Periodontal disease (PD) may increase the risk of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.

This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.

However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.

To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.

The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.

“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.

They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”

The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.

The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Periodontal disease (PD) may increase the risk of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.

This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.

However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.

To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.

The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.

“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.

They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”

The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.

The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Periodontal disease (PD) may increase the risk of sporadic colorectal cancer (CRC), findings from the population-based case-control COLDENT study suggest.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals in the study who had a history of PD was nearly 50% higher than in those with no such history, after adjustment for a host of medical and demographic factors, the investigators noted.

This isn’t the first time PD has been linked with extra-oral health outcomes, including gastrointestinal cancers. It has been shown to be associated with several major systemic diseases, such as cardiovascular, respiratory, chronic kidney, and metabolic diseases. Evidence also suggests a link between PD and Alzheimer’s disease.

However, prior studies that looked at the connection between PD and CRC have relied on secondary analyses of data from other studies and are limited by other methodologic shortcomings, noted the researchers, led by Amal Idrissi Janati, DDS, University of Montreal.

To better assess the etiologic role of PD in the development of CRC, Dr. Janati and colleagues analyzed 348 histologically confirmed cases of colon or rectal cancer diagnosed from January 2013 to December 2019 and compared them to 310 matched controls.

The rate of new CRC diagnoses among individuals with a history of PD was 1.4 times higher than among those with no PD history after adjustment for age and gender. It increased to 1.45 times higher when the researchers also adjusted for body mass index, education, income, diabetes, family history of CRC, regular use of aspirin and non-aspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and lifetime cumulative smoking, consumption of red and processed meats, alcohol consumption, and total physical activity score.

The findings were published online Jan. 26 in Cancer Causes and Control.

“Our results support the hypothesis of an association between PD and sporadic CRC risk,” the researchers said, adding that further epidemiologic studies are recommended.

They speculated that the “putative mechanism of PD and cancer association involves the spread of periodontal pathogens to extra-oral sites, dissemination of bacteria endotoxins, and release of inflammation products directly into the bloodstream.”

The chronic inflammation associated with PD “promotes carcinogenesis by induction of gene mutations, inhibition of apoptosis, stimulation of angiogenesis, cell proliferation, and epigenetic alterations,” they added.

The COLDENT study was supported by the Cancer Research Society. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Nearly one-third of adults over age 65 developed one or more new medical conditions in the weeks following a COVID-19 infection, according to new research.

The findings of the observational study, which were published in the BMJ, show the risk of a new condition being triggered by COVID is more than twice as high in seniors, compared with younger patients. Plus, the researchers observed an even higher risk among those who were hospitalized, with nearly half (46%) of patients having developed new conditions after the acute COVID-19 infection period.

Respiratory failure with shortness of breath was the most common postacute sequela, but a wide range of heart, kidney, lung, liver, cognitive, mental health, and other conditions were diagnosed at least 3 weeks after initial infection and persisted beyond 30 days.

This is one of the first studies to specifically describe the incidence and severity of new conditions triggered by COVID-19 infection in a general sample of older adults, said study author Ken Cohen MD, FACP, executive director of translational research at Optum Labs and national senior medical director at Optum Care.

“Much of what has been published on the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 has been predominantly from a younger population, and many of the patients had been hospitalized,” Dr. Cohen noted. “This was the first study to focus on a large population of seniors, most of whom did not require hospitalization.”

Dr. Cohen and colleagues reviewed the health insurance records of more than 133,000 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before April 2020. They also matched individuals by age, race, sex, hospitalization status, and other factors to comparison groups without COVID-19 (one from 2020 and one from 2019), and to a group diagnosed with other lower respiratory tract viral infections before the pandemic.
 

Risk of developing new conditions was higher in hospitalized

After acute COVID-19 infection, 32% of seniors sought medical care for at least one new medical condition in 2020, compared with 21% of uninfected people in the same year.

The most commonly observed conditions included:

• Respiratory failure (7.55% higher risk).
• Fatigue (5.66% higher risk).
• High blood pressure (4.43% higher risk).
• Memory problems (2.63% higher risk).
• Kidney injury (2.59% higher risk).
• Mental health diagnoses (2.5% higher risk).
• Blood-clotting disorders (1.47 % higher risk).
• Heart rhythm disorders (2.9% higher risk).

The risk of developing new conditions was even higher among those 23,486 who were hospitalized in 2020. Those individuals showed a 23.6% higher risk for developing at least one new condition, compared with uninfected seniors in the same year. Also, patients older than 75 had a higher risk for neurological disorders, including dementia, encephalopathy, and memory problems. The researchers also found that respiratory failure and kidney injury were significantly more likely to affect men and Black patients.

When those who had COVID were compared with the group with other lower respiratory viral infections before the pandemic, only the risks of respiratory failure (2.39% higher), dementia (0.71% higher), and fatigue (0.18% higher) were higher.

Primary care providers can learn from these data to better evaluate and manage their geriatric patients with COVID-19 infection, said Amit Shah, MD, a geriatrician with the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix, in an interview.

“We must assess older patients who have had COVID-19 for more than just improvement from the respiratory symptoms of COVID-19 in post-COVID follow-up visits,” he said. “Older individuals with frailty have vulnerability to subsequent complications from severe illnesses and it is common to see post-illness diagnoses, such as new diagnosis of delirium; dementia; or renal, respiratory, or cardiac issues that is precipitated by the original illness. This study confirms that this is likely the case with COVID-19 as well.

“Primary care physicians should be vigilant for these complications, including attention to the rehabilitation needs of older patients with longer-term postviral fatigue from COVID-19,” Dr. Shah added.
 

Data predates ‘Omicron wave’

It remains uncertain whether sequelae will differ with the Omicron variant, but the findings remain applicable, Dr. Cohen said.

“We know that illness from the Omicron variant is on average less severe in those that have been vaccinated. However, throughout the Omicron wave, individuals who have not been vaccinated continue to have significant rates of serious illness and hospitalization,” he said.

“Our findings showed that serious illness with hospitalization was associated with a higher rate of sequelae. It can therefore be inferred that the rates of sequelae seen in our study would continue to occur in unvaccinated individuals who contract Omicron, but might occur less frequently in vaccinated individuals who contract Omicron and have less severe illness.”

