The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

The Food and Drug Administration said Feb. 11 it would delay a decision on authorizing the use of the Pfizer vaccine for younger children until data on the effects of three doses is available.

Peter Marks, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said the plan for a meeting the week of Feb. 14 of the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was to “understand if two doses would provide sufficient protection to move forward.”

Pfizer has asked the FDA to authorize the use of its mRNA vaccine for children under the age of 5. But, Dr. Marks said, “in looking through the data we realized now … that at this time it makes sense for us to wait until we have the data of the evaluation of a third dose before taking action.”

NEW YORK (Reuters) – After doctors removed the wrong testis from a young man, the search was on for a surgeon who might be willing to try to replant it.

A new case report details the experience of a 25-year-old patient who had developed testicular pain and a palpable mass in his right testis; he went to a local hospital for a radical orchiectomy only to have the surgical team remove the left – wrong – testis.

Once the team recognized their error, they began searching for a center with microsurgical capacity to replant the testis. The surgery to replant the organ is described in an article published in Urology.

“The take-home message is that microsurgery can be used to reattach an organ, in the case of a wrong-site surgery,” lead author Dr. Fatma Tuncer, a microsurgery fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, at the time of the surgery, told Reuters Health by email. She is now an assistant professor of plastic surgery at the University of Utah.

“The vast majority of surgeries, including urologic procedures will never have such an event, but there are helpful groups of physicians that are available to reduce the morbidity of such an event,” said coauthor Dr. Brian Gastman, a professor of surgery at the Case Western School of Medicine and a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic.

“We were, I believe, the third one contacted, each one causing a greater time of ischemia,” Dr. Gastman told Reuters Health by email. “I accepted the patient and in doing so had the buy-in of my urology and anesthesia colleagues.”

Once Dr. Gastman and his team agreed to take on the task, the patient, and his testis, were flown to Cleveland. Once the patient arrived, he was counseled on the risks and benefits of the surgery. After agreeing to the surgery, the patient was taken to the OR immediately by the plastic surgery and urology teams.

Prior to initiating anesthesia, the testicle was examined and the urology team performed testicular sperm extraction as the patient did not have any biological children. The sperm were transported to a CLIA-certified andrology lab and were cryopreserved.

Next, the team examined the testis and spermatic cord under the microscope. The team identified the testicular artery, veins and vas deferens and marked them with prolene sutures. They next placed the testis in a moist gauze over ice until the recipient vessels were prepared.

After the team reconnected vessels, they observed strong arterial and venous Doppler flow on both testicular vessels and the testis itself. Five days after the replantation surgery, the team performed a radical orchiectomy on the correct side.

Dr. Gastman isn’t sure how well the testis will perform over time. “I cannot speak too much on this as it is ongoing,” he said. “But he will likely need some level of hormonal supplementation. I can state that the testis is alive and palpable.”

This is a “very interesting paper,” said Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic, a professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Congratulations to colleagues for a great idea for solving this wrong-site surgery with very precise microsurgical technique and new insight in the fight to save the organs.”

Still, Dr. Djordjevic told Reuters Health by email, “postoperatively, the authors confirmed there was not complete testicular function based on testosterone levels and hypotrophy of the reimplanted testis. The main reason is the time between removal and reimplanation. Based on experiences with testicular torsion, four to six hours is the maximum that will offer restoration of volume and function. Here, a longer period (10 hours) resulted in poor outcomes.”

“Our experience with testicular implantation in monozygotic twins showed great success (Belgrade University, Serbia, December 2019, personal report) because the cold ischemia was only one hour,” Dr. Djordjevic said.
 

Reuters Health Information © 2022

NEW YORK (Reuters) – After doctors removed the wrong testis from a young man, the search was on for a surgeon who might be willing to try to replant it.

A new case report details the experience of a 25-year-old patient who had developed testicular pain and a palpable mass in his right testis; he went to a local hospital for a radical orchiectomy only to have the surgical team remove the left – wrong – testis.

Once the team recognized their error, they began searching for a center with microsurgical capacity to replant the testis. The surgery to replant the organ is described in an article published in Urology.

“The take-home message is that microsurgery can be used to reattach an organ, in the case of a wrong-site surgery,” lead author Dr. Fatma Tuncer, a microsurgery fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, at the time of the surgery, told Reuters Health by email. She is now an assistant professor of plastic surgery at the University of Utah.

“The vast majority of surgeries, including urologic procedures will never have such an event, but there are helpful groups of physicians that are available to reduce the morbidity of such an event,” said coauthor Dr. Brian Gastman, a professor of surgery at the Case Western School of Medicine and a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic.

“We were, I believe, the third one contacted, each one causing a greater time of ischemia,” Dr. Gastman told Reuters Health by email. “I accepted the patient and in doing so had the buy-in of my urology and anesthesia colleagues.”

Once Dr. Gastman and his team agreed to take on the task, the patient, and his testis, were flown to Cleveland. Once the patient arrived, he was counseled on the risks and benefits of the surgery. After agreeing to the surgery, the patient was taken to the OR immediately by the plastic surgery and urology teams.

Prior to initiating anesthesia, the testicle was examined and the urology team performed testicular sperm extraction as the patient did not have any biological children. The sperm were transported to a CLIA-certified andrology lab and were cryopreserved.

Next, the team examined the testis and spermatic cord under the microscope. The team identified the testicular artery, veins and vas deferens and marked them with prolene sutures. They next placed the testis in a moist gauze over ice until the recipient vessels were prepared.

After the team reconnected vessels, they observed strong arterial and venous Doppler flow on both testicular vessels and the testis itself. Five days after the replantation surgery, the team performed a radical orchiectomy on the correct side.

Dr. Gastman isn’t sure how well the testis will perform over time. “I cannot speak too much on this as it is ongoing,” he said. “But he will likely need some level of hormonal supplementation. I can state that the testis is alive and palpable.”

This is a “very interesting paper,” said Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic, a professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Congratulations to colleagues for a great idea for solving this wrong-site surgery with very precise microsurgical technique and new insight in the fight to save the organs.”

Still, Dr. Djordjevic told Reuters Health by email, “postoperatively, the authors confirmed there was not complete testicular function based on testosterone levels and hypotrophy of the reimplanted testis. The main reason is the time between removal and reimplanation. Based on experiences with testicular torsion, four to six hours is the maximum that will offer restoration of volume and function. Here, a longer period (10 hours) resulted in poor outcomes.”

“Our experience with testicular implantation in monozygotic twins showed great success (Belgrade University, Serbia, December 2019, personal report) because the cold ischemia was only one hour,” Dr. Djordjevic said.
 

Reuters Health Information © 2022

NEW YORK (Reuters) – After doctors removed the wrong testis from a young man, the search was on for a surgeon who might be willing to try to replant it.

A new case report details the experience of a 25-year-old patient who had developed testicular pain and a palpable mass in his right testis; he went to a local hospital for a radical orchiectomy only to have the surgical team remove the left – wrong – testis.

Once the team recognized their error, they began searching for a center with microsurgical capacity to replant the testis. The surgery to replant the organ is described in an article published in Urology.

“The take-home message is that microsurgery can be used to reattach an organ, in the case of a wrong-site surgery,” lead author Dr. Fatma Tuncer, a microsurgery fellow at the Cleveland Clinic, in Ohio, at the time of the surgery, told Reuters Health by email. She is now an assistant professor of plastic surgery at the University of Utah.

“The vast majority of surgeries, including urologic procedures will never have such an event, but there are helpful groups of physicians that are available to reduce the morbidity of such an event,” said coauthor Dr. Brian Gastman, a professor of surgery at the Case Western School of Medicine and a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic.

“We were, I believe, the third one contacted, each one causing a greater time of ischemia,” Dr. Gastman told Reuters Health by email. “I accepted the patient and in doing so had the buy-in of my urology and anesthesia colleagues.”

Once Dr. Gastman and his team agreed to take on the task, the patient, and his testis, were flown to Cleveland. Once the patient arrived, he was counseled on the risks and benefits of the surgery. After agreeing to the surgery, the patient was taken to the OR immediately by the plastic surgery and urology teams.

Prior to initiating anesthesia, the testicle was examined and the urology team performed testicular sperm extraction as the patient did not have any biological children. The sperm were transported to a CLIA-certified andrology lab and were cryopreserved.

Next, the team examined the testis and spermatic cord under the microscope. The team identified the testicular artery, veins and vas deferens and marked them with prolene sutures. They next placed the testis in a moist gauze over ice until the recipient vessels were prepared.

After the team reconnected vessels, they observed strong arterial and venous Doppler flow on both testicular vessels and the testis itself. Five days after the replantation surgery, the team performed a radical orchiectomy on the correct side.

