists, are starting to understand the impact of the climate crisis on both their patients and themselves ... both through lived experiences and [issues raised] more in the scientific literature and in meetings,” Dr. Rosenbach, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

A majority of participants in the U.S. survey agreed they have a responsibility to bring awareness of the health effects of climate change to patients (77.2%) and to policymakers (88.6%). (In the ISD survey, 88% said they believed that dermatologists should play an advocacy role in climate change-related issues).

Only a minority of respondents in the U.S. survey said that they would feel comfortable discussing climate change with their patients (37.2%). Almost one-third of the respondents said they would like to be better informed about climate change before doing so. And 81.8% said they would like to read more about the dermatological effects of climate change in scientific journals.

“There continues to be unfilled interest in education and advocacy regarding climate change, suggesting a ‘practice gap’ even among dermatologists,” Dr. Rosenbach and his colleagues wrote, noting opportunities for professional organizations and journals to provide more resources and “actionable items” regarding climate change.

Some dermatologists have been taking action, in the meantime, to reduce the carbon footprint of their practices and institutions. Reductions in facility energy consumption, and reductions in medical waste/optimization of recycling, were each reported by more than one-third of survey respondents.

And almost half indicated that their practice or institution had increased capacity for telemedicine or telecommuting in response to climate change. Only 8% said their practice or institution had divested from fossil fuel stocks and/or bonds.

“There are a lot of sustainability-in-medicine solutions that are actually cost-neutral or cost-saving for practices,” said Dr. Rosenbach, who is a founder and co-chair of the AAD’s ERG on Climate Change and Environmental Issues.

Research in dermatology is starting to quantify the environmental impact of some of these changes. In a research letter also published in the British Journal of Dermatology, researchers from Cardiff University and the department of dermatology at University Hospital of Wales, described how they determined that reusable surgical packs used for skin surgery are more sustainable than single-use packs because of their reduced cost and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Such single-site reports are “early feeders” into what will become a stream of larger studies quantifying the impact of measures taken in dermatology, Dr. Rosenbach said.

Across medicine, there is evidence that health care professionals are now seeing climate change as a threat to their patients. In a multinational survey published last year in The Lancet Planetary Health, 77% of 3,977 participants said that climate change will cause a moderate or great deal of harm for their patients.

Climate change will be discussed at the AAD’s annual meeting in late March in a session devoted to the topic, and as part of a broader session on controversies in dermatology.

Dr. Rosenbach and two of the five authors of the dermatology research letter are members of the AAD’s ERG on climate change, but in the publication they noted that they were not writing on behalf of the AAD. None of the authors reported any disclosures, and there was no funding source for the survey.

Over 40% of the antibiotic prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D beneficiaries in 2019 were prescribed by just 10% of health care providers, based on data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“Higher-volume prescribers prescribed antibiotics to a larger share of their patient panel and their prescribing rate was 60% higher than that of lower-volume prescribers, indicating that their prescribing practices might be independent of the number of beneficiaries under their care,” Katryna A. Gouin, MPH, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In 2019, 41% of all Part D antibiotics – that’s 24.4 million prescriptions – were prescribed by 69,835 higher-volume prescribers. The other 59% of all antibiotics were prescribed by the 627,000 lower-volume health care providers included in the analysis (those who prescribed fewer than 11 antibiotics were excluded), Ms. Gouin of Chenega in Anchorage, Alaska, and associates noted.

The analysis involved the Medicare Part D Prescribers by Provider data set and defined the highest-volume prescribers “as those in the highest 10th percentile of prescriber-level antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions filled) across all Medicare providers nationwide,” the investigators explained.

The antibiotic-prescribing rate for the higher-volume prescribers was 680 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries, which was 60% higher than the 426 prescriptions per 1,000 among the lower 90% of prescribers. Another way to look at it: The top 10% of health care providers “wrote a median of 284 antibiotic prescriptions, compared with a median of 41 among lower-volume prescribers,” the investigators said.

Physicians in internal medicine and family practice, the two largest medical specialties, were the most likely to be 10-percenters, accounting for 24.6% and 27.5%, respectively, of the higher-volume group. They were followed by nurse practitioners (14.1%) and physician assistants (7.4%), who were classified as specialists for the purposes of the study, Ms. Gouin and associates said.

The only other group of physicians among the top six specialties were urologists, who represented 6.8% of high-volume prescribers but only 1% of all prescribers, they noted.

The highest antibiotic prescription rate in the six largest groups of providers occurred among dentists, whose highest-prescribing practitioners wrote 1,271 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries. Even the lower-prescribing 90% of dentists prescribed more antibiotics (1,068 per 1,000) than did the higher-prescribing family physicians (611 per 1,000) and internists (590 per 1,000), the researchers said.

The prescribing rates for all the other specialties that were not included separately also were higher than the family physicians’ and internists’. These rates were 850 per 1,000 beneficiaries for the higher-prescribers and 360 per 1,000 for the lower-prescribers, the researchers wrote.

The considerable differences in prescribing practices between specialties and even among those of the same specialty present “opportunities for improved prescribing through antibiotic stewardship activities focusing on these higher-volume prescribers, independent of specialty,” Ms. Gouin and associates wrote.

Over 40% of the antibiotic prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D beneficiaries in 2019 were prescribed by just 10% of health care providers, based on data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“Higher-volume prescribers prescribed antibiotics to a larger share of their patient panel and their prescribing rate was 60% higher than that of lower-volume prescribers, indicating that their prescribing practices might be independent of the number of beneficiaries under their care,” Katryna A. Gouin, MPH, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In 2019, 41% of all Part D antibiotics – that’s 24.4 million prescriptions – were prescribed by 69,835 higher-volume prescribers. The other 59% of all antibiotics were prescribed by the 627,000 lower-volume health care providers included in the analysis (those who prescribed fewer than 11 antibiotics were excluded), Ms. Gouin of Chenega in Anchorage, Alaska, and associates noted.

The analysis involved the Medicare Part D Prescribers by Provider data set and defined the highest-volume prescribers “as those in the highest 10th percentile of prescriber-level antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions filled) across all Medicare providers nationwide,” the investigators explained.

The antibiotic-prescribing rate for the higher-volume prescribers was 680 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries, which was 60% higher than the 426 prescriptions per 1,000 among the lower 90% of prescribers. Another way to look at it: The top 10% of health care providers “wrote a median of 284 antibiotic prescriptions, compared with a median of 41 among lower-volume prescribers,” the investigators said.

Physicians in internal medicine and family practice, the two largest medical specialties, were the most likely to be 10-percenters, accounting for 24.6% and 27.5%, respectively, of the higher-volume group. They were followed by nurse practitioners (14.1%) and physician assistants (7.4%), who were classified as specialists for the purposes of the study, Ms. Gouin and associates said.

The only other group of physicians among the top six specialties were urologists, who represented 6.8% of high-volume prescribers but only 1% of all prescribers, they noted.

The highest antibiotic prescription rate in the six largest groups of providers occurred among dentists, whose highest-prescribing practitioners wrote 1,271 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries. Even the lower-prescribing 90% of dentists prescribed more antibiotics (1,068 per 1,000) than did the higher-prescribing family physicians (611 per 1,000) and internists (590 per 1,000), the researchers said.

The prescribing rates for all the other specialties that were not included separately also were higher than the family physicians’ and internists’. These rates were 850 per 1,000 beneficiaries for the higher-prescribers and 360 per 1,000 for the lower-prescribers, the researchers wrote.

The considerable differences in prescribing practices between specialties and even among those of the same specialty present “opportunities for improved prescribing through antibiotic stewardship activities focusing on these higher-volume prescribers, independent of specialty,” Ms. Gouin and associates wrote.