Dr. Cohen serves as a consultant for Pfizer. Dr. Shah has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.

The findings were published online in PeerJ.

The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.

The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”

Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.

“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”

Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.

Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”

If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.

The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.

“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”

Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
 

Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis

Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.

The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).

“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.

Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).

The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.

Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
 

Catching cancer early

Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.

“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.

“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.

This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”

Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.

Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.

The findings were published online in PeerJ.

The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.

The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”

Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.

“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”

Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.

Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”

If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.

The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.

“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”

Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
 

Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis

Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.

The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).

“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.

Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).

The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.

Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
 

Catching cancer early

Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.

“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.

“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.

This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”

Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.

Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

MicroRNAs (miRNAs) that signal hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of liver cancer, have been detected in saliva for the first time, according to results from a pilot study.

The findings were published online in PeerJ.

The small, noncoding RNAs regulate many cellular functions and affect cancer development and progression.

The discovery has the potential to offer a noninvasive alternative or complement to available detection tools – ultrasound and the blood biomarker alpha fetoprotein (AFP) – which lack sensitivity, said Daniel Rotroff, PhD, MSPH, senior author of the study and a researcher in the Department of Quantitative Health Sciences at the Cleveland Clinic.

“Right now, the current clinical tools are not adequate,” he told this news organization. “They miss approximately 40% to 50% of the patients who have HCC.”

Scientists are interested in finding better ways to detect liver cancer, the rates of which are growing rapidly. HCC represents 80% of all liver cancers.

“HCC and liver cancer are the fastest growing cancers in the United States,” Dr. Rotroff said. “They are the fifth and seventh leading cause of cancer death in men and women, respectively.”

Driving the growth are increases in hepatitis C, obesity, fatty liver disease, and alcoholism.

Nancy Reau, MD, the Richard B. Capps Chair of Hepatology and section chief, Hepatology, at Rush Medical College, Chicago, who was not part of the study, told this news organization that despite the study’s being relatively small in scale, the preliminary information it provides is nonetheless “really attractive.”

If larger studies confirm the results, the discovery could open up the possibility of patients mailing in saliva samples from their homes to screen for liver cancer.

The pandemic, she noted, highlighted the shortcomings of ultrasound in screening for liver cancer, as it required patients to come into a facility.

“You’d love to have a biomarker that was more accessible and accurate,” she said. “It would have lots of applicability where cancer surveillance is less available.”

Dr. Rotroff added that “we do know saliva samples can be stable at room temperature. It opens up possibilities to expand the net of being able to screen a wider number of patients.”
 

Differentiating HCC from cirrhosis

Investigators at the Cleveland Clinic performed small RNA sequencing in 20 patients with HCC and compared the findings to sequencing of 19 patients with cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis is the primary risk factor for developing HCC, so distinguishing patients with HCC from this cohort of high-risk patients serves as a proof of principle.

The sequencing showed that 4,565 precursor and mature miRNAs were detected in saliva and that 365 were significantly different between those with HCC compared to cirrhosis (false discovery rate, P < .05).

“Interestingly, 283 of these miRNAs were significantly downregulated in patients with HCC,” the authors write.

Machine learning found a combination of 10 miRNAs and covariates that accurately classified patients with HCC (area under the curve = 0.87).

The researchers note that miRNAs have been found in saliva and have shown potential as noninvasive biomarkers for a number of other cancers, including breast, oral, and lung cancers.

Additionally, Dr. Rotroff said, microRNAs have been shown to be altered in the tumor tissue of HCC, compared with the surrounding tissue.
 

Catching cancer early

Dr. Reau noted that a strength of the study is that it validated the biomarker in a diverse group of patients already diagnosed with liver cancer, including people with early-stage cancer, those who underwent transplantation, and those with recurrent cancer.

“Everyone searching for biomarkers is looking to make sure that the surveillance tool identifies the patient when it can pay off with early treatment,” Dr. Reau said.

“You don’t want to identify cancer when it’s bad, and you don’t have any options.

This is a little bit where AFP sometimes fails. Even if ultrasound isn’t that accurate, it still generally identifies people when they fit within curative guidelines.”

Dr. Rotroff also stressed the importance of detecting the cancers early, noting that the prognosis for patients with HCC before it has metastasized is greater than 4 years, but the prognosis drops to less than 1 year if it has metastasized.

Dr. Rotroff has an equity stake in Clarified Precision Medicine. He holds intellectual property related to the detection of HCC. Dr. Reau reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Faster gains in weight, length or height, or body mass index in the first 5 years of life were associated with an earlier onset of puberty in boys and girls, based on data from a cohort study of more than 7,000 children.

In recent decades, clinicians and parents have raised concerns about an earlier onset of puberty in children in the United States and other countries, Izzudin M. Aris, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

“Children with earlier pubertal onset not only may be at increased risk for long-term chronic diseases, but also may experience adverse consequences during adolescence, including psychosocial difficulties and dysmetabolism,” they said. However, the effect of growth in the first 5 years of life on pubertal onset has not been well studied.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 7,495 children from 36 cohorts participating in the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes program from Jan. 1, 1986, to Dec. 31, 2015.

The study population included 3,772 girls and 3,723 boys; 60% reported as White, 23% as Black, 15% as Hispanic, 12% as one of the following: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, multiple races, or other race. Most (84.1%) were born during or after the year 2000.

The primary outcome was the pubertal growth spurt, also known as age at peak height velocity (APHV). The researchers measured growth at 3 age periods in the first 5 years (early infancy, late infancy, and early childhood) and estimated rates of weight, length or height, and body mass index (BMI) gain. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pubic hair staging and scores on the Pubertal Development Scale.

Overall, weight and length or height gain velocities declined in the first 5 years of life, and boys had faster gains in early infancy, compared with girls.

APHV was negatively correlated with puberty scores and Tanner staging for pubic hair development in both boys and girls, while puberty score was positively correlated with Tanner staging for pubic hair in both sexes.

After controlling for maternal and child confounders including maternal age at delivery, maternal education level, and year of birth, faster gains in weight, length or height, or BMI at each of the three measurement periods in early life was associated with earlier APHV in boys. No effect was noted for race, maternal education level, or birth year.