Dr. Gastman isn’t sure how well the testis will perform over time. “I cannot speak too much on this as it is ongoing,” he said. “But he will likely need some level of hormonal supplementation. I can state that the testis is alive and palpable.”

This is a “very interesting paper,” said Dr. Miroslav Djordjevic, a professor of urology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Congratulations to colleagues for a great idea for solving this wrong-site surgery with very precise microsurgical technique and new insight in the fight to save the organs.”

Still, Dr. Djordjevic told Reuters Health by email, “postoperatively, the authors confirmed there was not complete testicular function based on testosterone levels and hypotrophy of the reimplanted testis. The main reason is the time between removal and reimplanation. Based on experiences with testicular torsion, four to six hours is the maximum that will offer restoration of volume and function. Here, a longer period (10 hours) resulted in poor outcomes.”

“Our experience with testicular implantation in monozygotic twins showed great success (Belgrade University, Serbia, December 2019, personal report) because the cold ischemia was only one hour,” Dr. Djordjevic said.
 

Reuters Health Information © 2022

California-based City of Hope has now completed its acquisition of Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), making the combined group one of the largest cancer research and treatment facilities in the United States.

The combined group now has 575 physicians and more than 11,000 employees and is expected to care for approximately 115,000 patients each year.

City of Hope, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, is located near Los Angeles. It currently comprises its main campus and a network of clinical care locations across Southern California. A new campus is scheduled to open this year in Irvine, California, about 50 miles south of the main center.

The acquisition of CTCA expands its reach into three new states – Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia – with an additional 41 clinical network locations.

Commenting on the completion of the deal, Robert Stone, president and CEO of City of Hope, said in a statement: “With the completion of this acquisition, City of Hope and Cancer Treatment Centers of America are combining complementary strengths. ... Together, we are creating a new model for how cancer care is delivered, leveraging real-world cancer care experience to inform scientific innovation and making tomorrow’s new discoveries available to the people who need them today.”

City of Hope announced in December 2020 that it would acquire CTCA for $390 million, as previously reported by this news organization.

At the time, Pat Basu MD, MBA, president and CEO of CTCA, said that they were excited about the deal. “Through the shared, patient-centric values of both organizations and expanded access as a result of the collaboration, cancer patients across the nation will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this relationship,” he said. Dr. Basu will remain CEO of CTCA and report to Robert Stone.
 

Controversies and closures

CTCA is a national oncology network of hospitals and outpatient care centers that offers an integrated approach to care, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and advancements in precision medicine with supportive therapies to manage side effects and enhance quality of life during treatment and into survivorship.

However, it appears to have run into financial problems. During 2021, CTCA closed a center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and sold off assets from a Philadelphia-based hospital.

In addition, for the past 10 years, CTCA had been involved in a series of controversies. These include a 2013 investigation into alleged questionable practices designed to boost its mortality statistics, as well as an analysis of cancer center advertising practices that showed that CTCA spent $101.7 million on advertising in 2014. More recently, a 2019 report showed that CTCA’s high advertising expenditures did not correlate with better patient outcomes in comparison with other centers.

Now that it has been acquired, CTCA will transition from a private for-profit company to a nonprofit organization, according to City of Hope.

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

California-based City of Hope has now completed its acquisition of Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), making the combined group one of the largest cancer research and treatment facilities in the United States.

The combined group now has 575 physicians and more than 11,000 employees and is expected to care for approximately 115,000 patients each year.

City of Hope, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, is located near Los Angeles. It currently comprises its main campus and a network of clinical care locations across Southern California. A new campus is scheduled to open this year in Irvine, California, about 50 miles south of the main center.

The acquisition of CTCA expands its reach into three new states – Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia – with an additional 41 clinical network locations.

Commenting on the completion of the deal, Robert Stone, president and CEO of City of Hope, said in a statement: “With the completion of this acquisition, City of Hope and Cancer Treatment Centers of America are combining complementary strengths. ... Together, we are creating a new model for how cancer care is delivered, leveraging real-world cancer care experience to inform scientific innovation and making tomorrow’s new discoveries available to the people who need them today.”

City of Hope announced in December 2020 that it would acquire CTCA for $390 million, as previously reported by this news organization.

At the time, Pat Basu MD, MBA, president and CEO of CTCA, said that they were excited about the deal. “Through the shared, patient-centric values of both organizations and expanded access as a result of the collaboration, cancer patients across the nation will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this relationship,” he said. Dr. Basu will remain CEO of CTCA and report to Robert Stone.
 

Controversies and closures

CTCA is a national oncology network of hospitals and outpatient care centers that offers an integrated approach to care, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and advancements in precision medicine with supportive therapies to manage side effects and enhance quality of life during treatment and into survivorship.

However, it appears to have run into financial problems. During 2021, CTCA closed a center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and sold off assets from a Philadelphia-based hospital.

In addition, for the past 10 years, CTCA had been involved in a series of controversies. These include a 2013 investigation into alleged questionable practices designed to boost its mortality statistics, as well as an analysis of cancer center advertising practices that showed that CTCA spent $101.7 million on advertising in 2014. More recently, a 2019 report showed that CTCA’s high advertising expenditures did not correlate with better patient outcomes in comparison with other centers.

Now that it has been acquired, CTCA will transition from a private for-profit company to a nonprofit organization, according to City of Hope.

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

California-based City of Hope has now completed its acquisition of Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), making the combined group one of the largest cancer research and treatment facilities in the United States.

The combined group now has 575 physicians and more than 11,000 employees and is expected to care for approximately 115,000 patients each year.

City of Hope, a National Cancer Institute–designated comprehensive cancer center, is located near Los Angeles. It currently comprises its main campus and a network of clinical care locations across Southern California. A new campus is scheduled to open this year in Irvine, California, about 50 miles south of the main center.

The acquisition of CTCA expands its reach into three new states – Arizona, Illinois, and Georgia – with an additional 41 clinical network locations.

Commenting on the completion of the deal, Robert Stone, president and CEO of City of Hope, said in a statement: “With the completion of this acquisition, City of Hope and Cancer Treatment Centers of America are combining complementary strengths. ... Together, we are creating a new model for how cancer care is delivered, leveraging real-world cancer care experience to inform scientific innovation and making tomorrow’s new discoveries available to the people who need them today.”

City of Hope announced in December 2020 that it would acquire CTCA for $390 million, as previously reported by this news organization.

At the time, Pat Basu MD, MBA, president and CEO of CTCA, said that they were excited about the deal. “Through the shared, patient-centric values of both organizations and expanded access as a result of the collaboration, cancer patients across the nation will be the ultimate beneficiaries of this relationship,” he said. Dr. Basu will remain CEO of CTCA and report to Robert Stone.
 

Controversies and closures

CTCA is a national oncology network of hospitals and outpatient care centers that offers an integrated approach to care, including surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and advancements in precision medicine with supportive therapies to manage side effects and enhance quality of life during treatment and into survivorship.

However, it appears to have run into financial problems. During 2021, CTCA closed a center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and sold off assets from a Philadelphia-based hospital.

In addition, for the past 10 years, CTCA had been involved in a series of controversies. These include a 2013 investigation into alleged questionable practices designed to boost its mortality statistics, as well as an analysis of cancer center advertising practices that showed that CTCA spent $101.7 million on advertising in 2014. More recently, a 2019 report showed that CTCA’s high advertising expenditures did not correlate with better patient outcomes in comparison with other centers.

Now that it has been acquired, CTCA will transition from a private for-profit company to a nonprofit organization, according to City of Hope.

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

Current interventions to tackle Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic eczema have little impact on symptoms, based on data from a Cochrane Review of 41 studies published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy.

Eczema remains a huge disease burden worldwide, and colonization with S. aureus in eczema patients is common, but no standard intervention exists to relieve symptoms, wrote Nandini Banerjee, MD, of Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, England. “While antibiotic treatment of clinically obvious infections such as cellulitis is beneficial, it is not clear whether antibiotic treatment of eczema influences eczema severity,” Dr. Banerjee noted.

The 41 studies included 1,753 participants and 10 treatment categories. Most of the studies were conducted in secondary care centers in Western Europe, North America, and the Far East. Twelve studies included children, four included only adults, 19 included children and adults, and in six studies, the participant age range was unclear. Among the studies with reported ages, the mean age ranged from 1.1 to 34.6 years. Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe, and treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months.