Over 40% of the antibiotic prescriptions filled by Medicare Part D beneficiaries in 2019 were prescribed by just 10% of health care providers, based on data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

“Higher-volume prescribers prescribed antibiotics to a larger share of their patient panel and their prescribing rate was 60% higher than that of lower-volume prescribers, indicating that their prescribing practices might be independent of the number of beneficiaries under their care,” Katryna A. Gouin, MPH, and associates wrote in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

In 2019, 41% of all Part D antibiotics – that’s 24.4 million prescriptions – were prescribed by 69,835 higher-volume prescribers. The other 59% of all antibiotics were prescribed by the 627,000 lower-volume health care providers included in the analysis (those who prescribed fewer than 11 antibiotics were excluded), Ms. Gouin of Chenega in Anchorage, Alaska, and associates noted.

The analysis involved the Medicare Part D Prescribers by Provider data set and defined the highest-volume prescribers “as those in the highest 10th percentile of prescriber-level antibiotic volume (number of antibiotic prescriptions filled) across all Medicare providers nationwide,” the investigators explained.

The antibiotic-prescribing rate for the higher-volume prescribers was 680 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries, which was 60% higher than the 426 prescriptions per 1,000 among the lower 90% of prescribers. Another way to look at it: The top 10% of health care providers “wrote a median of 284 antibiotic prescriptions, compared with a median of 41 among lower-volume prescribers,” the investigators said.

Physicians in internal medicine and family practice, the two largest medical specialties, were the most likely to be 10-percenters, accounting for 24.6% and 27.5%, respectively, of the higher-volume group. They were followed by nurse practitioners (14.1%) and physician assistants (7.4%), who were classified as specialists for the purposes of the study, Ms. Gouin and associates said.

The only other group of physicians among the top six specialties were urologists, who represented 6.8% of high-volume prescribers but only 1% of all prescribers, they noted.

The highest antibiotic prescription rate in the six largest groups of providers occurred among dentists, whose highest-prescribing practitioners wrote 1,271 prescriptions per 1,000 beneficiaries. Even the lower-prescribing 90% of dentists prescribed more antibiotics (1,068 per 1,000) than did the higher-prescribing family physicians (611 per 1,000) and internists (590 per 1,000), the researchers said.

The prescribing rates for all the other specialties that were not included separately also were higher than the family physicians’ and internists’. These rates were 850 per 1,000 beneficiaries for the higher-prescribers and 360 per 1,000 for the lower-prescribers, the researchers wrote.

The considerable differences in prescribing practices between specialties and even among those of the same specialty present “opportunities for improved prescribing through antibiotic stewardship activities focusing on these higher-volume prescribers, independent of specialty,” Ms. Gouin and associates wrote.

Cluster headache attacks induced by either pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP38) or vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) do not lead to changes in plasma levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or markers of mast cell activation such as tryptase and histamine, a new study has found.

“Whether cluster headache attacks provoked by CGRP and PACAP38/VIP are mediated by distinct signaling pathways will be worth investigating in forthcoming studies,” wrote Lanfranco Pellesi, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at the University of Copenhagen, and his coauthors. The study was published in Cephalalgia.

To assess how these biochemical variables might contribute to cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial of data from 44 Danish participants with cluster headache. The average age of the patients was 38 years; 14 had active episodic cluster headache, 15 had episodic cluster headache in remission, and 15 had chronic cluster headache.

All patients received a continuous infusion of either PACAP38 (10 pmol/kg per minute) or VIP (8 pmol/kg per minute) over a 20-minute period, using a time- and volume-controlled infusion pump. Blood was collected for analysis at fixed time points, including at baseline, at the end of the infusion, 10 minutes after the infusion, and 70 minutes after the infusion. Technical problems led to missing values in 285 out of 1,144 planned plasma samples.

PACAP38 infusion resulted in a cluster headache attack in 13 of the 44 participants and VIP induced an attack in 12 of the 44. No differences in plasma CGRP (P = .7074), tryptase (P = .6673), and histamine (P = .4792) levels were found between patients who developed attacks and those who did not, and the plasma concentrations did not differ among the various blood-drawing time points.

There was also no difference in plasma CGRP levels between patients with active episodic cluster headache, those with episodic cluster headache in remission, and those with chronic cluster headache. After post hoc analysis, plasma tryptase and plasma histamine levels were similar among the three cluster headache patient groups.

The final link to the cluster headache puzzle has not yet been found

“We know a lot about cluster headache: how it presents, how we can stop it acutely, and how we can stop it preventively. But we don’t know everything about all the neurotransmitters involved, the triggers that start an attack, or the causes of pain,” Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and past president of the International Headache Society, said in an interview. “This study was performed to find the answer to a small piece of the puzzle. Is CGRP the missing link for patients who begin a cluster attack, or should we be looking elsewhere?

“I would be cautious and say it appears that it doesn’t seem to be related, but further studies may show something different,” he added. “The reason for my qualification: There is a monoclonal antibody [galcanezumab], which grabs CGRP and prevents it from docking on its receptor, that has been approved for preventive treatment of episodic cluster headache. When you have episodic cluster, go into a cluster period, and take galcanezumab, it could and should decrease the number of attacks that you would ordinarily have had. That means it is related somewhat. But it certainly doesn’t work for everyone, so more investigations like this are needed.”

“What’s important about this study is that it opens up the possibility that there is another way into the cluster attack that could be operationalized for therapeutic purposes,” Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at UCLA and president of the American Headache Society, said in an interview.

When asked about the authors’ stated interest in investigating “if monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway prevent PACAP38- or VIP-induced cluster headache attacks” as a follow-up, Dr. Goadsby strongly backed the idea. “If I sound excited about actually exploring whether that was a useful treatment or not, it’s because cluster headache is a dreadful condition. And the sooner you could work out whether it was useful or put the money into something else, well, that’s where I’d go.

“I think the principle here of doing experimental medicine, getting into human work with targets like this at the earliest possible time, is something that is not done as often as would be appropriate,” he added. “There is not enough investment, in my view, in early phase experimental work, which really just gets to that next step. Broadly speaking, the encouragement and support of experimental medicine is crucial to developing new therapies.”

The authors recognized their study’s potential limitations, including it’s being an exploratory study with results that should be interpreted cautiously. They acknowledged discrepancies with previous studies of plasma CGRP during cluster headache attacks, offering “different methodologies, including intra-assay differences and the location of blood sampling” as a possible reason. They also explained that some of the data are missing “completely at random” due to their policy of discarding all observations with incomplete laboratory measurements, adding that the impact on their sample size was “only modest.”

“In spite of these limitations,” Dr. Rapoport said, “this is an excellent study that shows us that PACAP38- and VIP-induced cluster headache attacks are not associated with alterations in plasma CGRP or in histamine and tryptase.”

Regarding potential conflicts of interest, one author reported being employed at the testing lab where the histamine measurements were conducted, as did another author who serves as the lab’s scientific adviser. A third author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

Cluster headache attacks induced by either pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP38) or vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) do not lead to changes in plasma levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or markers of mast cell activation such as tryptase and histamine, a new study has found.

“Whether cluster headache attacks provoked by CGRP and PACAP38/VIP are mediated by distinct signaling pathways will be worth investigating in forthcoming studies,” wrote Lanfranco Pellesi, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at the University of Copenhagen, and his coauthors. The study was published in Cephalalgia.

To assess how these biochemical variables might contribute to cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial of data from 44 Danish participants with cluster headache. The average age of the patients was 38 years; 14 had active episodic cluster headache, 15 had episodic cluster headache in remission, and 15 had chronic cluster headache.

All patients received a continuous infusion of either PACAP38 (10 pmol/kg per minute) or VIP (8 pmol/kg per minute) over a 20-minute period, using a time- and volume-controlled infusion pump. Blood was collected for analysis at fixed time points, including at baseline, at the end of the infusion, 10 minutes after the infusion, and 70 minutes after the infusion. Technical problems led to missing values in 285 out of 1,144 planned plasma samples.

PACAP38 infusion resulted in a cluster headache attack in 13 of the 44 participants and VIP induced an attack in 12 of the 44. No differences in plasma CGRP (P = .7074), tryptase (P = .6673), and histamine (P = .4792) levels were found between patients who developed attacks and those who did not, and the plasma concentrations did not differ among the various blood-drawing time points.