In girls, faster gains in weight, length, or height, only at the latest measurement period (early childhood) were associated with younger APHV. No associations with APHV occurred for velocities of BMI gain at any age period in girls, the researchers noted. However, age at menarche was positively correlated with early APHV and negatively correlated with puberty score and Tanner staging for pubic hair.

The findings support previous studies of associations between child growth and pubertal onset, the researchers wrote. The mechanisms of action are many, and have not been explained, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

“We speculate that insulinlike growth factor 1 may be a factor in the associations observed in the present study, either directly or indirectly through sex steroid synthesis and secretion. Alternatively, in girls, androgens and adipokines may be factors in the observed associations for pubic hair staging and menarche, respectively,” they said. Genetics and other factors including social factors, environmental exposures, diet, and physical activity also affect growth in early life.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of child-reported measures of pubic hair staging and parent reports of pubertal scores, with the potential for error and misclassification, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on maternal age at menarche and the use of weight-for-length rather than BMI for children younger than 2 years.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, long-term follow-up, and especially the use of a nationally representative contemporary cohort that addresses gaps in the current literature from later time periods. The results support the associations of sex-specific early pubertal onset in children with faster growth early in life. “In the long term, results of the present study may inform future research that aims to develop and/or test preventive interventions to optimize nutrition, environmental exposures, physical activity, and other behaviors related to growth during these age periods,” they concluded.

Time and timing limit practical application of results

The current study addresses two issues that are ongoing concerns for clinicians, specifically, the rise in obesity in childhood and its potential link to an earlier age of entry into puberty, M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Authors in prior studies have suggested that earlier puberty, and indeed earlier menarche, in females may be associated with the potential of long-term health issues,” Dr. Jay noted. “It has also been suggested that both early maturing females and males may be impacted psychosocially. Others have suggested that the pathways through puberty are key and environmental factors as well as nutrition can have an impact on adolescence as well as health consequences later in life.”

The current study is important because it focused on children born in the present era of the obesity epidemic, while earlier studies were conducted on a group in the 1960s-1980s. “This study suggests that there are sex-specific associations of faster growth and earlier entry into puberty,” Dr. Jay said.

“While it is exciting to consider closer monitoring of pubertal progression in pediatric settings, often patients and families do not present in a timely manner for assessment,” she said. “Also, the authors suggest that preventive support may be offered to children who are traversing puberty at earlier ages. However, given the current stress on practices with COVID as well as stress on providers offering clinical services, identifying supportive interventions may be a stretch at best for practitioners already burdened by clinical and administrative demands.

“Ongoing studies are needed to address the knowledge gaps that exist in the arena of pubertal onset and growth during childhood across life periods,” said Dr. Jay. “In the long term, the present study may help direct research that could focus on preventive interventions to optimize nutrition, physical activity, environmental exposures, and other factors that intersect growth during infancy through early childhood, which may hasten early pubertal development’s later sequelae in adulthood.”

The study was supported by various grants to the researchers from the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, as well as the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Colorado at Denver. Lead author Dr. Aris had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Faster gains in weight, length or height, or body mass index in the first 5 years of life were associated with an earlier onset of puberty in boys and girls, based on data from a cohort study of more than 7,000 children.

In recent decades, clinicians and parents have raised concerns about an earlier onset of puberty in children in the United States and other countries, Izzudin M. Aris, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

“Children with earlier pubertal onset not only may be at increased risk for long-term chronic diseases, but also may experience adverse consequences during adolescence, including psychosocial difficulties and dysmetabolism,” they said. However, the effect of growth in the first 5 years of life on pubertal onset has not been well studied.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 7,495 children from 36 cohorts participating in the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes program from Jan. 1, 1986, to Dec. 31, 2015.

The study population included 3,772 girls and 3,723 boys; 60% reported as White, 23% as Black, 15% as Hispanic, 12% as one of the following: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, multiple races, or other race. Most (84.1%) were born during or after the year 2000.

The primary outcome was the pubertal growth spurt, also known as age at peak height velocity (APHV). The researchers measured growth at 3 age periods in the first 5 years (early infancy, late infancy, and early childhood) and estimated rates of weight, length or height, and body mass index (BMI) gain. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pubic hair staging and scores on the Pubertal Development Scale.

Overall, weight and length or height gain velocities declined in the first 5 years of life, and boys had faster gains in early infancy, compared with girls.

APHV was negatively correlated with puberty scores and Tanner staging for pubic hair development in both boys and girls, while puberty score was positively correlated with Tanner staging for pubic hair in both sexes.

After controlling for maternal and child confounders including maternal age at delivery, maternal education level, and year of birth, faster gains in weight, length or height, or BMI at each of the three measurement periods in early life was associated with earlier APHV in boys. No effect was noted for race, maternal education level, or birth year.

In girls, faster gains in weight, length, or height, only at the latest measurement period (early childhood) were associated with younger APHV. No associations with APHV occurred for velocities of BMI gain at any age period in girls, the researchers noted. However, age at menarche was positively correlated with early APHV and negatively correlated with puberty score and Tanner staging for pubic hair.

The findings support previous studies of associations between child growth and pubertal onset, the researchers wrote. The mechanisms of action are many, and have not been explained, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

“We speculate that insulinlike growth factor 1 may be a factor in the associations observed in the present study, either directly or indirectly through sex steroid synthesis and secretion. Alternatively, in girls, androgens and adipokines may be factors in the observed associations for pubic hair staging and menarche, respectively,” they said. Genetics and other factors including social factors, environmental exposures, diet, and physical activity also affect growth in early life.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of child-reported measures of pubic hair staging and parent reports of pubertal scores, with the potential for error and misclassification, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on maternal age at menarche and the use of weight-for-length rather than BMI for children younger than 2 years.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, long-term follow-up, and especially the use of a nationally representative contemporary cohort that addresses gaps in the current literature from later time periods. The results support the associations of sex-specific early pubertal onset in children with faster growth early in life. “In the long term, results of the present study may inform future research that aims to develop and/or test preventive interventions to optimize nutrition, environmental exposures, physical activity, and other behaviors related to growth during these age periods,” they concluded.