The review presented comparisons of topical steroid/antibiotic combinations, oral antibiotics, and bleach baths. In 14 studies that compared topical steroid/antibiotic combinations to topical steroids alone, patients showed slightly greater global improvement in symptoms with the combination, but the impact on quality of life was not significantly different. Severe adverse events, including flare of dermatitis, worsening of eczema, and folliculitis, were reported by the patients who received the combination and the topical steroid–only patients. One study reported similar rates of antibiotic resistance in children treated with steroid only and with an antibiotic/steroid combination at 3 months’ follow-up.

In four studies, oral antibiotics “may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo,” according to the review. The reviewers said that there was likely little or no difference in quality of life for infants and children given oral antibiotics, although they noted the low quality of evidence on this topic.

Five studies evaluated the impact of bleach baths on eczema patients with and without S. aureus infections. These studies showed no difference in global improvement measures compared with placebo and little or no difference in quality of life. Also, patients who underwent bleach baths compared with placebo patients reported similar adverse events of burning/stinging or dry skin at 2 months’ follow-up.

“Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates, and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult,” Dr. Banerjee wrote. “Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required,” she concluded.

In a commentary section after the review, Dr. Banerjee and colleagues noted that the United Kingdom’s NICE guidelines for managing atopic eczema in children younger than 12 years of age, published in March 2021, include evidence from the current updated Cochrane Review. The NICE guidelines emphasize that “in people who are not systemically unwell, clinicians should not routinely offer either a topical or oral antibiotic for secondary bacterial infection of eczema,” the Cochrane authors said. They added in their commentary that the use of antibiotics in cases of nonsevere infections can worsen eczema. Also, “the risk of antimicrobial resistance is high with topical antibiotics, and therefore extended doses of the same antibiotics should be avoided to prevent resistance,” they said. However, the authors acknowledged a role for antibiotics in certain situations. “In patients with systemic signs of infection such as cellulitis, systemic antibiotics have an important role in helping clear infection,” they noted.

Reasons for varying disease severity elude research

The current study is important because of the abundance of preclinical and clinical data that implicate S. aureus in atopic dermatitis pathogenesis, Brian Kim, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

Dr. Kim said that he was surprised by some of the study findings but not others. “On the one hand, I thought there would be data supporting antimicrobial therapy, albeit not strong support,” he said. “However, AD is a very complex disease, and understanding what a disease modifier does to it is hard to capture across studies of various different designs,” he said.

“The data supporting antimicrobial therapy for S. aureus in AD is not as clear as our clinical impressions may indicate,” said Dr. Kim. “We need to understand the relationship better, perhaps in particular subsets of patients,” he emphasized. In addition, “We need a better understanding of why some people are colonized with S. aureus, yet with little effect on AD itself, while others experience severe exacerbation of disease,” said Dr. Kim. Therefore, a key research question for future studies is whether the exacerbation is caused by the particular strain of the bug, the host susceptibility, or both, he said.

The review received no outside funding. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Kim have disclosed that they had no relevant financial relationships.

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

Current interventions to tackle Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic eczema have little impact on symptoms, based on data from a Cochrane Review of 41 studies published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy.

Eczema remains a huge disease burden worldwide, and colonization with S. aureus in eczema patients is common, but no standard intervention exists to relieve symptoms, wrote Nandini Banerjee, MD, of Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, England. “While antibiotic treatment of clinically obvious infections such as cellulitis is beneficial, it is not clear whether antibiotic treatment of eczema influences eczema severity,” Dr. Banerjee noted.

The 41 studies included 1,753 participants and 10 treatment categories. Most of the studies were conducted in secondary care centers in Western Europe, North America, and the Far East. Twelve studies included children, four included only adults, 19 included children and adults, and in six studies, the participant age range was unclear. Among the studies with reported ages, the mean age ranged from 1.1 to 34.6 years. Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe, and treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months.

The review presented comparisons of topical steroid/antibiotic combinations, oral antibiotics, and bleach baths. In 14 studies that compared topical steroid/antibiotic combinations to topical steroids alone, patients showed slightly greater global improvement in symptoms with the combination, but the impact on quality of life was not significantly different. Severe adverse events, including flare of dermatitis, worsening of eczema, and folliculitis, were reported by the patients who received the combination and the topical steroid–only patients. One study reported similar rates of antibiotic resistance in children treated with steroid only and with an antibiotic/steroid combination at 3 months’ follow-up.

In four studies, oral antibiotics “may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo,” according to the review. The reviewers said that there was likely little or no difference in quality of life for infants and children given oral antibiotics, although they noted the low quality of evidence on this topic.

Five studies evaluated the impact of bleach baths on eczema patients with and without S. aureus infections. These studies showed no difference in global improvement measures compared with placebo and little or no difference in quality of life. Also, patients who underwent bleach baths compared with placebo patients reported similar adverse events of burning/stinging or dry skin at 2 months’ follow-up.

“Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates, and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult,” Dr. Banerjee wrote. “Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required,” she concluded.

In a commentary section after the review, Dr. Banerjee and colleagues noted that the United Kingdom’s NICE guidelines for managing atopic eczema in children younger than 12 years of age, published in March 2021, include evidence from the current updated Cochrane Review. The NICE guidelines emphasize that “in people who are not systemically unwell, clinicians should not routinely offer either a topical or oral antibiotic for secondary bacterial infection of eczema,” the Cochrane authors said. They added in their commentary that the use of antibiotics in cases of nonsevere infections can worsen eczema. Also, “the risk of antimicrobial resistance is high with topical antibiotics, and therefore extended doses of the same antibiotics should be avoided to prevent resistance,” they said. However, the authors acknowledged a role for antibiotics in certain situations. “In patients with systemic signs of infection such as cellulitis, systemic antibiotics have an important role in helping clear infection,” they noted.

Reasons for varying disease severity elude research

The current study is important because of the abundance of preclinical and clinical data that implicate S. aureus in atopic dermatitis pathogenesis, Brian Kim, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

Dr. Kim said that he was surprised by some of the study findings but not others. “On the one hand, I thought there would be data supporting antimicrobial therapy, albeit not strong support,” he said. “However, AD is a very complex disease, and understanding what a disease modifier does to it is hard to capture across studies of various different designs,” he said.

“The data supporting antimicrobial therapy for S. aureus in AD is not as clear as our clinical impressions may indicate,” said Dr. Kim. “We need to understand the relationship better, perhaps in particular subsets of patients,” he emphasized. In addition, “We need a better understanding of why some people are colonized with S. aureus, yet with little effect on AD itself, while others experience severe exacerbation of disease,” said Dr. Kim. Therefore, a key research question for future studies is whether the exacerbation is caused by the particular strain of the bug, the host susceptibility, or both, he said.

The review received no outside funding. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Kim have disclosed that they had no relevant financial relationships.

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

Current interventions to tackle Staphylococcus aureus in patients with atopic eczema have little impact on symptoms, based on data from a Cochrane Review of 41 studies published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy.

Eczema remains a huge disease burden worldwide, and colonization with S. aureus in eczema patients is common, but no standard intervention exists to relieve symptoms, wrote Nandini Banerjee, MD, of Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, England. “While antibiotic treatment of clinically obvious infections such as cellulitis is beneficial, it is not clear whether antibiotic treatment of eczema influences eczema severity,” Dr. Banerjee noted.

The 41 studies included 1,753 participants and 10 treatment categories. Most of the studies were conducted in secondary care centers in Western Europe, North America, and the Far East. Twelve studies included children, four included only adults, 19 included children and adults, and in six studies, the participant age range was unclear. Among the studies with reported ages, the mean age ranged from 1.1 to 34.6 years. Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe, and treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months.

The review presented comparisons of topical steroid/antibiotic combinations, oral antibiotics, and bleach baths. In 14 studies that compared topical steroid/antibiotic combinations to topical steroids alone, patients showed slightly greater global improvement in symptoms with the combination, but the impact on quality of life was not significantly different. Severe adverse events, including flare of dermatitis, worsening of eczema, and folliculitis, were reported by the patients who received the combination and the topical steroid–only patients. One study reported similar rates of antibiotic resistance in children treated with steroid only and with an antibiotic/steroid combination at 3 months’ follow-up.

In four studies, oral antibiotics “may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo,” according to the review. The reviewers said that there was likely little or no difference in quality of life for infants and children given oral antibiotics, although they noted the low quality of evidence on this topic.

Five studies evaluated the impact of bleach baths on eczema patients with and without S. aureus infections. These studies showed no difference in global improvement measures compared with placebo and little or no difference in quality of life. Also, patients who underwent bleach baths compared with placebo patients reported similar adverse events of burning/stinging or dry skin at 2 months’ follow-up.

“Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates, and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult,” Dr. Banerjee wrote. “Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required,” she concluded.