There was also no difference in plasma CGRP levels between patients with active episodic cluster headache, those with episodic cluster headache in remission, and those with chronic cluster headache. After post hoc analysis, plasma tryptase and plasma histamine levels were similar among the three cluster headache patient groups.

The final link to the cluster headache puzzle has not yet been found

“We know a lot about cluster headache: how it presents, how we can stop it acutely, and how we can stop it preventively. But we don’t know everything about all the neurotransmitters involved, the triggers that start an attack, or the causes of pain,” Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and past president of the International Headache Society, said in an interview. “This study was performed to find the answer to a small piece of the puzzle. Is CGRP the missing link for patients who begin a cluster attack, or should we be looking elsewhere?

“I would be cautious and say it appears that it doesn’t seem to be related, but further studies may show something different,” he added. “The reason for my qualification: There is a monoclonal antibody [galcanezumab], which grabs CGRP and prevents it from docking on its receptor, that has been approved for preventive treatment of episodic cluster headache. When you have episodic cluster, go into a cluster period, and take galcanezumab, it could and should decrease the number of attacks that you would ordinarily have had. That means it is related somewhat. But it certainly doesn’t work for everyone, so more investigations like this are needed.”

“What’s important about this study is that it opens up the possibility that there is another way into the cluster attack that could be operationalized for therapeutic purposes,” Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at UCLA and president of the American Headache Society, said in an interview.

When asked about the authors’ stated interest in investigating “if monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway prevent PACAP38- or VIP-induced cluster headache attacks” as a follow-up, Dr. Goadsby strongly backed the idea. “If I sound excited about actually exploring whether that was a useful treatment or not, it’s because cluster headache is a dreadful condition. And the sooner you could work out whether it was useful or put the money into something else, well, that’s where I’d go.

“I think the principle here of doing experimental medicine, getting into human work with targets like this at the earliest possible time, is something that is not done as often as would be appropriate,” he added. “There is not enough investment, in my view, in early phase experimental work, which really just gets to that next step. Broadly speaking, the encouragement and support of experimental medicine is crucial to developing new therapies.”

The authors recognized their study’s potential limitations, including it’s being an exploratory study with results that should be interpreted cautiously. They acknowledged discrepancies with previous studies of plasma CGRP during cluster headache attacks, offering “different methodologies, including intra-assay differences and the location of blood sampling” as a possible reason. They also explained that some of the data are missing “completely at random” due to their policy of discarding all observations with incomplete laboratory measurements, adding that the impact on their sample size was “only modest.”

“In spite of these limitations,” Dr. Rapoport said, “this is an excellent study that shows us that PACAP38- and VIP-induced cluster headache attacks are not associated with alterations in plasma CGRP or in histamine and tryptase.”

Regarding potential conflicts of interest, one author reported being employed at the testing lab where the histamine measurements were conducted, as did another author who serves as the lab’s scientific adviser. A third author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

Cluster headache attacks induced by either pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide-38 (PACAP38) or vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) do not lead to changes in plasma levels of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or markers of mast cell activation such as tryptase and histamine, a new study has found.

“Whether cluster headache attacks provoked by CGRP and PACAP38/VIP are mediated by distinct signaling pathways will be worth investigating in forthcoming studies,” wrote Lanfranco Pellesi, MD, of the Danish Headache Center at the University of Copenhagen, and his coauthors. The study was published in Cephalalgia.

To assess how these biochemical variables might contribute to cluster headache attacks, the researchers launched a randomized, double-blind trial of data from 44 Danish participants with cluster headache. The average age of the patients was 38 years; 14 had active episodic cluster headache, 15 had episodic cluster headache in remission, and 15 had chronic cluster headache.

All patients received a continuous infusion of either PACAP38 (10 pmol/kg per minute) or VIP (8 pmol/kg per minute) over a 20-minute period, using a time- and volume-controlled infusion pump. Blood was collected for analysis at fixed time points, including at baseline, at the end of the infusion, 10 minutes after the infusion, and 70 minutes after the infusion. Technical problems led to missing values in 285 out of 1,144 planned plasma samples.

PACAP38 infusion resulted in a cluster headache attack in 13 of the 44 participants and VIP induced an attack in 12 of the 44. No differences in plasma CGRP (P = .7074), tryptase (P = .6673), and histamine (P = .4792) levels were found between patients who developed attacks and those who did not, and the plasma concentrations did not differ among the various blood-drawing time points.

There was also no difference in plasma CGRP levels between patients with active episodic cluster headache, those with episodic cluster headache in remission, and those with chronic cluster headache. After post hoc analysis, plasma tryptase and plasma histamine levels were similar among the three cluster headache patient groups.

The final link to the cluster headache puzzle has not yet been found

“We know a lot about cluster headache: how it presents, how we can stop it acutely, and how we can stop it preventively. But we don’t know everything about all the neurotransmitters involved, the triggers that start an attack, or the causes of pain,” Alan Rapoport, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and past president of the International Headache Society, said in an interview. “This study was performed to find the answer to a small piece of the puzzle. Is CGRP the missing link for patients who begin a cluster attack, or should we be looking elsewhere?

“I would be cautious and say it appears that it doesn’t seem to be related, but further studies may show something different,” he added. “The reason for my qualification: There is a monoclonal antibody [galcanezumab], which grabs CGRP and prevents it from docking on its receptor, that has been approved for preventive treatment of episodic cluster headache. When you have episodic cluster, go into a cluster period, and take galcanezumab, it could and should decrease the number of attacks that you would ordinarily have had. That means it is related somewhat. But it certainly doesn’t work for everyone, so more investigations like this are needed.”

“What’s important about this study is that it opens up the possibility that there is another way into the cluster attack that could be operationalized for therapeutic purposes,” Peter Goadsby, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at UCLA and president of the American Headache Society, said in an interview.

When asked about the authors’ stated interest in investigating “if monoclonal antibodies targeting the CGRP pathway prevent PACAP38- or VIP-induced cluster headache attacks” as a follow-up, Dr. Goadsby strongly backed the idea. “If I sound excited about actually exploring whether that was a useful treatment or not, it’s because cluster headache is a dreadful condition. And the sooner you could work out whether it was useful or put the money into something else, well, that’s where I’d go.

“I think the principle here of doing experimental medicine, getting into human work with targets like this at the earliest possible time, is something that is not done as often as would be appropriate,” he added. “There is not enough investment, in my view, in early phase experimental work, which really just gets to that next step. Broadly speaking, the encouragement and support of experimental medicine is crucial to developing new therapies.”

The authors recognized their study’s potential limitations, including it’s being an exploratory study with results that should be interpreted cautiously. They acknowledged discrepancies with previous studies of plasma CGRP during cluster headache attacks, offering “different methodologies, including intra-assay differences and the location of blood sampling” as a possible reason. They also explained that some of the data are missing “completely at random” due to their policy of discarding all observations with incomplete laboratory measurements, adding that the impact on their sample size was “only modest.”

“In spite of these limitations,” Dr. Rapoport said, “this is an excellent study that shows us that PACAP38- and VIP-induced cluster headache attacks are not associated with alterations in plasma CGRP or in histamine and tryptase.”

Regarding potential conflicts of interest, one author reported being employed at the testing lab where the histamine measurements were conducted, as did another author who serves as the lab’s scientific adviser. A third author reported receiving personal fees from various pharmaceutical companies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new second-generation version of the implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system Eversense (Senseonics) that lasts for 6 months.

The Eversense E3 CGM system doubles the wear time from 3 months with the previous Eversense device approved in the United States in 2018. As before, the new system is approved for adults with diabetes aged 18 years and older.

This means that it will be the longest lasting CGM system available in the United States, with essentially two sensor insertion and removal procedures per year, the company said.

Data from the pivotal PROMISE trial of the 6-month version were presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

An older 6-month wear time version (Eversense XL) has been available in Europe since 2017. The new second-generation 6-month system is currently under regulatory review there.