Time and timing limit practical application of results

The current study addresses two issues that are ongoing concerns for clinicians, specifically, the rise in obesity in childhood and its potential link to an earlier age of entry into puberty, M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Authors in prior studies have suggested that earlier puberty, and indeed earlier menarche, in females may be associated with the potential of long-term health issues,” Dr. Jay noted. “It has also been suggested that both early maturing females and males may be impacted psychosocially. Others have suggested that the pathways through puberty are key and environmental factors as well as nutrition can have an impact on adolescence as well as health consequences later in life.”

The current study is important because it focused on children born in the present era of the obesity epidemic, while earlier studies were conducted on a group in the 1960s-1980s. “This study suggests that there are sex-specific associations of faster growth and earlier entry into puberty,” Dr. Jay said.

“While it is exciting to consider closer monitoring of pubertal progression in pediatric settings, often patients and families do not present in a timely manner for assessment,” she said. “Also, the authors suggest that preventive support may be offered to children who are traversing puberty at earlier ages. However, given the current stress on practices with COVID as well as stress on providers offering clinical services, identifying supportive interventions may be a stretch at best for practitioners already burdened by clinical and administrative demands.

“Ongoing studies are needed to address the knowledge gaps that exist in the arena of pubertal onset and growth during childhood across life periods,” said Dr. Jay. “In the long term, the present study may help direct research that could focus on preventive interventions to optimize nutrition, physical activity, environmental exposures, and other factors that intersect growth during infancy through early childhood, which may hasten early pubertal development’s later sequelae in adulthood.”

The study was supported by various grants to the researchers from the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, as well as the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Colorado at Denver. Lead author Dr. Aris had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Faster gains in weight, length or height, or body mass index in the first 5 years of life were associated with an earlier onset of puberty in boys and girls, based on data from a cohort study of more than 7,000 children.

In recent decades, clinicians and parents have raised concerns about an earlier onset of puberty in children in the United States and other countries, Izzudin M. Aris, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues wrote.

“Children with earlier pubertal onset not only may be at increased risk for long-term chronic diseases, but also may experience adverse consequences during adolescence, including psychosocial difficulties and dysmetabolism,” they said. However, the effect of growth in the first 5 years of life on pubertal onset has not been well studied.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers identified 7,495 children from 36 cohorts participating in the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes program from Jan. 1, 1986, to Dec. 31, 2015.

The study population included 3,772 girls and 3,723 boys; 60% reported as White, 23% as Black, 15% as Hispanic, 12% as one of the following: American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, multiple races, or other race. Most (84.1%) were born during or after the year 2000.

The primary outcome was the pubertal growth spurt, also known as age at peak height velocity (APHV). The researchers measured growth at 3 age periods in the first 5 years (early infancy, late infancy, and early childhood) and estimated rates of weight, length or height, and body mass index (BMI) gain. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pubic hair staging and scores on the Pubertal Development Scale.

Overall, weight and length or height gain velocities declined in the first 5 years of life, and boys had faster gains in early infancy, compared with girls.

APHV was negatively correlated with puberty scores and Tanner staging for pubic hair development in both boys and girls, while puberty score was positively correlated with Tanner staging for pubic hair in both sexes.

After controlling for maternal and child confounders including maternal age at delivery, maternal education level, and year of birth, faster gains in weight, length or height, or BMI at each of the three measurement periods in early life was associated with earlier APHV in boys. No effect was noted for race, maternal education level, or birth year.

In girls, faster gains in weight, length, or height, only at the latest measurement period (early childhood) were associated with younger APHV. No associations with APHV occurred for velocities of BMI gain at any age period in girls, the researchers noted. However, age at menarche was positively correlated with early APHV and negatively correlated with puberty score and Tanner staging for pubic hair.

The findings support previous studies of associations between child growth and pubertal onset, the researchers wrote. The mechanisms of action are many, and have not been explained, the researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings.

“We speculate that insulinlike growth factor 1 may be a factor in the associations observed in the present study, either directly or indirectly through sex steroid synthesis and secretion. Alternatively, in girls, androgens and adipokines may be factors in the observed associations for pubic hair staging and menarche, respectively,” they said. Genetics and other factors including social factors, environmental exposures, diet, and physical activity also affect growth in early life.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of child-reported measures of pubic hair staging and parent reports of pubertal scores, with the potential for error and misclassification, the researchers noted. Other limitations include a lack of data on maternal age at menarche and the use of weight-for-length rather than BMI for children younger than 2 years.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, long-term follow-up, and especially the use of a nationally representative contemporary cohort that addresses gaps in the current literature from later time periods. The results support the associations of sex-specific early pubertal onset in children with faster growth early in life. “In the long term, results of the present study may inform future research that aims to develop and/or test preventive interventions to optimize nutrition, environmental exposures, physical activity, and other behaviors related to growth during these age periods,” they concluded.

Time and timing limit practical application of results

The current study addresses two issues that are ongoing concerns for clinicians, specifically, the rise in obesity in childhood and its potential link to an earlier age of entry into puberty, M. Susan Jay, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, said in an interview.

“Authors in prior studies have suggested that earlier puberty, and indeed earlier menarche, in females may be associated with the potential of long-term health issues,” Dr. Jay noted. “It has also been suggested that both early maturing females and males may be impacted psychosocially. Others have suggested that the pathways through puberty are key and environmental factors as well as nutrition can have an impact on adolescence as well as health consequences later in life.”

The current study is important because it focused on children born in the present era of the obesity epidemic, while earlier studies were conducted on a group in the 1960s-1980s. “This study suggests that there are sex-specific associations of faster growth and earlier entry into puberty,” Dr. Jay said.

“While it is exciting to consider closer monitoring of pubertal progression in pediatric settings, often patients and families do not present in a timely manner for assessment,” she said. “Also, the authors suggest that preventive support may be offered to children who are traversing puberty at earlier ages. However, given the current stress on practices with COVID as well as stress on providers offering clinical services, identifying supportive interventions may be a stretch at best for practitioners already burdened by clinical and administrative demands.

“Ongoing studies are needed to address the knowledge gaps that exist in the arena of pubertal onset and growth during childhood across life periods,” said Dr. Jay. “In the long term, the present study may help direct research that could focus on preventive interventions to optimize nutrition, physical activity, environmental exposures, and other factors that intersect growth during infancy through early childhood, which may hasten early pubertal development’s later sequelae in adulthood.”