In a commentary section after the review, Dr. Banerjee and colleagues noted that the United Kingdom’s NICE guidelines for managing atopic eczema in children younger than 12 years of age, published in March 2021, include evidence from the current updated Cochrane Review. The NICE guidelines emphasize that “in people who are not systemically unwell, clinicians should not routinely offer either a topical or oral antibiotic for secondary bacterial infection of eczema,” the Cochrane authors said. They added in their commentary that the use of antibiotics in cases of nonsevere infections can worsen eczema. Also, “the risk of antimicrobial resistance is high with topical antibiotics, and therefore extended doses of the same antibiotics should be avoided to prevent resistance,” they said. However, the authors acknowledged a role for antibiotics in certain situations. “In patients with systemic signs of infection such as cellulitis, systemic antibiotics have an important role in helping clear infection,” they noted.

Reasons for varying disease severity elude research

The current study is important because of the abundance of preclinical and clinical data that implicate S. aureus in atopic dermatitis pathogenesis, Brian Kim, MD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

Dr. Kim said that he was surprised by some of the study findings but not others. “On the one hand, I thought there would be data supporting antimicrobial therapy, albeit not strong support,” he said. “However, AD is a very complex disease, and understanding what a disease modifier does to it is hard to capture across studies of various different designs,” he said.

“The data supporting antimicrobial therapy for S. aureus in AD is not as clear as our clinical impressions may indicate,” said Dr. Kim. “We need to understand the relationship better, perhaps in particular subsets of patients,” he emphasized. In addition, “We need a better understanding of why some people are colonized with S. aureus, yet with little effect on AD itself, while others experience severe exacerbation of disease,” said Dr. Kim. Therefore, a key research question for future studies is whether the exacerbation is caused by the particular strain of the bug, the host susceptibility, or both, he said.

The review received no outside funding. Dr. Banerjee and Dr. Kim have disclosed that they had no relevant financial relationships.

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

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

A 2021 update to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening guidelines eliminated racial disparities that were prevalent in the group’s 2013 guidance, according to a report in JAMA Oncology.

Fewer Black people qualified for screening in the earlier guideline of which the majority of its participants were White. In response, the group changed the screening eligibility age from 55 to 50 years and lowered the smoking pack by year requirement from 30 to 20 years.

The changes showed that Black smokers tend to develop lung cancer earlier and with fewer pack-years than White smokers.
 

The study details

To gauge the impact, investigators from Wayne State University, Detroit, reviewed 912 patients with lung cancer and 1,457 controls without lung cancer to see who would have qualified for screening under the 2013 and 2021 criteria.

They were participants in the Detroit-area INHALE (Inflammation, Health, Ancestry, and Lung Epidemiology) study from 2012 to 2018. Over 30% were Black.

“Lowering the age and smoking criteria successfully bridged the gap in racial disparity,” said investigators led by Chan Yeu Pu, MD, a lung cancer specialist at Wayne State University.

With the 2021 criteria, 65% of White patients and 63% of Black patients with lung cancer would have been eligible for screening. Under the 2013 guidance, 52% of White patients were eligible for screening, but only 42% of Black patients.

The update also eliminated racial disparities among controls. The new guidance excluded 48% of White controls without lung cancer from screening and 50% of Black controls. The 2013 criteria excluded fewer White controls (61%) than Black control subjects (70%).

“As expected, broader inclusion criteria increased sensitivity, but at the cost of decreased specificity,” the investigators wrote.
 

Why is screening important?

The hope of screening is to catch lung cancer early, when curative surgical resection is still possible, the team wrote, but although screening has increased over the years, uptake remains dismal, just 5% in 2018, for instance.

In an editorial, Philadelphia-area thoracic surgeons Jonathan Nitz, MD, and Cherie Erkmen, MD, wrote that “multiple and changing criteria” and “nebulous payment plans” have made “for a confusing message. ... We need standardized” guidelines to deliver “a clear message about lung cancer screening.”

The fact that nearly two-thirds of lung cancer patients wouldn’t have qualified for screening under current guidelines also needs to be addressed. “We need standardized practice guidelines based on evidence from diverse populations and policies to ensure equitable access for high-risk individuals. Although this study demonstrates improved, calculated sensitivity of the 2021 USPSTF guidelines to detect lung cancer, these refinements of criteria do not address the nearly two-thirds of patients with diagnosed lung cancer who are not eligible for screening. There is a pressing need to redefine screening criteria,” Dr. Nitz and Dr. Erkmen wrote.

Both the 2013 and 2021 guidelines were outperformed in the study by the 2012 modification of the model from the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer (PLCOm2012 criteria), but only marginally so in the case of USPSTF’s 2021 guidance.

PLCOm2012 screening eligibility, however, are based on a complicated risk factor assessments that include race but also education level and other factors which might not be readily available in electronic records. USPSTF’s criteria “are much more straightforward to use in a clinical setting,” the investigators noted.

Study subjects were 21-89 years old and were in their early 60s, on average. Just over half were women. The analysis excluded lung cancer patients and controls who had never smoked.

The authors noted some limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, plus, few lung cancers were diagnosed among the control group, which were not only small, but they did not include follow-ups with CT scans.

The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Herrick Foundation. Dr. Pu didn’t have any commercial disclosures. One investigator disclosed personal fees from Takeda, AstraZeneca, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, and other companies. Dr. Erkmen reported an American Cancer Society-Pfizer Award to address disparities.

When asked, young people report that their reasons for starting smoking include rebellion, a new thing to try, and a peer social activity, among others. While you recognize these as developmentally expected drives, it is frustrating and scary that youth don’t realize how their brains are especially sensitive to permanent changes from nicotine.

Smoking even five packs of cigarettes is enough to cause addiction in youth; an influence as powerful as for cocaine or heroin. One pod of a vaping device delivers as much nicotine as one to five packs of cigarettes, depending on the strength and brand. There are no standards for this content and youth often are unaware of any nicotine and chemicals in vapes. Over 90% of adult smokers started before age 18, some as young as 6, mainly because quitting is so difficult. Cigarettes and vaping are not the only sources of nicotine used by youth; others are oral tobacco (chewing tobacco and dip), cigars, pipes, snus (between cheek and gum), hookahs, electronic devices, bidis (tobacco in a tendu leaf), kreteks (tobacco with cloves), and dissolvable tobacco products. Many youth use both cigarettes and noncigarette tobacco.

Given these predispositions, short-term COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, and the long-lasting detriment of smoking on neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, and emotional health, actually the “leading preventable cause of death,” our job as pediatric providers is to do our best to prevent smoking/vaping or help our patients quit. But adolescent development is notoriously characterized by short-term thinking and feeling immune from long-term health consequences. So what approach has the best results? Focus on aspects of smoking important to the youth now, such as sports performance, bad breath, social stigma, insomnia, cost, lack of benefit for weight loss, and hazardous waste produced. Add to that loss of independence and being manipulated by Big Business by getting them (and targeted minorities) hooked may be salient in our discussion.

Even a brief 3-minute discussion using the AAC (Ask/Assess, Advise, Connect) format has shown effectiveness in getting teens and adults to quit smoking. Our assessment needs to include asking the extent of current use and symptoms of dependence to inform the treatment plan. We need to use their trust in us to advise that quitting is the best thing they can do for their health.

If the youth’s readiness stage is “thinking about stopping” nicotine, our motivational interview–style discussion of pros and cons could include asking “How important is it to you to stop?” and “What are some things that would help you?” If they are open to trying to stop, advise them to set a quit date within 2 weeks and suggest reducing gradually before then (and schedule follow-up). The plan needs to include dealing with the inevitable urges by finding ways to avoid current triggers to smoke (e.g., certain school bathrooms, people drinking or smoking, or stress over homework, conflict at home, etc.). Encourage exercise and meditation to distract and deal with the anxiety; asking family to quit; having a snack handy (such as sugarless gum or sunflower seeds) for when oral cravings develop; and setting rewards for early days of smoke-free success. We need to inform youth that using e-cigs actually reduces rates of success in quitting.

We need to warn youth of the withdrawal symptoms and their usual course when quitting: cravings each lasting 15-20 minutes (starting at 1/2-4 hours); restlessness, sadness, hopelessness (10 hours); irritability, trouble concentrating, insomnia, hunger and weight gain (5-10 pounds over 2 weeks, starting 24 hrs); headaches, dizziness, fatigue (starting 2 days); and anxiety (starting 3 days). There tends to be less brain fog, and less hunger after 2-4 weeks, but depression, anxiety, irritability, cough, constipation, and even suicidal thoughts may last weeks to months. Sounds nasty, right? No wonder quitting is so hard.

Support is crucial to quitting and staying off nicotine. You can provide this but, in addition to friends and family, we should connect youth to free ongoing phone counselors (1-800-QUIT-NOW or 877-44U-QUIT for Spanish), text services (text QUIT to 47848), apps (quit START), or community support.