The PROMISE trial included 181 participants with diabetes, about two-thirds with type 1 and one-third with type 2 diabetes, at eight clinical research sites.

“We repeatedly hear from our patients with diabetes that what they desire is a long-lasting sensor that is also highly accurate ... The next generation Eversense E3 System delivers on both,” said PROMISE study principal investigator Satish Garg, MD, professor of medicine and director of the adult diabetes program at the Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, in a company press release.

The Eversense E3 consists of a fluorescence-based sensor, a transmitter, and a smartphone app that displays glucose values, trends, and alerts. The sensor is inserted subcutaneously into the upper arm by a certified health care professional in a brief office procedure. The transmitter is placed on the skin on top of the sensor. Glucose data are sent to the app automatically every 5 minutes.

The system includes an on-body vibratory alert as well as alerts on the app for high and low blood glucose values. Eversense readings may be used for treatment decisions, but users still must perform fingerstick glucose checks for calibration.

The regulatory review for the Eversense E3 was delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be distributed in the United States through a partnership with Ascensia Diabetes Care beginning in the second quarter of 2022, according to a Senseonics statement.

In addition, “the company expects the majority of its expenses for 2022 to be for research and development for ongoing feasibility and pivotal clinical trials for additional products in its product pipeline, including the start of its 365-day pivotal trial.”

Health care providers who want to offer the Eversense CGM System to their patients can sign up here or call 844-SENSE4U (844-736-7348).

Patients interested in getting started on Eversense can sign up here and will be among the first to know when Eversense E3 is commercially available.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new second-generation version of the implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system Eversense (Senseonics) that lasts for 6 months.

The Eversense E3 CGM system doubles the wear time from 3 months with the previous Eversense device approved in the United States in 2018. As before, the new system is approved for adults with diabetes aged 18 years and older.

This means that it will be the longest lasting CGM system available in the United States, with essentially two sensor insertion and removal procedures per year, the company said.

Data from the pivotal PROMISE trial of the 6-month version were presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

An older 6-month wear time version (Eversense XL) has been available in Europe since 2017. The new second-generation 6-month system is currently under regulatory review there.

The PROMISE trial included 181 participants with diabetes, about two-thirds with type 1 and one-third with type 2 diabetes, at eight clinical research sites.

“We repeatedly hear from our patients with diabetes that what they desire is a long-lasting sensor that is also highly accurate ... The next generation Eversense E3 System delivers on both,” said PROMISE study principal investigator Satish Garg, MD, professor of medicine and director of the adult diabetes program at the Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, in a company press release.

The Eversense E3 consists of a fluorescence-based sensor, a transmitter, and a smartphone app that displays glucose values, trends, and alerts. The sensor is inserted subcutaneously into the upper arm by a certified health care professional in a brief office procedure. The transmitter is placed on the skin on top of the sensor. Glucose data are sent to the app automatically every 5 minutes.

The system includes an on-body vibratory alert as well as alerts on the app for high and low blood glucose values. Eversense readings may be used for treatment decisions, but users still must perform fingerstick glucose checks for calibration.

The regulatory review for the Eversense E3 was delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be distributed in the United States through a partnership with Ascensia Diabetes Care beginning in the second quarter of 2022, according to a Senseonics statement.

In addition, “the company expects the majority of its expenses for 2022 to be for research and development for ongoing feasibility and pivotal clinical trials for additional products in its product pipeline, including the start of its 365-day pivotal trial.”

Health care providers who want to offer the Eversense CGM System to their patients can sign up here or call 844-SENSE4U (844-736-7348).

Patients interested in getting started on Eversense can sign up here and will be among the first to know when Eversense E3 is commercially available.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a new second-generation version of the implanted continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system Eversense (Senseonics) that lasts for 6 months.

The Eversense E3 CGM system doubles the wear time from 3 months with the previous Eversense device approved in the United States in 2018. As before, the new system is approved for adults with diabetes aged 18 years and older.

This means that it will be the longest lasting CGM system available in the United States, with essentially two sensor insertion and removal procedures per year, the company said.

Data from the pivotal PROMISE trial of the 6-month version were presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in 2021, as reported by this news organization.

An older 6-month wear time version (Eversense XL) has been available in Europe since 2017. The new second-generation 6-month system is currently under regulatory review there.

The PROMISE trial included 181 participants with diabetes, about two-thirds with type 1 and one-third with type 2 diabetes, at eight clinical research sites.

“We repeatedly hear from our patients with diabetes that what they desire is a long-lasting sensor that is also highly accurate ... The next generation Eversense E3 System delivers on both,” said PROMISE study principal investigator Satish Garg, MD, professor of medicine and director of the adult diabetes program at the Barbara Davis Center, University of Colorado, Aurora, in a company press release.

The Eversense E3 consists of a fluorescence-based sensor, a transmitter, and a smartphone app that displays glucose values, trends, and alerts. The sensor is inserted subcutaneously into the upper arm by a certified health care professional in a brief office procedure. The transmitter is placed on the skin on top of the sensor. Glucose data are sent to the app automatically every 5 minutes.

The system includes an on-body vibratory alert as well as alerts on the app for high and low blood glucose values. Eversense readings may be used for treatment decisions, but users still must perform fingerstick glucose checks for calibration.

The regulatory review for the Eversense E3 was delayed for a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It will be distributed in the United States through a partnership with Ascensia Diabetes Care beginning in the second quarter of 2022, according to a Senseonics statement.

In addition, “the company expects the majority of its expenses for 2022 to be for research and development for ongoing feasibility and pivotal clinical trials for additional products in its product pipeline, including the start of its 365-day pivotal trial.”

Health care providers who want to offer the Eversense CGM System to their patients can sign up here or call 844-SENSE4U (844-736-7348).

Patients interested in getting started on Eversense can sign up here and will be among the first to know when Eversense E3 is commercially available.

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

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

Repeat testing of lipoprotein(a) to assess a patient’s cardiovascular risk doesn’t seem to yield any additional helpful information, and a one-time baseline measure of Lp(a) molar concentration could be sufficient to help define lifetime risk, suggests a large analysis of a national database in the United Kingdom.

The study examined the correlation between baseline and first follow-up measures of Lp(a) molar concentration and incident coronary artery disease among 16,017 individuals in a cohort of the UK Biobank, a prospective observational study of about 500,000 middle-aged people recruited between 2006 and 2010 with ongoing follow-up.

Results showed found little change in Lp(a) molar concentration measures from baseline to an average of 4.4 years afterward, but did find an association between statin usage and significant increases in Lp(a) in people with high baseline levels. The study was published online on Feb. 14 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The baseline and follow-up Lp(a) molar concentration measures “are highly correlated with 85% of the repeat values being within 25 nmol/L of each other,” senior author Pradeep Natarajan, MD, MMSc, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “When predicting events, the follow-up Lp(a) concentration did not yield additional information beyond the baseline Lp(a).”

Additionally, the study found that statin therapy didn’t lead to meaningful changes in Lp(a) molar concentration levels. Patients on statins who had baseline Lp(a) above 70 nmol/L “had modest follow-up concentrations, but this did not appreciably change atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risks,” Dr. Natarajan said. “For patients without clinical cardiovascular disease who are not on medicines that markedly change Lp(a), additional Lp(a) assessments are unlikely to provide additional prognostic information beyond the baseline Lp(a) measurement.”

Santica Marcovina, ScD, PhD, coauthor of the invited commentary (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2022 Feb 14. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.11.053), said in an interview that the study’s major contribution to the literature is the finding that the molar concentration of Lp(a) appears to be stable regardless of statin use. “This important finding provides evidence that no longitudinal measurements of Lp(a) are needed in the primary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD and that once-in-a-lifetime measurement may reliably allow clinicians to assess whether or not Lp(a)-related risk is present in their patients,” she said. Dr. Marcovina is senior director of clinical laboratory sciences at Medpace Reference Laboratories, Cincinnati.