The study was supported by various grants to the researchers from the Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes program, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, as well as the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, University of Colorado at Denver. Lead author Dr. Aris had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Jay had no conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Pediatric News.

Women who used marijuana (cannabis) at least four times in the previous month (heavy users) were less likely to have type 2 diabetes than women who were light users or nonusers, in a nationally representative U.S. observational study.

In contrast, there were no differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in men who were light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers.
 

Kerkez/Getty Images

These findings are based on data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), whereby participants self-reported their cannabis use.

The study by Ayobami S. Ogunsola, MD, MPH, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station, and colleagues was recently published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 
 

What do the findings mean?

Although overall findings linking cannabis use and diabetes have been inconsistent, the gender differences in the current study are consistent with animal studies and some clinical studies, senior author Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

However, these gender differences need to be confirmed, and “we strongly recommend that more biological or biochemical studies be conducted that could actually tell us the mechanisms,” said Dr. Karaye, an assistant professor in the department of population health, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“It’s indisputable that medical marijuana has some medical benefits,” he added. “Women [who use cannabis] have been shown to lose more weight than men, for example.”

“If women [cannabis users] are less likely to develop diabetes or more likely to express improvement of symptoms of diabetes,” he noted, “this means that hyperglycemic medications that are being prescribed should be watched scrupulously. Otherwise, there is a risk that [women] may overrespond.”

That is, Dr. Karaye continued, women “may be at risk of developing hypoglycemia because the cannabis is acting synergistically with the regular drug that is being used to treat the diabetes.” 

U.S. clinicians, especially in states with legalized medical marijuana, need to be aware of the potential synergy.

“One would have to consider the patient as a whole,” he stressed. “For example, a woman that uses medical marijuana may actually respond differently to hyperglycemic medication.”
 

Conflicting reports explained by sex differences?

Evidence on whether cannabis use is linked with type 2 diabetes is limited and conflicting, the researchers wrote. They hypothesized that these conflicting findings might be explained by sex differences.

To “help inform current diabetes prevention and mitigation efforts,” they investigated sex differences in cannabis use and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in 15,602 men and women in the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

Participants were classified as having type 2 diabetes if they had a physician’s diagnosis; a 2-hour plasma glucose of at least 200 mg/dL (in a glucose tolerance test); fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL; or A1c of at least 6.5%.

About half of respondents were women (52%) and close to half (44%) were age 18-39.

More than a third (38%) had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2, indicating obesity.

Roughly 1 in 10 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (13.5%) or A1c of at least 6.5% (9.8%).

Close to a fifth smoked cigarettes (16%). Similarly, 14.5% used cannabis at least four times a week, 3.3% used it less often, and the rest did not use it. Half of participants were not physically active (49%).

Just over half had at least a college education (55%).

Heavy cannabis users were more likely to be younger than age 40 (57% of men, 57% of women), college graduates (54% of men, 63% of women), cigarette smokers (79% of men, 83% of women), and physically inactive (39% of men, 49% of women).

Among women, heavy cannabis users were 49% less likely to have type 2 diabetes than nonusers, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, marital status, difficulty walking, employment status, income, and BMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.84).

There were no significant differences between light cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in women, or between light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in men.
 

Limitations, yet biologically plausible

The researchers acknowledged several study limitations.

They do not know how long participants had used marijuana. The men and women may have underreported their cannabis use, especially in states where medical marijuana was not legal, and the NHANES data did not specify whether the cannabis was recreational or medicinal.

The study may have been underpowered to detect a smaller difference in men who used versus did not use marijuana.

And importantly, this was an observational study (a snapshot at one point in time), so it cannot say whether the heavy cannabis use in women caused a decreased likelihood of diabetes.

Nevertheless, the inverse association between cannabis use and presence of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, Dr. Ogunsola and colleagues wrote.

The two major cannabis compounds, cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, stimulate CBD1 and CBD2 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, respectively. And “activation of the CBD1 receptor increases insulin secretion, glucagon, and somatostatin, and activates metabolic processes in fat and skeletal muscles – mechanisms that improve glucose disposal,” they explained.

The researchers speculated that the sex differences they found for this association may be caused by differences in sex hormones, or the endocannabinoid system, or fat deposits.

Therefore, “additional studies are needed to investigate the sex-based heterogeneity reported in this study and to elucidate potential mechanisms for the observation,” they concluded.

The study did not receive any funding and the researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Women who used marijuana (cannabis) at least four times in the previous month (heavy users) were less likely to have type 2 diabetes than women who were light users or nonusers, in a nationally representative U.S. observational study.

In contrast, there were no differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in men who were light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers.
 

Kerkez/Getty Images

These findings are based on data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), whereby participants self-reported their cannabis use.

The study by Ayobami S. Ogunsola, MD, MPH, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station, and colleagues was recently published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 
 

What do the findings mean?

Although overall findings linking cannabis use and diabetes have been inconsistent, the gender differences in the current study are consistent with animal studies and some clinical studies, senior author Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

However, these gender differences need to be confirmed, and “we strongly recommend that more biological or biochemical studies be conducted that could actually tell us the mechanisms,” said Dr. Karaye, an assistant professor in the department of population health, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“It’s indisputable that medical marijuana has some medical benefits,” he added. “Women [who use cannabis] have been shown to lose more weight than men, for example.”

“If women [cannabis users] are less likely to develop diabetes or more likely to express improvement of symptoms of diabetes,” he noted, “this means that hyperglycemic medications that are being prescribed should be watched scrupulously. Otherwise, there is a risk that [women] may overrespond.”

That is, Dr. Karaye continued, women “may be at risk of developing hypoglycemia because the cannabis is acting synergistically with the regular drug that is being used to treat the diabetes.” 

U.S. clinicians, especially in states with legalized medical marijuana, need to be aware of the potential synergy.

“One would have to consider the patient as a whole,” he stressed. “For example, a woman that uses medical marijuana may actually respond differently to hyperglycemic medication.”
 

Conflicting reports explained by sex differences?

Evidence on whether cannabis use is linked with type 2 diabetes is limited and conflicting, the researchers wrote. They hypothesized that these conflicting findings might be explained by sex differences.