While behavioral treatments are best for youth with minimal to mild dependence, risk of relapse is minimized with fewer withdrawal symptoms, thus the role for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for those with moderate to strong dependence and to help anyone ad lib with cravings. NRT is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to supplement counseling, although NRT is not Food and Drug Administration approved and requires a prescription for those under 18.

How can we determine the degree of dependence? Smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day (or vape equivalent) and inhaling even “seldom” counts as “moderate” dependence and more than 26 with difficulty refraining in several situations as “substantial” in the Fagerstrom Tolerance test. Early morning smoking is asked about, important to which NRT to use (gum or lozenge for faster onset). The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist assesses “loss of autonomy” over smoking by any “yes” item and is incorporated in the CRAFFT screen. The recommended dose of NRT and length of weaning is greater in substantial addiction versus moderate. Besides gum, lozenges, patch, inhaler, and nasal spray, you can prescribe bupropion (Wellbutrin or Zyban) or varenicline (Chantix), making note of the black box suicide warning. Combining NRTs is similarly effective compared with varenicline.

Relapse after quitting is more common than not. As for any chronic condition, in relapse we need to query adherence, and consider increasing NRT dose or wean duration, even years. Discussion should have a positive focus on “what was learned” from past attempts in making a new plan that incorporates Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition.

Many youth smokers start because their parents smoke. While addressing adults may seem out of scope, we often treat parents when managing scabies, pinworms, meningococcal disease, and even depression for the benefit of the child. The AAP recommends prescribing NRT for parents, when needed.

Nicotine dependence is a chronic relapsing condition with comorbidities of substance use and psychiatric disorders that requires similar monitoring and support as for other chronic conditions we manage and is more likely to shorten lifespan than many.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
 

Reference

Clinical practice policy to protect children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke, Pediatrics 2015;136(5):1008-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-31088.

When asked, young people report that their reasons for starting smoking include rebellion, a new thing to try, and a peer social activity, among others. While you recognize these as developmentally expected drives, it is frustrating and scary that youth don’t realize how their brains are especially sensitive to permanent changes from nicotine.

Smoking even five packs of cigarettes is enough to cause addiction in youth; an influence as powerful as for cocaine or heroin. One pod of a vaping device delivers as much nicotine as one to five packs of cigarettes, depending on the strength and brand. There are no standards for this content and youth often are unaware of any nicotine and chemicals in vapes. Over 90% of adult smokers started before age 18, some as young as 6, mainly because quitting is so difficult. Cigarettes and vaping are not the only sources of nicotine used by youth; others are oral tobacco (chewing tobacco and dip), cigars, pipes, snus (between cheek and gum), hookahs, electronic devices, bidis (tobacco in a tendu leaf), kreteks (tobacco with cloves), and dissolvable tobacco products. Many youth use both cigarettes and noncigarette tobacco.

Given these predispositions, short-term COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, and the long-lasting detriment of smoking on neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, and emotional health, actually the “leading preventable cause of death,” our job as pediatric providers is to do our best to prevent smoking/vaping or help our patients quit. But adolescent development is notoriously characterized by short-term thinking and feeling immune from long-term health consequences. So what approach has the best results? Focus on aspects of smoking important to the youth now, such as sports performance, bad breath, social stigma, insomnia, cost, lack of benefit for weight loss, and hazardous waste produced. Add to that loss of independence and being manipulated by Big Business by getting them (and targeted minorities) hooked may be salient in our discussion.

Even a brief 3-minute discussion using the AAC (Ask/Assess, Advise, Connect) format has shown effectiveness in getting teens and adults to quit smoking. Our assessment needs to include asking the extent of current use and symptoms of dependence to inform the treatment plan. We need to use their trust in us to advise that quitting is the best thing they can do for their health.

If the youth’s readiness stage is “thinking about stopping” nicotine, our motivational interview–style discussion of pros and cons could include asking “How important is it to you to stop?” and “What are some things that would help you?” If they are open to trying to stop, advise them to set a quit date within 2 weeks and suggest reducing gradually before then (and schedule follow-up). The plan needs to include dealing with the inevitable urges by finding ways to avoid current triggers to smoke (e.g., certain school bathrooms, people drinking or smoking, or stress over homework, conflict at home, etc.). Encourage exercise and meditation to distract and deal with the anxiety; asking family to quit; having a snack handy (such as sugarless gum or sunflower seeds) for when oral cravings develop; and setting rewards for early days of smoke-free success. We need to inform youth that using e-cigs actually reduces rates of success in quitting.

We need to warn youth of the withdrawal symptoms and their usual course when quitting: cravings each lasting 15-20 minutes (starting at 1/2-4 hours); restlessness, sadness, hopelessness (10 hours); irritability, trouble concentrating, insomnia, hunger and weight gain (5-10 pounds over 2 weeks, starting 24 hrs); headaches, dizziness, fatigue (starting 2 days); and anxiety (starting 3 days). There tends to be less brain fog, and less hunger after 2-4 weeks, but depression, anxiety, irritability, cough, constipation, and even suicidal thoughts may last weeks to months. Sounds nasty, right? No wonder quitting is so hard.

Support is crucial to quitting and staying off nicotine. You can provide this but, in addition to friends and family, we should connect youth to free ongoing phone counselors (1-800-QUIT-NOW or 877-44U-QUIT for Spanish), text services (text QUIT to 47848), apps (quit START), or community support.

While behavioral treatments are best for youth with minimal to mild dependence, risk of relapse is minimized with fewer withdrawal symptoms, thus the role for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for those with moderate to strong dependence and to help anyone ad lib with cravings. NRT is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to supplement counseling, although NRT is not Food and Drug Administration approved and requires a prescription for those under 18.

How can we determine the degree of dependence? Smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day (or vape equivalent) and inhaling even “seldom” counts as “moderate” dependence and more than 26 with difficulty refraining in several situations as “substantial” in the Fagerstrom Tolerance test. Early morning smoking is asked about, important to which NRT to use (gum or lozenge for faster onset). The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist assesses “loss of autonomy” over smoking by any “yes” item and is incorporated in the CRAFFT screen. The recommended dose of NRT and length of weaning is greater in substantial addiction versus moderate. Besides gum, lozenges, patch, inhaler, and nasal spray, you can prescribe bupropion (Wellbutrin or Zyban) or varenicline (Chantix), making note of the black box suicide warning. Combining NRTs is similarly effective compared with varenicline.

Relapse after quitting is more common than not. As for any chronic condition, in relapse we need to query adherence, and consider increasing NRT dose or wean duration, even years. Discussion should have a positive focus on “what was learned” from past attempts in making a new plan that incorporates Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition.

Many youth smokers start because their parents smoke. While addressing adults may seem out of scope, we often treat parents when managing scabies, pinworms, meningococcal disease, and even depression for the benefit of the child. The AAP recommends prescribing NRT for parents, when needed.

Nicotine dependence is a chronic relapsing condition with comorbidities of substance use and psychiatric disorders that requires similar monitoring and support as for other chronic conditions we manage and is more likely to shorten lifespan than many.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
 

Reference

Clinical practice policy to protect children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke, Pediatrics 2015;136(5):1008-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-31088.

When asked, young people report that their reasons for starting smoking include rebellion, a new thing to try, and a peer social activity, among others. While you recognize these as developmentally expected drives, it is frustrating and scary that youth don’t realize how their brains are especially sensitive to permanent changes from nicotine.

Smoking even five packs of cigarettes is enough to cause addiction in youth; an influence as powerful as for cocaine or heroin. One pod of a vaping device delivers as much nicotine as one to five packs of cigarettes, depending on the strength and brand. There are no standards for this content and youth often are unaware of any nicotine and chemicals in vapes. Over 90% of adult smokers started before age 18, some as young as 6, mainly because quitting is so difficult. Cigarettes and vaping are not the only sources of nicotine used by youth; others are oral tobacco (chewing tobacco and dip), cigars, pipes, snus (between cheek and gum), hookahs, electronic devices, bidis (tobacco in a tendu leaf), kreteks (tobacco with cloves), and dissolvable tobacco products. Many youth use both cigarettes and noncigarette tobacco.

Given these predispositions, short-term COVID-19 and asthma exacerbation, and the long-lasting detriment of smoking on neurological, cardiac, pulmonary, and emotional health, actually the “leading preventable cause of death,” our job as pediatric providers is to do our best to prevent smoking/vaping or help our patients quit. But adolescent development is notoriously characterized by short-term thinking and feeling immune from long-term health consequences. So what approach has the best results? Focus on aspects of smoking important to the youth now, such as sports performance, bad breath, social stigma, insomnia, cost, lack of benefit for weight loss, and hazardous waste produced. Add to that loss of independence and being manipulated by Big Business by getting them (and targeted minorities) hooked may be salient in our discussion.