She noted that this study provides an actionable strategy for cardiologists. “Considering the clinical benefits, the relative low cost for measuring Lp(a), the fact that measurements need to be performed only once in the vast majority of individuals, all point to the implementation of Lp(a) general screening as soon as possible.”

Dr. Natarajan has financial relationships with Amgen, Apple, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Blackstone Life Sciences, Genentech and Novartis. Dr. Marcovina has provided consulting for Roche, Denka, and Novartis, and has received research support from Amgen through Medpace.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

All-cause mortality is significantly higher for individuals with autism spectrum disorder or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder than for the general population, based on data from more than 600,000 individuals.

Studies of individuals with mental disorders have suggested an increased mortality risk, compared with the general population, but similar studies of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or ADHD have yielded inconsistent results, Ferrán Catalá-López, PhD, of the Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, and colleagues wrote.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics, the researchers examined 27 studies including 642,260 individuals; 154,238 with ASD and 396,488 with ADHD. The studies were published up to April 1, 2021, and included deaths from natural causes (such as respiratory illness or cancer) and unnatural (external) causes, such as accident, injury, or poisoning. The proportion of females in the studies ranged from 14% to 100%; the follow-up ranged from 3 to 33 years; and three studies included first-degree relatives.

Overall, all-cause mortality was significantly higher among individuals with ASD (rate ratio, 2.37) and ADHD (RR, 2.13), compared with the general population. Among individuals with ASD, deaths from natural causes and unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 3.80 and RR, 2.50, respectively). Among individuals with ADHD, deaths from natural causes were not significantly increased (RR, 1.62), but deaths from unnatural causes were significantly increased, compared with the general population (RR, 2.81).

Potential mechanisms to explain the excess mortality among individuals with ASD and ADHD include health determinants and biological pathways, but the complex nature of the associations make the establishment of causality a challenge, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings. In general, “severe mental and behavioral disorders appear to be associated with reduced life expectancy, both in terms of mortality from external causes and mortality from other medical conditions or diseases.” With regard to ASD/ADHD in particular, these individuals often experience emotional and social problems as they enter adulthood. “Behaviors such as impulsivity and/or inattention can be contributing factors for injuries and unintentional incidents in children with ASD/ADHD,” they added.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the possible omission of studies and the use of study-level data rather than individual participant data, as well as the limitation of electronic health records, the researchers noted. Also, the studies were mostly conducted in Western countries and the results may not be generalizable to other countries.

Although ASD and ADHD were associated with a significant increased risk of all-cause mortality, “the results should be interpreted with caution because there was evidence of heterogeneity between study estimates of the mortality risks,” the researchers said. However, the results were strengthened by the large study sample, and offer a comprehensive look at the evidence supporting increased mortality risk among individuals with ASD or ADHD, and highlight the need to identify modifiable risk factors.

“Understanding the mechanisms of these associations may lead to targeted strategies to prevent avoidable deaths in high-risk groups of children and young people as an approach to improve public health,” they said.
 

Recent research support associations

The study was important because ASD and ADHD may persist into adulthood, but data from previous epidemiological studies on the impact of these disorders on mortality are inconsistent, lead author Dr. Catalá-López said in an interview.

“We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate all available studies of mortality associations in people with these disorders, which provide the most updated and evidence-based approach,” he explained. “Our study has only become possible in the past few years because several large population-based epidemiological studies have been available reporting similar mortality-related outcomes.”

Dr. Catalá-López said that the study findings have value in clinical practice. “We found that people with autism or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders would have an increased risk of mortality when compared to the general population. In our opinion, understanding the causes and mechanisms of these associations can lead to specific strategies to prevent avoidable deaths.

“Autism and attention-hyperactivity/deficit disorder are problems that can be managed with adequate and concrete programs at an early age, and most premature deaths, at least deaths from unnatural causes, can be prevented,” Dr. Catalá-López said.

“Furthermore, we believe that these results may shed some light for future research. For example, more prospective studies would be needed, particularly to examine cause-specific mortality, in larger populations of children and youth with autism/attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, including some of the more common comorbidities,” Dr. Catalá-López added.
 

Findings support need for screening and prevention strategies

The clear message that individuals with ASD or ADHD often die of preventable or unnatural causes demands attention and “demands widespread recognition and the implementation of systematic screening and preventive approaches,” Russell A. Barkley, PhD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and Geraldine Dawson, PhD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The studies included in the review also demonstrate that ADHD is associated with more than a twofold risk of early mortality in children and a more than a fourfold risk in mortality by age 45 years, they said.

The editorialists noted that the increased mortality risk may explain the ongoing conundrum among clinicians as to why the prevalence of ADHD seems to decline with age, “such that 5%-8% of children may meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD while that figure falls to 4%-5% of adults and 2%-3% of older adults,” despite evidence that a majority of childhood cases will be rediagnosed in adulthood. However, the current study offers an alternative. “This systematic review and meta-analysis and the studies included within it make plain that another explanation is the greater loss of individuals with these conditions from the population over time owing to heightened mortality, compared with typical peers,” they said.

“In addition to ADHD diagnosis, ASD diagnosis is also associated with other psychiatric comorbidities that are correlated with increased risk for mortality, including anxiety and affective disorders,” the editorialists noted. Other considerations for increased mortality among individuals with ASD include different protective and risk factors associated with suicide risk, compared with the general population, as well as poorer social and daily living skills compared to the general population.

The study findings “argue for individuals with ADHD and individuals with ASD being viewed through a public health lens with screening and prevention strategies offered beginning in early childhood. These findings should also give impetus to efforts to try to reduce the first order risk factors that are predisposing to reduced life expectancy, such as obesity, substance use, poor diet, poor sleep, and limited exercise among children and adults with ASD and ADHD,” they said.

“A preventive strategy would necessitate primary care physicians becoming more aware of the linkage between both ASD diagnosis and ADHD diagnosis and early mortality as well as their link to reduced [estimated life expectancy],” and such an approach could potentially reduce the higher mortality risk identified in the current review, they concluded.

Dr. Barkley reported speaking and other fees from Takeda, Medice Pharmaceutical, and AstraZeneca; book royalties from Guilford Publications and the American Psychological Association; and course royalties from ContiningEdCourses.net and Premier Educational Seminars. Dr. Dawson reported grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the National Institute of Mental Health during the submitted work and personal fees from Apple. Dr. Dawson also disclosed a patent for license to Apple, and Dr. Dawson and Duke University have benefited financially from technology and data that have been licensed to Apple. The study was supported by the Institute of Health Carlos III and Generalitat Valenciana. Researchers including lead author Dr. Catalá-López received funding from sources including the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Salud Mental; one coauthor received support from an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award, a new investigator award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, the Spanish Health Services Research on Chronic Patients Network, and Institute of Health Carlos III. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

I’m not fanatical about dragging stable patients in. If someone is doing fine, having them come in once a year is all I ask. They have better things to do, and I have patients who need my attention more.

Of course, there will always be those who abuse this. They try to drag it out to 18 months, sometimes 2 years. I don’t think having patients drop in for 10-15 minutes once a year to make sure they’re still alive is unreasonable, but maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, during the last 2 years I’ve kind of let it slide a bit, but I think everyone has.

Last week a lady I see for an annual check-in called to make an appointment. She’d been dodging my secretary’s reminders for a few months, so I cut her migraine refill from a 90-day supply to 30 days to encourage her. She called, made an appointment for the following morning, and asked that I send in a refill for 90 days because otherwise her insurance won’t cover it. So, trying to be nice, I did, figuring she was on the schedule now.

Of course, she didn’t show up the next morning. She didn’t cancel, or call in with “I’m sick” or “sorry, I spaced on it” or some other issue. She just no-showed. One of the many banes of outpatient medicine.

Normally I avoid looking at my patients’ online presence, but I got curious. This lady has often suggested I check out her social media account for financial and real estate tips. I never had, until that morning.

Her Twitter account for the last several days was full of reminders to her followers for an in-person seminar on real estate flipping that she was hosting, which, surprisingly, started at the exact time as her appointment with me was supposed to.