To “help inform current diabetes prevention and mitigation efforts,” they investigated sex differences in cannabis use and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in 15,602 men and women in the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

Participants were classified as having type 2 diabetes if they had a physician’s diagnosis; a 2-hour plasma glucose of at least 200 mg/dL (in a glucose tolerance test); fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL; or A1c of at least 6.5%.

About half of respondents were women (52%) and close to half (44%) were age 18-39.

More than a third (38%) had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2, indicating obesity.

Roughly 1 in 10 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (13.5%) or A1c of at least 6.5% (9.8%).

Close to a fifth smoked cigarettes (16%). Similarly, 14.5% used cannabis at least four times a week, 3.3% used it less often, and the rest did not use it. Half of participants were not physically active (49%).

Just over half had at least a college education (55%).

Heavy cannabis users were more likely to be younger than age 40 (57% of men, 57% of women), college graduates (54% of men, 63% of women), cigarette smokers (79% of men, 83% of women), and physically inactive (39% of men, 49% of women).

Among women, heavy cannabis users were 49% less likely to have type 2 diabetes than nonusers, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, marital status, difficulty walking, employment status, income, and BMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.84).

There were no significant differences between light cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in women, or between light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in men.
 

Limitations, yet biologically plausible

The researchers acknowledged several study limitations.

They do not know how long participants had used marijuana. The men and women may have underreported their cannabis use, especially in states where medical marijuana was not legal, and the NHANES data did not specify whether the cannabis was recreational or medicinal.

The study may have been underpowered to detect a smaller difference in men who used versus did not use marijuana.

And importantly, this was an observational study (a snapshot at one point in time), so it cannot say whether the heavy cannabis use in women caused a decreased likelihood of diabetes.

Nevertheless, the inverse association between cannabis use and presence of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, Dr. Ogunsola and colleagues wrote.

The two major cannabis compounds, cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, stimulate CBD1 and CBD2 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, respectively. And “activation of the CBD1 receptor increases insulin secretion, glucagon, and somatostatin, and activates metabolic processes in fat and skeletal muscles – mechanisms that improve glucose disposal,” they explained.

The researchers speculated that the sex differences they found for this association may be caused by differences in sex hormones, or the endocannabinoid system, or fat deposits.

Therefore, “additional studies are needed to investigate the sex-based heterogeneity reported in this study and to elucidate potential mechanisms for the observation,” they concluded.

The study did not receive any funding and the researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Women who used marijuana (cannabis) at least four times in the previous month (heavy users) were less likely to have type 2 diabetes than women who were light users or nonusers, in a nationally representative U.S. observational study.

In contrast, there were no differences in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes in men who were light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers.
 

Kerkez/Getty Images

These findings are based on data from the 2013-2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), whereby participants self-reported their cannabis use.

The study by Ayobami S. Ogunsola, MD, MPH, a graduate student at Texas A&M University, College Station, and colleagues was recently published in Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. 
 

What do the findings mean?

Although overall findings linking cannabis use and diabetes have been inconsistent, the gender differences in the current study are consistent with animal studies and some clinical studies, senior author Ibraheem M. Karaye, MD, MPH, said in an interview.

However, these gender differences need to be confirmed, and “we strongly recommend that more biological or biochemical studies be conducted that could actually tell us the mechanisms,” said Dr. Karaye, an assistant professor in the department of population health, Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y.

“It’s indisputable that medical marijuana has some medical benefits,” he added. “Women [who use cannabis] have been shown to lose more weight than men, for example.”

“If women [cannabis users] are less likely to develop diabetes or more likely to express improvement of symptoms of diabetes,” he noted, “this means that hyperglycemic medications that are being prescribed should be watched scrupulously. Otherwise, there is a risk that [women] may overrespond.”

That is, Dr. Karaye continued, women “may be at risk of developing hypoglycemia because the cannabis is acting synergistically with the regular drug that is being used to treat the diabetes.” 

U.S. clinicians, especially in states with legalized medical marijuana, need to be aware of the potential synergy.

“One would have to consider the patient as a whole,” he stressed. “For example, a woman that uses medical marijuana may actually respond differently to hyperglycemic medication.”
 

Conflicting reports explained by sex differences?

Evidence on whether cannabis use is linked with type 2 diabetes is limited and conflicting, the researchers wrote. They hypothesized that these conflicting findings might be explained by sex differences.

To “help inform current diabetes prevention and mitigation efforts,” they investigated sex differences in cannabis use and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in 15,602 men and women in the 2013-2014, 2015-2016, and 2017-2018 NHANES surveys.

Participants were classified as having type 2 diabetes if they had a physician’s diagnosis; a 2-hour plasma glucose of at least 200 mg/dL (in a glucose tolerance test); fasting blood glucose of at least 126 mg/dL; or A1c of at least 6.5%.

About half of respondents were women (52%) and close to half (44%) were age 18-39.

More than a third (38%) had a body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m2, indicating obesity.

Roughly 1 in 10 had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (13.5%) or A1c of at least 6.5% (9.8%).

Close to a fifth smoked cigarettes (16%). Similarly, 14.5% used cannabis at least four times a week, 3.3% used it less often, and the rest did not use it. Half of participants were not physically active (49%).

Just over half had at least a college education (55%).

Heavy cannabis users were more likely to be younger than age 40 (57% of men, 57% of women), college graduates (54% of men, 63% of women), cigarette smokers (79% of men, 83% of women), and physically inactive (39% of men, 49% of women).

Among women, heavy cannabis users were 49% less likely to have type 2 diabetes than nonusers, after adjusting for age, sex, race/ethnicity, educational level, physical activity, tobacco use, alcohol use, marital status, difficulty walking, employment status, income, and BMI (adjusted odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.84).

There were no significant differences between light cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in women, or between light or heavy cannabis users versus nonusers and diabetes prevalence in men.
 

Limitations, yet biologically plausible

The researchers acknowledged several study limitations.

They do not know how long participants had used marijuana. The men and women may have underreported their cannabis use, especially in states where medical marijuana was not legal, and the NHANES data did not specify whether the cannabis was recreational or medicinal.

The study may have been underpowered to detect a smaller difference in men who used versus did not use marijuana.

And importantly, this was an observational study (a snapshot at one point in time), so it cannot say whether the heavy cannabis use in women caused a decreased likelihood of diabetes.