Even a brief 3-minute discussion using the AAC (Ask/Assess, Advise, Connect) format has shown effectiveness in getting teens and adults to quit smoking. Our assessment needs to include asking the extent of current use and symptoms of dependence to inform the treatment plan. We need to use their trust in us to advise that quitting is the best thing they can do for their health.

If the youth’s readiness stage is “thinking about stopping” nicotine, our motivational interview–style discussion of pros and cons could include asking “How important is it to you to stop?” and “What are some things that would help you?” If they are open to trying to stop, advise them to set a quit date within 2 weeks and suggest reducing gradually before then (and schedule follow-up). The plan needs to include dealing with the inevitable urges by finding ways to avoid current triggers to smoke (e.g., certain school bathrooms, people drinking or smoking, or stress over homework, conflict at home, etc.). Encourage exercise and meditation to distract and deal with the anxiety; asking family to quit; having a snack handy (such as sugarless gum or sunflower seeds) for when oral cravings develop; and setting rewards for early days of smoke-free success. We need to inform youth that using e-cigs actually reduces rates of success in quitting.

We need to warn youth of the withdrawal symptoms and their usual course when quitting: cravings each lasting 15-20 minutes (starting at 1/2-4 hours); restlessness, sadness, hopelessness (10 hours); irritability, trouble concentrating, insomnia, hunger and weight gain (5-10 pounds over 2 weeks, starting 24 hrs); headaches, dizziness, fatigue (starting 2 days); and anxiety (starting 3 days). There tends to be less brain fog, and less hunger after 2-4 weeks, but depression, anxiety, irritability, cough, constipation, and even suicidal thoughts may last weeks to months. Sounds nasty, right? No wonder quitting is so hard.

Support is crucial to quitting and staying off nicotine. You can provide this but, in addition to friends and family, we should connect youth to free ongoing phone counselors (1-800-QUIT-NOW or 877-44U-QUIT for Spanish), text services (text QUIT to 47848), apps (quit START), or community support.

While behavioral treatments are best for youth with minimal to mild dependence, risk of relapse is minimized with fewer withdrawal symptoms, thus the role for nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for those with moderate to strong dependence and to help anyone ad lib with cravings. NRT is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to supplement counseling, although NRT is not Food and Drug Administration approved and requires a prescription for those under 18.

How can we determine the degree of dependence? Smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day (or vape equivalent) and inhaling even “seldom” counts as “moderate” dependence and more than 26 with difficulty refraining in several situations as “substantial” in the Fagerstrom Tolerance test. Early morning smoking is asked about, important to which NRT to use (gum or lozenge for faster onset). The Hooked on Nicotine Checklist assesses “loss of autonomy” over smoking by any “yes” item and is incorporated in the CRAFFT screen. The recommended dose of NRT and length of weaning is greater in substantial addiction versus moderate. Besides gum, lozenges, patch, inhaler, and nasal spray, you can prescribe bupropion (Wellbutrin or Zyban) or varenicline (Chantix), making note of the black box suicide warning. Combining NRTs is similarly effective compared with varenicline.

Relapse after quitting is more common than not. As for any chronic condition, in relapse we need to query adherence, and consider increasing NRT dose or wean duration, even years. Discussion should have a positive focus on “what was learned” from past attempts in making a new plan that incorporates Relevance, Risks, Rewards, Roadblocks, and Repetition.

Many youth smokers start because their parents smoke. While addressing adults may seem out of scope, we often treat parents when managing scabies, pinworms, meningococcal disease, and even depression for the benefit of the child. The AAP recommends prescribing NRT for parents, when needed.

Nicotine dependence is a chronic relapsing condition with comorbidities of substance use and psychiatric disorders that requires similar monitoring and support as for other chronic conditions we manage and is more likely to shorten lifespan than many.

Dr. Howard is assistant professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and creator of CHADIS. She had no other relevant disclosures. Dr. Howard’s contribution to this publication was as a paid expert to MDedge News. E-mail her at [email protected].
 

Reference

Clinical practice policy to protect children from tobacco, nicotine, and tobacco smoke, Pediatrics 2015;136(5):1008-17. doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-31088.

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

Topline results from the phase 1 APOLLO study of SLN360, a short interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) targeting lipoprotein(a), showed it significantly reduced Lp(a) in a dose-dependent manner from 46% to up to 98%.

Reductions of up to 81% were maintained out to 150 days, according to a release from the developer of the drug, Silence Therapeutics.

High Lp(a) affects about one in five people worldwide and is a genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. There are no approved medications that selectively lower Lp(a), and levels cannot be significantly modified through lifestyle changes or any approved medications.

SLN360 is a siRNA that is designed to lower Lp(a) production by using the body’s natural process of RNA interference to target and silence messenger RNA transcribed from the LPA gene in liver cells.

The first-in-human APOLLO trial evaluated 32 patients with serum Lp(a) concentrations of at least 150 nmol/L and no cardiovascular disease who received a single subcutaneous dose of SLN360 (30 mg, 100 mg, less than or equal to 300 mg, or less than or equal to 600 mg) or placebo and were followed for up to 150 days.

No clinically important safety concerns were identified, although low-grade adverse events at the injection site occurred, most prominently at the highest dose, according to the company.

Study follow-up has been extended to 1 year. Patient enrollment continues in the multiple-ascending dose portion of the phase 1 study in patients with high Lp(a) and a confirmed history of stable atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the company statement notes.

Detailed results from APOLLO will be presented in a late-breaking clinical trials session at the American College of Cardiology Annual Scientific Session on April 3 by principal investigator Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic.

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

In the treatment of male androgenetic alopecia (AGA), low-dose dutasteride (0.5 mg/day), used off label in the United States, tops a ranking of the most commonly used oral and topical agents in a new meta-analysis.

While up to 90% of men experience AGA in their lifetime, only three therapies are currently approved for treatment of the condition by the Food and Drug Administration – topical minoxidil, oral finasteride 1 mg, and low-level light therapy.

However, with common use of off-label oral minoxidil, as well as oral dutasteride and higher doses of oral finasteride, the latter two being 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, Aditya K. Gupta, MD, PhD, of Mediprobe Research, in London, Ont., and colleagues sought to compare the data on the three agents. Their results were published in JAMA Dermatology.

They note that, while there have been recent comparisons between oral and topical minoxidil, “to our knowledge no study has determined the comparative effectiveness of these 2 [formulations] with that of local and systemic dutasteride and finasteride.”

For the meta-analysis, the authors identified 23 studies meeting their criteria, involving patients with mean ages ranging from 22.8 to 41.8 years.

For the primary endpoint of the greatest increases in total hair count at 24 weeks, the analysis showed the 0.5-mg/day dose of dutasteride topped the list, with significantly greater efficacy, compared with 1 mg/day of finasteride (mean difference, 7.1 hairs per cm²).

The 0.5-mg/d dutasteride dose also showed higher efficacy than oral minoxidil at 0.25 mg/day (mean difference, 23.7 hairs per cm²) and 5 mg/day (mean difference, 15.0 hairs per cm²) and topical minoxidil at 2% (mean difference, 8.5 hairs per cm²).

For the secondary endpoint of the greatest increase in terminal hair count at 24 weeks, the 5-mg/day dose of minoxidil had significantly greater efficacy compared with the 0.25-mg/day dose of the drug, as well as with minoxidil’s 2% and 5% topical formulations.

The minoxidil 5-mg/day dose was also significantly more effective than 1 mg/day of finasteride for terminal hair count at 24 weeks.

In longer-term outcomes at 48 weeks, the greatest increase in total hair count at 48 weeks was observed with 5 mg/day of finasteride, which was significantly more effective, compared with 2% topical minoxidil.

And the greatest increase in terminal hair count at 48 weeks was observed with 1 mg/day of oral finasteride, which was significantly more effective than 2% as well as 5% topical minoxidil.

Based on the results, the authors ranked the agents in a decreasing order of efficacy: 0.5 mg/day of oral dutasteride, 5 mg/day of oral finasteride, 5 mg/day of oral minoxidil, 1 mg/day of oral finasteride, 5% topical minoxidil, 2% topical minoxidil, and 0.25 mg/day of oral minoxidil.

Commenting on the analysis in an accompanying editorial, Kathie P. Huang, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Maryanne M. Senna, MD, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said the results, in general, are consistent with their experiences, noting that 2% minoxidil is typically not used in men.