I’m pretty sure she ain’t that stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing, and never planned on keeping the appointment. Now she had a 90-day supply of meds and no incentive to follow up with me before then.

Certainly, it’s not the worst thing. The drug involved isn’t controlled, and in 24 years I’ve had patients do far worse.

But it still changes the trust factor in the medical relationship. She isn’t getting another 90-day refill without coming in, and if she has to pay cash for 30 days that’s her problem, not mine. She can avoid that by calling in to schedule before then. Though I doubt she will.

I try to work with my patients. I really do. Her behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but (at least to me) doesn’t cross the line to firing her from the practice.

But it does make it trickier to be her doctor, since I now know that she isn’t always truthful with me and my staff.

And that sort of thing is important in this field.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not fanatical about dragging stable patients in. If someone is doing fine, having them come in once a year is all I ask. They have better things to do, and I have patients who need my attention more.

Of course, there will always be those who abuse this. They try to drag it out to 18 months, sometimes 2 years. I don’t think having patients drop in for 10-15 minutes once a year to make sure they’re still alive is unreasonable, but maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, during the last 2 years I’ve kind of let it slide a bit, but I think everyone has.

Last week a lady I see for an annual check-in called to make an appointment. She’d been dodging my secretary’s reminders for a few months, so I cut her migraine refill from a 90-day supply to 30 days to encourage her. She called, made an appointment for the following morning, and asked that I send in a refill for 90 days because otherwise her insurance won’t cover it. So, trying to be nice, I did, figuring she was on the schedule now.

Of course, she didn’t show up the next morning. She didn’t cancel, or call in with “I’m sick” or “sorry, I spaced on it” or some other issue. She just no-showed. One of the many banes of outpatient medicine.

Normally I avoid looking at my patients’ online presence, but I got curious. This lady has often suggested I check out her social media account for financial and real estate tips. I never had, until that morning.

Her Twitter account for the last several days was full of reminders to her followers for an in-person seminar on real estate flipping that she was hosting, which, surprisingly, started at the exact time as her appointment with me was supposed to.

I’m pretty sure she ain’t that stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing, and never planned on keeping the appointment. Now she had a 90-day supply of meds and no incentive to follow up with me before then.

Certainly, it’s not the worst thing. The drug involved isn’t controlled, and in 24 years I’ve had patients do far worse.

But it still changes the trust factor in the medical relationship. She isn’t getting another 90-day refill without coming in, and if she has to pay cash for 30 days that’s her problem, not mine. She can avoid that by calling in to schedule before then. Though I doubt she will.

I try to work with my patients. I really do. Her behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but (at least to me) doesn’t cross the line to firing her from the practice.

But it does make it trickier to be her doctor, since I now know that she isn’t always truthful with me and my staff.

And that sort of thing is important in this field.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

I’m not fanatical about dragging stable patients in. If someone is doing fine, having them come in once a year is all I ask. They have better things to do, and I have patients who need my attention more.

Of course, there will always be those who abuse this. They try to drag it out to 18 months, sometimes 2 years. I don’t think having patients drop in for 10-15 minutes once a year to make sure they’re still alive is unreasonable, but maybe that’s just me. Admittedly, during the last 2 years I’ve kind of let it slide a bit, but I think everyone has.

Last week a lady I see for an annual check-in called to make an appointment. She’d been dodging my secretary’s reminders for a few months, so I cut her migraine refill from a 90-day supply to 30 days to encourage her. She called, made an appointment for the following morning, and asked that I send in a refill for 90 days because otherwise her insurance won’t cover it. So, trying to be nice, I did, figuring she was on the schedule now.

Of course, she didn’t show up the next morning. She didn’t cancel, or call in with “I’m sick” or “sorry, I spaced on it” or some other issue. She just no-showed. One of the many banes of outpatient medicine.

Normally I avoid looking at my patients’ online presence, but I got curious. This lady has often suggested I check out her social media account for financial and real estate tips. I never had, until that morning.

Her Twitter account for the last several days was full of reminders to her followers for an in-person seminar on real estate flipping that she was hosting, which, surprisingly, started at the exact time as her appointment with me was supposed to.

I’m pretty sure she ain’t that stupid. She knew exactly what she was doing, and never planned on keeping the appointment. Now she had a 90-day supply of meds and no incentive to follow up with me before then.

Certainly, it’s not the worst thing. The drug involved isn’t controlled, and in 24 years I’ve had patients do far worse.

But it still changes the trust factor in the medical relationship. She isn’t getting another 90-day refill without coming in, and if she has to pay cash for 30 days that’s her problem, not mine. She can avoid that by calling in to schedule before then. Though I doubt she will.

I try to work with my patients. I really do. Her behavior is rude and inconsiderate, but (at least to me) doesn’t cross the line to firing her from the practice.

But it does make it trickier to be her doctor, since I now know that she isn’t always truthful with me and my staff.

And that sort of thing is important in this field.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

In a specialty clinic, dupilumab (Dupixent) injections significantly improved symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on provisional data from more than 100 adults.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a significant burden among working-age adults. Symptom control remains a challenge for many of these patients, and the cost in lost productivity and health care consumption can be substantial, write Rik J.L. van der Lans, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Dupilumab, a biologic that targets components of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, represents a new option that has shown effectiveness in clinical trials for regulatory approval, they said.

A new observational study tests dupilumab in patients who met criteria for biological treatment proposed in a recent major systematic review. The findings were published in the journal Allergy.

In the study, the researchers identified 131 adults older than 18 years (mean age 51.7) with CRSwNP treated at a single tertiary care center. Participants received 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for at least 12 weeks.

The primary outcomes were scores on several measures, including the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, scale of 0-110), the bilateral Nasal Polyp Score (NPS, scale of 0-8), and the Sniffin’ Sticks-12 identification test (SSIT-12, scale of 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia).

The mean scores on all three outcomes improved significantly from baseline to both 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Scores on the SNOT-22 improved from 52.4 at baseline to 18.5 and 16.8 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. NPS improved from 5.4 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.0, respectively. SSIT-12 scores improved from 3.6 at baseline to 7.3 and 8.3, respectively.

At baseline, 95.8% of the patients had uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis, but at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% were uncontrolled.

Approximately half of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but these were “mild and decreased in occurrence and intensity throughout treatment,” the researchers say.

For patients with a strong response, the researchers also tested an extension of the interval between doses to 4 weeks and 6 weeks, in a provisional indication of continued established control at these timepoints.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for selection bias, and data from only the first patient cohort, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the real-life context, standardized indications, and long-term follow up for almost a year, they said.

More research is needed on nonacademic patient cohorts, but the current data confirm the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add-on for difficult-to-treat CRSwNP, they concluded. The findings also validate the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) inclusion criteria for biologic treatment, they said.

The new study is important because of the need for verification of results from randomized controlled trials using real-world data, Dr. Van der Lans told this news organization.

“For example, differences in treatment efficacy might result from differing indication criteria, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the RCTs might have excluded patients one would encounter in daily practice,” he said. “With our prospective observational cohort, we are seeking to verify efficacy, monitor pharmacovigilance, and evaluate and advance the indication criteria and positioning of biologicals registered for CRSwNP, such as dupilumab.”

These cross-sectional results suggest dupilumab is more effective in preventing possibly harmful escape treatments, such as oral corticosteroids and/or surgery, than reported by the registration trials.

“Additionally, it appears possible to maintain established CRS-control during response-dependent, stepwise, interdose interval prolongation of up to 6 weeks, which is officially an off-label dosing interval,” he said. “This would greatly benefit patients’ treatment burden and direct costs,” he said. However, both findings require corroboration by anticipated longitudinal results in 2022, he noted.

The key message for clinicians in practice: “Biologicals like dupilumab are a potent and promising treatment for severe CRSwNP when conventional medical and surgical therapy fails,” he emphasized.

Looking ahead, important research objectives include head-on comparison studies of the diverse biological agents, establishing biomarkers to guide preferential therapy, and evaluating the economics of biologics compared with conventional therapy, Dr. Van der Lans added. Such research is vital not only for improving patient-centered care but to sustain the use of biologicals in a health-economic perspective.