Nevertheless, the inverse association between cannabis use and presence of type 2 diabetes is biologically plausible, Dr. Ogunsola and colleagues wrote.

The two major cannabis compounds, cannabidiol and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, stimulate CBD1 and CBD2 receptors in the central and peripheral nervous systems, respectively. And “activation of the CBD1 receptor increases insulin secretion, glucagon, and somatostatin, and activates metabolic processes in fat and skeletal muscles – mechanisms that improve glucose disposal,” they explained.

The researchers speculated that the sex differences they found for this association may be caused by differences in sex hormones, or the endocannabinoid system, or fat deposits.

Therefore, “additional studies are needed to investigate the sex-based heterogeneity reported in this study and to elucidate potential mechanisms for the observation,” they concluded.

The study did not receive any funding and the researchers have no relevant financial disclosures.

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

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Screening pregnant women with obesity for gestational diabetes before 20 weeks of pregnancy did not lead to any improved maternal or neonatal outcomes compared with doing routine screening between 24 and 28 weeks, according to research presented Feb. 4 at the Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

“There is increasing evidence that early screening does not reduce the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes,” Jennifer Thompson, MD, associate professor of ob.gyn. at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., said in an interview. “The increasing number of studies that have demonstrated no benefit in reducing adverse perinatal outcomes leads to consideration to revise recommendations for early screening.”

However, she did note that early screening may be helpful in identifying patients with undiagnosed preexisting diabetes.

Michael Richley, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine fellow at the University of California, Los Angeles, said catching those previously undiagnosed cases is one of the goals of earlier screening with the expectation that earlier management will lead to better outcomes.

“If a patient then obtains the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, introducing nutritional counseling and possible medical management early can lead to better outcomes,” said Dr. Richley, who attended the presentation but was not involved in the research. ”While catching undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is not common, it is becoming increasingly common lately.”

Obesity is a known risk factor for impaired glucose metabolism and for gestational diabetes, explained presenter Christopher A. Enakpene, MD, an ob.gyn. from Midland, Tex., who completed the study while completing his maternal-fetal medicine fellowship at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Dr. Enakpene reminded attendees that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) currently recommends early screening for gestational diabetes in patients with certain risk factors, including obesity, a history of first-degree relatives with diabetes, or a history of gestational diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, poor pregnancy outcomes, fetal demise, congenital abnormalities, or birth of an infant large for gestational age.

The researchers screened 7,126 patients for enrollment in the study from March 2017 through February 2019 and identified 600 who met the criteria: An adult with a singleton pregnancy and body mass index (BMI) of at least 30 kg/m². Patients were excluded if they had preexisting diabetes, elevated blood glucose or impaired glucose tolerance, a history of gestational diabetes, any chromosomal anomalies or abnormalities in the pregnancy, or were past 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The prospective randomized controlled trial was open label and included 296 patients who were randomly assigned to early screening with a 1-hour glucose challenge test (GCT) and hemoglobin A_1c before 20 weeks, followed by a 3-hour oral glucose tolerance test if the GCT result was between 140 and 200 mg/dL with an HbA_1c of less than 6.5%. The other 304 patients were screened with a 1-hour GCT between 24 and 28 weeks but also had an HbA_1c test before 20 weeks.

The primary outcome was macrosomia, defined as a birth weight at least 4,000 g, with various maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes. The only significant difference between the groups at baseline was a higher proportion of Hispanic participants in the early screening group (22.4%) compared to the routine screening group (13.7%).

The groups had no significant differences in birth weight or macrosomia, which occurred in 2.8% of the early screening group and 3.4% of the routine screening group (P = .7). There were no significant differences in gestational age at delivery, preeclampsia, polyhydramnios, shoulder dystocia, cesarean delivery, or NICU admission. However, the rate of gestational diabetes was significantly higher in the early screening group (22.5%) than in the routine screening group (15.7%; P < .05). In addition, more participants with gestational diabetes in the early screening group used insulin (34.4%) compared with those in the routine screening group (15.6%; P < .05).

Dr. Enakpene noted several reasons that the perinatal outcomes may have been similar between the groups, such as the increased rate of gestational diabetes requiring treatment in the early screening group or a higher proportion of participants using insulin in the early screening group.

“Hence, the similarity in adverse perinatal outcomes between the groups despite a higher proportion of gestational diabetes in the early group might be due to more utilization of insulin,” Dr. Enakpene said.

Dr. Richley was not surprised by the findings and hypothesized that the reason for not seeing a difference in outcomes might relate to using a 20-week cutoff for testing when type 2 diabetes would be evident at any stage of pregnancy.

“It would be interesting to have a study look at diabetes testing exclusively in the first trimester for high-risk patients that looks at neonatal outcomes and see if that would show a difference between the two groups,” Dr. Richley said.

Dr. Thompson was similarly interested in whether 20 weeks was an early enough time for early screening.

”I would also like to know the differences in management between the two groups and if the knowledge of early diagnosis impacted their management, such as timing of medication start, amount of medication required, and how that differed from the standard group,” Dr. Thompson said. ”Since patients with a hemoglobin A_1c > 6.5% or glucose tolerance test > 200 [mg/dL] were excluded, I’m interested in the number of patients that were excluded since they likely have undiagnosed preexisting diabetes, which are the patients that may benefit most from early screening.”

Dr. Richley pointed out that the potential clinical implications of the study are limited right now.

“While their secondary outcomes of neonatal hypoglycemia, method of delivery, and other common obstetrical measures were not different, we cannot draw conclusions from this as the study was not powered to evaluate these findings,” Dr. Richley said. “I do still see a role in early screening for patients with risk factors but favor doing so at the first prenatal visit, whenever that is, as opposed to as late as mid-second trimester, though this is often when a patient’s first interaction with a health care system will be within their pregnancy.”

Dr. Enakpene, Dr. Thompson, and Dr. Richley reported no disclosures. External funding for the study was not noted.

Johnson & Johnson stopped making its COVID-19 vaccine at a key facility in the Netherlands.

The Johnson & Johnson shot is seen as a critical vaccine for poorer countries. But late last year the company paused production at the only plant making usable batches of the vaccine, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

The plant, located in Leiden, has been making an experimental but potentially more profitable vaccine instead. The experimental vaccine is for an unrelated virus -- respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV -- that will be used for a clinical trial.