They noted that, “although topical minoxidil ranked higher than the very-low-dose 0.25 mg oral minoxidil, our personal experience is that oral minoxidil at doses of 1.25 mg to 5 mg are far superior to topical minoxidil for treating AGA.”

Adverse event considerations important

Importantly, however, strong consideration needs to be given to adverse-event profiles, as well as patient comorbidities in selecting agents, the editorial authors asserted.

With 1 mg finasteride, for instance, potential adverse events include decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, decreased ejaculatory volume, reduction in sperm count, testicular pain, depression, and gynecomastia, they noted.

And while finasteride appears to be associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer, those receiving the drug who do develop prostate cancer may be diagnosed with higher-grade prostate cancer; however, that “might be related to tissue sampling artifact,” the editorial authors said.

Less has been published on dutasteride’s adverse-event profile, and that, in itself, is a concern.

Dr. Antonella Tosti

Overall, “as more direct-to-consumer companies treating male AGA emerge, it is especially important that the potential risks of these medications be made clear to patients,” they added.

Further commenting on the analysis to this news organization, Antonella Tosti, MD, the Fredric Brandt Endowed Professor of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, said the study offers some important insights – and caveats.

“I think this is a very interesting study, but you have to consider what works for your patients,” she said.

Dr. Tosti noted that the 5-mg dose of minoxidil is a concern in terms of side effects. “That dose is pretty high and could feasibly cause some hypertrichosis, which can be a concern to men as well as women.”

She agrees that the lack of data on side effects with dutasteride is also a concern, especially in light of some of the known side effects with other agents.

“That’s why I don’t use it very much in younger patients – because I’m afraid it could potentially affect their fertility,” Dr. Tosti said.

In general, Dr. Tosti said she finds a combination of agents provides the best results, as many clinicians use.

“I find dutasteride (0.5 mg/day) plus oral minoxidil (1-2.5 mg/day) plus topical 5% minoxidil is the best combination,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Tosti disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the treatment of male androgenetic alopecia (AGA), low-dose dutasteride (0.5 mg/day), used off label in the United States, tops a ranking of the most commonly used oral and topical agents in a new meta-analysis.

While up to 90% of men experience AGA in their lifetime, only three therapies are currently approved for treatment of the condition by the Food and Drug Administration – topical minoxidil, oral finasteride 1 mg, and low-level light therapy.

However, with common use of off-label oral minoxidil, as well as oral dutasteride and higher doses of oral finasteride, the latter two being 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, Aditya K. Gupta, MD, PhD, of Mediprobe Research, in London, Ont., and colleagues sought to compare the data on the three agents. Their results were published in JAMA Dermatology.

They note that, while there have been recent comparisons between oral and topical minoxidil, “to our knowledge no study has determined the comparative effectiveness of these 2 [formulations] with that of local and systemic dutasteride and finasteride.”

For the meta-analysis, the authors identified 23 studies meeting their criteria, involving patients with mean ages ranging from 22.8 to 41.8 years.

For the primary endpoint of the greatest increases in total hair count at 24 weeks, the analysis showed the 0.5-mg/day dose of dutasteride topped the list, with significantly greater efficacy, compared with 1 mg/day of finasteride (mean difference, 7.1 hairs per cm²).

The 0.5-mg/d dutasteride dose also showed higher efficacy than oral minoxidil at 0.25 mg/day (mean difference, 23.7 hairs per cm²) and 5 mg/day (mean difference, 15.0 hairs per cm²) and topical minoxidil at 2% (mean difference, 8.5 hairs per cm²).

For the secondary endpoint of the greatest increase in terminal hair count at 24 weeks, the 5-mg/day dose of minoxidil had significantly greater efficacy compared with the 0.25-mg/day dose of the drug, as well as with minoxidil’s 2% and 5% topical formulations.

The minoxidil 5-mg/day dose was also significantly more effective than 1 mg/day of finasteride for terminal hair count at 24 weeks.

In longer-term outcomes at 48 weeks, the greatest increase in total hair count at 48 weeks was observed with 5 mg/day of finasteride, which was significantly more effective, compared with 2% topical minoxidil.

And the greatest increase in terminal hair count at 48 weeks was observed with 1 mg/day of oral finasteride, which was significantly more effective than 2% as well as 5% topical minoxidil.

Based on the results, the authors ranked the agents in a decreasing order of efficacy: 0.5 mg/day of oral dutasteride, 5 mg/day of oral finasteride, 5 mg/day of oral minoxidil, 1 mg/day of oral finasteride, 5% topical minoxidil, 2% topical minoxidil, and 0.25 mg/day of oral minoxidil.

Commenting on the analysis in an accompanying editorial, Kathie P. Huang, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Maryanne M. Senna, MD, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said the results, in general, are consistent with their experiences, noting that 2% minoxidil is typically not used in men.

They noted that, “although topical minoxidil ranked higher than the very-low-dose 0.25 mg oral minoxidil, our personal experience is that oral minoxidil at doses of 1.25 mg to 5 mg are far superior to topical minoxidil for treating AGA.”

Adverse event considerations important

Importantly, however, strong consideration needs to be given to adverse-event profiles, as well as patient comorbidities in selecting agents, the editorial authors asserted.

With 1 mg finasteride, for instance, potential adverse events include decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, decreased ejaculatory volume, reduction in sperm count, testicular pain, depression, and gynecomastia, they noted.

And while finasteride appears to be associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer, those receiving the drug who do develop prostate cancer may be diagnosed with higher-grade prostate cancer; however, that “might be related to tissue sampling artifact,” the editorial authors said.

Less has been published on dutasteride’s adverse-event profile, and that, in itself, is a concern.

Dr. Antonella Tosti

Overall, “as more direct-to-consumer companies treating male AGA emerge, it is especially important that the potential risks of these medications be made clear to patients,” they added.

Further commenting on the analysis to this news organization, Antonella Tosti, MD, the Fredric Brandt Endowed Professor of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, said the study offers some important insights – and caveats.

“I think this is a very interesting study, but you have to consider what works for your patients,” she said.

Dr. Tosti noted that the 5-mg dose of minoxidil is a concern in terms of side effects. “That dose is pretty high and could feasibly cause some hypertrichosis, which can be a concern to men as well as women.”

She agrees that the lack of data on side effects with dutasteride is also a concern, especially in light of some of the known side effects with other agents.

“That’s why I don’t use it very much in younger patients – because I’m afraid it could potentially affect their fertility,” Dr. Tosti said.

In general, Dr. Tosti said she finds a combination of agents provides the best results, as many clinicians use.

“I find dutasteride (0.5 mg/day) plus oral minoxidil (1-2.5 mg/day) plus topical 5% minoxidil is the best combination,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Tosti disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

In the treatment of male androgenetic alopecia (AGA), low-dose dutasteride (0.5 mg/day), used off label in the United States, tops a ranking of the most commonly used oral and topical agents in a new meta-analysis.

While up to 90% of men experience AGA in their lifetime, only three therapies are currently approved for treatment of the condition by the Food and Drug Administration – topical minoxidil, oral finasteride 1 mg, and low-level light therapy.

However, with common use of off-label oral minoxidil, as well as oral dutasteride and higher doses of oral finasteride, the latter two being 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, Aditya K. Gupta, MD, PhD, of Mediprobe Research, in London, Ont., and colleagues sought to compare the data on the three agents. Their results were published in JAMA Dermatology.

They note that, while there have been recent comparisons between oral and topical minoxidil, “to our knowledge no study has determined the comparative effectiveness of these 2 [formulations] with that of local and systemic dutasteride and finasteride.”

For the meta-analysis, the authors identified 23 studies meeting their criteria, involving patients with mean ages ranging from 22.8 to 41.8 years.

For the primary endpoint of the greatest increases in total hair count at 24 weeks, the analysis showed the 0.5-mg/day dose of dutasteride topped the list, with significantly greater efficacy, compared with 1 mg/day of finasteride (mean difference, 7.1 hairs per cm²).

The 0.5-mg/d dutasteride dose also showed higher efficacy than oral minoxidil at 0.25 mg/day (mean difference, 23.7 hairs per cm²) and 5 mg/day (mean difference, 15.0 hairs per cm²) and topical minoxidil at 2% (mean difference, 8.5 hairs per cm²).

For the secondary endpoint of the greatest increase in terminal hair count at 24 weeks, the 5-mg/day dose of minoxidil had significantly greater efficacy compared with the 0.25-mg/day dose of the drug, as well as with minoxidil’s 2% and 5% topical formulations.

The minoxidil 5-mg/day dose was also significantly more effective than 1 mg/day of finasteride for terminal hair count at 24 weeks.