One of the greatest criticisms of biologic therapy for CRSwNP is cost, particularly in a setting of ever-increasing health care costs. A recent review noted the average cost per year is greater than $30,000.
 

Real-life study verifies effectiveness

“As the authors pointed out, this is a real-life, prospective observational cohort with a decently large size, evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of add-on dupilumab,” said Seong H. Cho, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview.

“Dupilumab is the first FDA-approved biologic to treat severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps based on two phase 3 clinical trials,” said Dr. Cho, who was not involved with the study. “It has been more than 2 years since dupilumab was approved for severe CRSwNP by the FDA and EMA. This real-life, prospective, observational study with a decent size verified the efficacy of dupilumab as an add-on treatment when used with a proper indication such as EPOS2020 indication criteria.

“I am not surprised by the efficacy of dupilumab on severe CRSwNP, based on my clinical experience. My clinical observation is similar to the results of this study. This study verifies that dupilumab is highly efficacious in treating refractory and severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting by improving all subjective and objective clinical outcomes such as SNOT-22, NPS, and smell test score,” he said. The study also confirms that a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation from every 2-4 weeks for CRSwNP patients with good response should be a consideration for clinical practice, he added. 

The cost-effectiveness of dupilumab is the main barrier to more consistent use, Dr. Cho said. “There is no evidence that dupilumab can change the course of the disease, and we don’t know how long patients need to be on this drug. Therefore, nasal polyps need to be refractory and severe enough to use dupilumab and other biologics,” he explained.

Consequently, proper indication criteria, such as the EPOS2020 indication criteria for biologics, should be established before initiating dupilumab, Dr. Cho noted.

“Generally, endoscopic sinus surgery would be preferred in sinus-surgery naive CRSwNP patients, unless surgery is contraindicated or refused by patients because of cost-effectiveness rather than the superior efficacy,” he said. “If surgery fails, then dupilumab can be considered. In addition, proper evaluation of nasal polyp severity would be important.”

“One should establish an objective NPS by endoscopic exam before initiation of dupilumab. This baseline score would be an important marker to assess the efficacy of dupilumab in the course of treatment.”

Monitoring of the NPS together with the patient’s symptom improvement would be essential to implementing a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation to reduce the cost, he emphasized. 

“The most crucial additional research is establishing suitable biomarkers for the response of dupilumab and other biologics,” said Dr. Cho. “Overall, the performance of dupilumab seems to be good. But there are patients unresponsive to dupilumab, even more to other recently FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP.”

Blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide can be a good biomarker for type 2 asthma, Dr. Cho added. “Still, there is no evidence that these biomarkers are decent for CRSwNP, even though CRSwNP is mostly considered as type 2 disease. Therefore, it would be essential to find promising biomarkers for severe CRSwNP.”

Dr. Van der Lans disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Sanofi and Novartis. The patient registry from which the study population was drawn is cofunded by Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Cho has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a specialty clinic, dupilumab (Dupixent) injections significantly improved symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on provisional data from more than 100 adults.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a significant burden among working-age adults. Symptom control remains a challenge for many of these patients, and the cost in lost productivity and health care consumption can be substantial, write Rik J.L. van der Lans, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Dupilumab, a biologic that targets components of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, represents a new option that has shown effectiveness in clinical trials for regulatory approval, they said.

A new observational study tests dupilumab in patients who met criteria for biological treatment proposed in a recent major systematic review. The findings were published in the journal Allergy.

In the study, the researchers identified 131 adults older than 18 years (mean age 51.7) with CRSwNP treated at a single tertiary care center. Participants received 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for at least 12 weeks.

The primary outcomes were scores on several measures, including the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, scale of 0-110), the bilateral Nasal Polyp Score (NPS, scale of 0-8), and the Sniffin’ Sticks-12 identification test (SSIT-12, scale of 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia).

The mean scores on all three outcomes improved significantly from baseline to both 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Scores on the SNOT-22 improved from 52.4 at baseline to 18.5 and 16.8 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. NPS improved from 5.4 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.0, respectively. SSIT-12 scores improved from 3.6 at baseline to 7.3 and 8.3, respectively.

At baseline, 95.8% of the patients had uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis, but at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% were uncontrolled.

Approximately half of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but these were “mild and decreased in occurrence and intensity throughout treatment,” the researchers say.

For patients with a strong response, the researchers also tested an extension of the interval between doses to 4 weeks and 6 weeks, in a provisional indication of continued established control at these timepoints.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for selection bias, and data from only the first patient cohort, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the real-life context, standardized indications, and long-term follow up for almost a year, they said.

More research is needed on nonacademic patient cohorts, but the current data confirm the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add-on for difficult-to-treat CRSwNP, they concluded. The findings also validate the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) inclusion criteria for biologic treatment, they said.

The new study is important because of the need for verification of results from randomized controlled trials using real-world data, Dr. Van der Lans told this news organization.

“For example, differences in treatment efficacy might result from differing indication criteria, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the RCTs might have excluded patients one would encounter in daily practice,” he said. “With our prospective observational cohort, we are seeking to verify efficacy, monitor pharmacovigilance, and evaluate and advance the indication criteria and positioning of biologicals registered for CRSwNP, such as dupilumab.”

These cross-sectional results suggest dupilumab is more effective in preventing possibly harmful escape treatments, such as oral corticosteroids and/or surgery, than reported by the registration trials.

“Additionally, it appears possible to maintain established CRS-control during response-dependent, stepwise, interdose interval prolongation of up to 6 weeks, which is officially an off-label dosing interval,” he said. “This would greatly benefit patients’ treatment burden and direct costs,” he said. However, both findings require corroboration by anticipated longitudinal results in 2022, he noted.

The key message for clinicians in practice: “Biologicals like dupilumab are a potent and promising treatment for severe CRSwNP when conventional medical and surgical therapy fails,” he emphasized.

Looking ahead, important research objectives include head-on comparison studies of the diverse biological agents, establishing biomarkers to guide preferential therapy, and evaluating the economics of biologics compared with conventional therapy, Dr. Van der Lans added. Such research is vital not only for improving patient-centered care but to sustain the use of biologicals in a health-economic perspective.

One of the greatest criticisms of biologic therapy for CRSwNP is cost, particularly in a setting of ever-increasing health care costs. A recent review noted the average cost per year is greater than $30,000.
 

Real-life study verifies effectiveness

“As the authors pointed out, this is a real-life, prospective observational cohort with a decently large size, evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of add-on dupilumab,” said Seong H. Cho, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview.

“Dupilumab is the first FDA-approved biologic to treat severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps based on two phase 3 clinical trials,” said Dr. Cho, who was not involved with the study. “It has been more than 2 years since dupilumab was approved for severe CRSwNP by the FDA and EMA. This real-life, prospective, observational study with a decent size verified the efficacy of dupilumab as an add-on treatment when used with a proper indication such as EPOS2020 indication criteria.

“I am not surprised by the efficacy of dupilumab on severe CRSwNP, based on my clinical experience. My clinical observation is similar to the results of this study. This study verifies that dupilumab is highly efficacious in treating refractory and severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting by improving all subjective and objective clinical outcomes such as SNOT-22, NPS, and smell test score,” he said. The study also confirms that a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation from every 2-4 weeks for CRSwNP patients with good response should be a consideration for clinical practice, he added. 

The cost-effectiveness of dupilumab is the main barrier to more consistent use, Dr. Cho said. “There is no evidence that dupilumab can change the course of the disease, and we don’t know how long patients need to be on this drug. Therefore, nasal polyps need to be refractory and severe enough to use dupilumab and other biologics,” he explained.

Consequently, proper indication criteria, such as the EPOS2020 indication criteria for biologics, should be established before initiating dupilumab, Dr. Cho noted.

“Generally, endoscopic sinus surgery would be preferred in sinus-surgery naive CRSwNP patients, unless surgery is contraindicated or refused by patients because of cost-effectiveness rather than the superior efficacy,” he said. “If surgery fails, then dupilumab can be considered. In addition, proper evaluation of nasal polyp severity would be important.”

“One should establish an objective NPS by endoscopic exam before initiation of dupilumab. This baseline score would be an important marker to assess the efficacy of dupilumab in the course of treatment.”

Monitoring of the NPS together with the patient’s symptom improvement would be essential to implementing a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation to reduce the cost, he emphasized. 

“The most crucial additional research is establishing suitable biomarkers for the response of dupilumab and other biologics,” said Dr. Cho. “Overall, the performance of dupilumab seems to be good. But there are patients unresponsive to dupilumab, even more to other recently FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP.”

Blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide can be a good biomarker for type 2 asthma, Dr. Cho added. “Still, there is no evidence that these biomarkers are decent for CRSwNP, even though CRSwNP is mostly considered as type 2 disease. Therefore, it would be essential to find promising biomarkers for severe CRSwNP.”

Dr. Van der Lans disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Sanofi and Novartis. The patient registry from which the study population was drawn is cofunded by Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Cho has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In a specialty clinic, dupilumab (Dupixent) injections significantly improved symptoms for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on provisional data from more than 100 adults.

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) is a significant burden among working-age adults. Symptom control remains a challenge for many of these patients, and the cost in lost productivity and health care consumption can be substantial, write Rik J.L. van der Lans, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

Dupilumab, a biologic that targets components of the type 2 inflammatory pathway, represents a new option that has shown effectiveness in clinical trials for regulatory approval, they said.

A new observational study tests dupilumab in patients who met criteria for biological treatment proposed in a recent major systematic review. The findings were published in the journal Allergy.

In the study, the researchers identified 131 adults older than 18 years (mean age 51.7) with CRSwNP treated at a single tertiary care center. Participants received 300 mg of dupilumab subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for at least 12 weeks.

The primary outcomes were scores on several measures, including the SinoNasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22, scale of 0-110), the bilateral Nasal Polyp Score (NPS, scale of 0-8), and the Sniffin’ Sticks-12 identification test (SSIT-12, scale of 0-6 anosmia, 7-10 hyposmia, 11-12 normosmia).

The mean scores on all three outcomes improved significantly from baseline to both 24 weeks and 48 weeks. Scores on the SNOT-22 improved from 52.4 at baseline to 18.5 and 16.8 at weeks 24 and 48, respectively. NPS improved from 5.4 at baseline to 1.6 and 1.0, respectively. SSIT-12 scores improved from 3.6 at baseline to 7.3 and 8.3, respectively.

At baseline, 95.8% of the patients had uncontrolled chronic rhinosinusitis, but at 24 and 48 weeks, respectively, 24.3% and 6.2% were uncontrolled.

Approximately half of the patients experienced treatment-emergent adverse events, but these were “mild and decreased in occurrence and intensity throughout treatment,” the researchers say.

For patients with a strong response, the researchers also tested an extension of the interval between doses to 4 weeks and 6 weeks, in a provisional indication of continued established control at these timepoints.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential for selection bias, and data from only the first patient cohort, the researchers noted. However, the results were strengthened by the real-life context, standardized indications, and long-term follow up for almost a year, they said.

More research is needed on nonacademic patient cohorts, but the current data confirm the effectiveness of dupilumab as an add-on for difficult-to-treat CRSwNP, they concluded. The findings also validate the European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS2020) inclusion criteria for biologic treatment, they said.

The new study is important because of the need for verification of results from randomized controlled trials using real-world data, Dr. Van der Lans told this news organization.

“For example, differences in treatment efficacy might result from differing indication criteria, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria in the RCTs might have excluded patients one would encounter in daily practice,” he said. “With our prospective observational cohort, we are seeking to verify efficacy, monitor pharmacovigilance, and evaluate and advance the indication criteria and positioning of biologicals registered for CRSwNP, such as dupilumab.”

These cross-sectional results suggest dupilumab is more effective in preventing possibly harmful escape treatments, such as oral corticosteroids and/or surgery, than reported by the registration trials.

“Additionally, it appears possible to maintain established CRS-control during response-dependent, stepwise, interdose interval prolongation of up to 6 weeks, which is officially an off-label dosing interval,” he said. “This would greatly benefit patients’ treatment burden and direct costs,” he said. However, both findings require corroboration by anticipated longitudinal results in 2022, he noted.

The key message for clinicians in practice: “Biologicals like dupilumab are a potent and promising treatment for severe CRSwNP when conventional medical and surgical therapy fails,” he emphasized.

Looking ahead, important research objectives include head-on comparison studies of the diverse biological agents, establishing biomarkers to guide preferential therapy, and evaluating the economics of biologics compared with conventional therapy, Dr. Van der Lans added. Such research is vital not only for improving patient-centered care but to sustain the use of biologicals in a health-economic perspective.

One of the greatest criticisms of biologic therapy for CRSwNP is cost, particularly in a setting of ever-increasing health care costs. A recent review noted the average cost per year is greater than $30,000.
 

Real-life study verifies effectiveness

“As the authors pointed out, this is a real-life, prospective observational cohort with a decently large size, evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of add-on dupilumab,” said Seong H. Cho, MD, of the University of South Florida, Tampa, in an interview.

“Dupilumab is the first FDA-approved biologic to treat severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps based on two phase 3 clinical trials,” said Dr. Cho, who was not involved with the study. “It has been more than 2 years since dupilumab was approved for severe CRSwNP by the FDA and EMA. This real-life, prospective, observational study with a decent size verified the efficacy of dupilumab as an add-on treatment when used with a proper indication such as EPOS2020 indication criteria.

“I am not surprised by the efficacy of dupilumab on severe CRSwNP, based on my clinical experience. My clinical observation is similar to the results of this study. This study verifies that dupilumab is highly efficacious in treating refractory and severe CRSwNP in a real-life setting by improving all subjective and objective clinical outcomes such as SNOT-22, NPS, and smell test score,” he said. The study also confirms that a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation from every 2-4 weeks for CRSwNP patients with good response should be a consideration for clinical practice, he added. 

The cost-effectiveness of dupilumab is the main barrier to more consistent use, Dr. Cho said. “There is no evidence that dupilumab can change the course of the disease, and we don’t know how long patients need to be on this drug. Therefore, nasal polyps need to be refractory and severe enough to use dupilumab and other biologics,” he explained.

Consequently, proper indication criteria, such as the EPOS2020 indication criteria for biologics, should be established before initiating dupilumab, Dr. Cho noted.

“Generally, endoscopic sinus surgery would be preferred in sinus-surgery naive CRSwNP patients, unless surgery is contraindicated or refused by patients because of cost-effectiveness rather than the superior efficacy,” he said. “If surgery fails, then dupilumab can be considered. In addition, proper evaluation of nasal polyp severity would be important.”

“One should establish an objective NPS by endoscopic exam before initiation of dupilumab. This baseline score would be an important marker to assess the efficacy of dupilumab in the course of treatment.”

Monitoring of the NPS together with the patient’s symptom improvement would be essential to implementing a stepwise, interdose interval prolongation to reduce the cost, he emphasized. 

“The most crucial additional research is establishing suitable biomarkers for the response of dupilumab and other biologics,” said Dr. Cho. “Overall, the performance of dupilumab seems to be good. But there are patients unresponsive to dupilumab, even more to other recently FDA-approved biologics for CRSwNP.”

Blood eosinophils and exhaled nitric oxide can be a good biomarker for type 2 asthma, Dr. Cho added. “Still, there is no evidence that these biomarkers are decent for CRSwNP, even though CRSwNP is mostly considered as type 2 disease. Therefore, it would be essential to find promising biomarkers for severe CRSwNP.”

Dr. Van der Lans disclosed serving as a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline, and several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Sanofi and Novartis. The patient registry from which the study population was drawn is cofunded by Sanofi and Novartis. Dr. Cho has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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