In longer-term outcomes at 48 weeks, the greatest increase in total hair count at 48 weeks was observed with 5 mg/day of finasteride, which was significantly more effective, compared with 2% topical minoxidil.

And the greatest increase in terminal hair count at 48 weeks was observed with 1 mg/day of oral finasteride, which was significantly more effective than 2% as well as 5% topical minoxidil.

Based on the results, the authors ranked the agents in a decreasing order of efficacy: 0.5 mg/day of oral dutasteride, 5 mg/day of oral finasteride, 5 mg/day of oral minoxidil, 1 mg/day of oral finasteride, 5% topical minoxidil, 2% topical minoxidil, and 0.25 mg/day of oral minoxidil.

Commenting on the analysis in an accompanying editorial, Kathie P. Huang, MD, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Maryanne M. Senna, MD, of the department of dermatology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said the results, in general, are consistent with their experiences, noting that 2% minoxidil is typically not used in men.

They noted that, “although topical minoxidil ranked higher than the very-low-dose 0.25 mg oral minoxidil, our personal experience is that oral minoxidil at doses of 1.25 mg to 5 mg are far superior to topical minoxidil for treating AGA.”

Adverse event considerations important

Importantly, however, strong consideration needs to be given to adverse-event profiles, as well as patient comorbidities in selecting agents, the editorial authors asserted.

With 1 mg finasteride, for instance, potential adverse events include decreased libido, erectile dysfunction, decreased ejaculatory volume, reduction in sperm count, testicular pain, depression, and gynecomastia, they noted.

And while finasteride appears to be associated with a decreased risk of prostate cancer, those receiving the drug who do develop prostate cancer may be diagnosed with higher-grade prostate cancer; however, that “might be related to tissue sampling artifact,” the editorial authors said.

Less has been published on dutasteride’s adverse-event profile, and that, in itself, is a concern.

Dr. Antonella Tosti

Overall, “as more direct-to-consumer companies treating male AGA emerge, it is especially important that the potential risks of these medications be made clear to patients,” they added.

Further commenting on the analysis to this news organization, Antonella Tosti, MD, the Fredric Brandt Endowed Professor of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery at the University of Miami, said the study offers some important insights – and caveats.

“I think this is a very interesting study, but you have to consider what works for your patients,” she said.

Dr. Tosti noted that the 5-mg dose of minoxidil is a concern in terms of side effects. “That dose is pretty high and could feasibly cause some hypertrichosis, which can be a concern to men as well as women.”

She agrees that the lack of data on side effects with dutasteride is also a concern, especially in light of some of the known side effects with other agents.

“That’s why I don’t use it very much in younger patients – because I’m afraid it could potentially affect their fertility,” Dr. Tosti said.

In general, Dr. Tosti said she finds a combination of agents provides the best results, as many clinicians use.

“I find dutasteride (0.5 mg/day) plus oral minoxidil (1-2.5 mg/day) plus topical 5% minoxidil is the best combination,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Tosti disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

The “Cancer Moonshot” is about to be relaunched.

In a White House briefing, President Joe Biden announced that he is “reigniting” the initiative he spearheaded when he was vice president during the Obama administration.

During the livestreamed event, the president discussed his plans to bring a “fierce sense of urgency” to the fight against cancer and better support patients with cancer and their families.

He emphasized that cancer is one of the truly bipartisan issues. There is strong support from both “sides of the aisle,” he said, and he sees it as an issue that can bring the country together.

“We can do this. I promise you, we can do this. For all those we lost, for all those we miss. We can end cancer as we know it,” he said. “This is a presidential White House priority.”

The aim is to reduce the death rate from cancer by at least 50% over the next 25 years.

One of the efforts will be directed to get people back to routine cancer screenings, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, with a special focus on ensuring equitable access.

There is also a proposal to create the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which would focus on driving cutting-edge innovation in health research.

Part of the plan is to assemble a “cancer cabinet” that includes 18 federal departments, agencies, and offices, including leaders from the departments of Health & Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, and Agriculture.

At present, there are few details about the new program or how it will be funded.

Presumably more will be revealed at the Cancer Moonshot Summit being planned, as well as on a planned new website where people can track its progress.
 

President priority

Cancer Moonshot began back in 2016, when during his last State of the Union Address, former President Barack Obama announced the ambitious initiative. A few days later, Obama asked Congress for $1 billion to send cancer to the moon, and he put Biden, then vice president, in charge of “mission control” in the remaining months of the administration.

The new initiative will be headed by Danielle Carnival, PhD, who serves in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and has been appointed as White House Cancer Moonshot coordinator.

At the briefing, Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about losing family members to cancer. The president spoke about his eldest son, Beau, who died from brain cancer when he was 46 years old, while Ms. Harris spoke about her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, a breast cancer researcher who died of colon cancer in 2009.
 

Accolades but a bit of caution

The president’s speech was applauded by many cancer groups, both professional organizations and patient advocacy groups.

Karen E. Knudsen, PhD, chief executive officer of the American Cancer Society and its advocacy affiliate, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, commended Mr. Biden for reigniting Cancer Moonshot.

“In 2022 alone, there will be an estimated 1.9 million people diagnosed with cancer and more than 600,000 people in the U.S. will die. Marshaling the resources of the federal government will be critical in our ability to reduce death and suffering from this disease,” she said.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a press release, saying: “On behalf of radiation oncologists who treat people with cancer every day, we support the Biden-Harris administration’s move to drastically reduce the number of cancer deaths in the United States and improve the lives of people diagnosed with this disease.

“We believe the administration’s commitment to expand cancer prevention efforts and to increase equitable access to screenings and treatments will help mitigate some of the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic,” the society added.

At the American Association for Cancer Research, Chief Executive Officer Margaret Foti, MD, PhD, said she was thrilled to hear the announcement after the devastating interruptions in cancer research and patient care over the past 2 years.

“The reignited Cancer Moonshot will provide an important framework to help improve cancer prevention strategies, increase cancer screenings and early detection, reduce cancer disparities, and propel new lifesaving cures for patients with cancer,” she said.

However, increased funding from Congress will be needed for these goals to be achieved, she emphasized.

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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

Catching all solid cancers before they metastasize could prevent 26% to 32% of cancer deaths in women and 18% to 24% in men within 10 years of diagnosis, researchers in Australia estimate.

Those figures translate to 2,064 to 2,677 fewer cancer deaths annually in the state of New South Wales between 2005 and 2014, the most recent period studied.

“While it is well established that diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage is ‘better,’ our study is unique in that it quantifies what that ‘better’ might look like in terms of how many deaths would be avoided within 10 years of diagnosis,” the authors write in an article published online Jan. 17 in the International Journal of Cancer. “By doing so, it is hoped that these results will provide continued motivation to develop more effective strategies to diagnose cancers at an earlier stage.”

Of course, achieving such a “stage-shift in practice is difficult,” study author Xue Qin Yu, PhD, of The Daffodil Centre in Sydney and colleagues, acknowledge. First, Dr. Yu and colleagues note, “diagnosis at an earlier stage can be challenging due to the nonspecific nature of many common symptoms which may not be recognized by either patients or doctors.” Plus, they add, a challenge for diagnosing cancers at an earlier stage “is the overall low uptake of screening.”

For their study, the researchers used data from a cohort of more than 716,000 people aged 15 to 89 years diagnosed with a solid cancer in New South Wales between 1985 and 2014 and followed through 2015.

To estimate how many deaths could be avoided if tumors were caught earlier, the authors looked at two scenarios. In scenario 1, they assumed all known cases of distant cancer were instead diagnosed at the regional stage, and in scenario 2, they assumed half of the cases were diagnosed as regional and half as localized disease.

Under the conservative scenario 1, about 18% of the observed cancer deaths in males and 26% in females could be avoided. In total, this corresponded to 21% of observed deaths.

Colorectal cancer topped the list of avoidable deaths in both men (27%) and women (33%), followed by prostate cancer in men (19%), breast cancer in women (18%), and melanoma in women (16%) and men (13%).

Under scenario 2, 24% of cancer deaths in males and 32% in females – or 28% overall – were avoidable.

The researchers caution that their study is limited by a high proportion of cases of unknown stage. Still, they say their findings are consistent with results from the United States indicating 15% to 25% of cancer-related deaths were potentially avoidable if tumors were detected before metastasizing.

“Given our study cohort was sourced from a population-based cancer registry with complete enumeration of cancers diagnosed during the study period, it is likely that our study findings, particularly in terms of the population rate of avoidable deaths, would be generalizable to other populations with similar characteristics,” Dr. Yu and colleagues write. “However, results may be different in countries that have a different mix of cancer types or distribution of stage at diagnosis.”

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