The pause is said to be temporary. The Leiden plant is expected to restart production of the COVID-19 vaccine next month. The company has said that it has millions of COVID-19 doses in inventory, though it’s unclear whether the pause has affected vaccine supplies.

The interruption could reduce the supply of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine by a few hundred million doses, one of the sources told the newspaper, since the doses made from renewed production won’t likely ship until May or June. Other facilities have been hired to produce the vaccine but aren’t running yet or haven’t received regulatory approval to ship doses for packaging.

Jake Sargent, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, told the Times that the company is “focused on ensuring our vaccine is available where people are in need” and that its global production network “is working day and night.” He said that the company has millions of doses in inventory and is continuing to deliver vaccine batches to facilities that package doses.

The pause has surprised officials at two main recipients of the Johnson & Johnson shots -- the African Union and Covax, the organization that coordinates COVID-19 vaccines for poorer countries. Leaders of the two organizations learned about the halt in production from reporters at the Times.

“This is not the time to be switching production lines of anything, when the lives of people across the developing world hang in the balance,” Ayoade Alakija, coleader of the African Union’s vaccine delivery program, told the newspaper.

Poorer countries rely on Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine because it doesn’t require ultracold refrigeration. The vaccine is also less expensive than others and easy to provide to hard-to-reach populations.

“In many low- and middle-income countries, our vaccine is the most important and sometimes only option,” Penny Heaton, MD, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said in December during a meeting with the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

“We have a global vaccine, and the world is depending on us,” she said.

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

Johnson & Johnson stopped making its COVID-19 vaccine at a key facility in the Netherlands.

The Johnson & Johnson shot is seen as a critical vaccine for poorer countries. But late last year the company paused production at the only plant making usable batches of the vaccine, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

The plant, located in Leiden, has been making an experimental but potentially more profitable vaccine instead. The experimental vaccine is for an unrelated virus -- respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV -- that will be used for a clinical trial.

The pause is said to be temporary. The Leiden plant is expected to restart production of the COVID-19 vaccine next month. The company has said that it has millions of COVID-19 doses in inventory, though it’s unclear whether the pause has affected vaccine supplies.

The interruption could reduce the supply of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine by a few hundred million doses, one of the sources told the newspaper, since the doses made from renewed production won’t likely ship until May or June. Other facilities have been hired to produce the vaccine but aren’t running yet or haven’t received regulatory approval to ship doses for packaging.

Jake Sargent, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, told the Times that the company is “focused on ensuring our vaccine is available where people are in need” and that its global production network “is working day and night.” He said that the company has millions of doses in inventory and is continuing to deliver vaccine batches to facilities that package doses.

The pause has surprised officials at two main recipients of the Johnson & Johnson shots -- the African Union and Covax, the organization that coordinates COVID-19 vaccines for poorer countries. Leaders of the two organizations learned about the halt in production from reporters at the Times.

“This is not the time to be switching production lines of anything, when the lives of people across the developing world hang in the balance,” Ayoade Alakija, coleader of the African Union’s vaccine delivery program, told the newspaper.

Poorer countries rely on Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine because it doesn’t require ultracold refrigeration. The vaccine is also less expensive than others and easy to provide to hard-to-reach populations.

“In many low- and middle-income countries, our vaccine is the most important and sometimes only option,” Penny Heaton, MD, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said in December during a meeting with the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

“We have a global vaccine, and the world is depending on us,” she said.

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

Johnson & Johnson stopped making its COVID-19 vaccine at a key facility in the Netherlands.

The Johnson & Johnson shot is seen as a critical vaccine for poorer countries. But late last year the company paused production at the only plant making usable batches of the vaccine, people familiar with the decision told The New York Times.

The plant, located in Leiden, has been making an experimental but potentially more profitable vaccine instead. The experimental vaccine is for an unrelated virus -- respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV -- that will be used for a clinical trial.

The pause is said to be temporary. The Leiden plant is expected to restart production of the COVID-19 vaccine next month. The company has said that it has millions of COVID-19 doses in inventory, though it’s unclear whether the pause has affected vaccine supplies.

The interruption could reduce the supply of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine by a few hundred million doses, one of the sources told the newspaper, since the doses made from renewed production won’t likely ship until May or June. Other facilities have been hired to produce the vaccine but aren’t running yet or haven’t received regulatory approval to ship doses for packaging.

Jake Sargent, a spokesman for Johnson & Johnson, told the Times that the company is “focused on ensuring our vaccine is available where people are in need” and that its global production network “is working day and night.” He said that the company has millions of doses in inventory and is continuing to deliver vaccine batches to facilities that package doses.

The pause has surprised officials at two main recipients of the Johnson & Johnson shots -- the African Union and Covax, the organization that coordinates COVID-19 vaccines for poorer countries. Leaders of the two organizations learned about the halt in production from reporters at the Times.

“This is not the time to be switching production lines of anything, when the lives of people across the developing world hang in the balance,” Ayoade Alakija, coleader of the African Union’s vaccine delivery program, told the newspaper.

Poorer countries rely on Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine because it doesn’t require ultracold refrigeration. The vaccine is also less expensive than others and easy to provide to hard-to-reach populations.

“In many low- and middle-income countries, our vaccine is the most important and sometimes only option,” Penny Heaton, MD, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said in December during a meeting with the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee.

“We have a global vaccine, and the world is depending on us,” she said.

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy takes less time when an anesthesiologist oversees the sedation, researchers say.

“We have increased patient access to our GI unit by making these modifications,” said Adeel Faruki, MD, a senior instructor of anesthesiology and fellow in operations at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The finding was presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ ADVANCE 2022, the Anesthesiology Business Event.

Sedation for endoscopy in the United States generally follows one of two models, Dr. Faruki told this news organization: nurse-administered sedation (NAS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). During NAS, a GI proceduralist monitors a registered nurse who sedates patients using medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine. This was the approach at the researchers’ GI unit until July 1, 2021.

After that date, the GI unit switched to the MAC model, in which an anesthesiologist supervises a certified registered nurse anesthesiologist or an anesthesiology assistant who administers propofol. Propofol is faster acting than the drug combination the GI unit previously used and causes deeper sedation. But it can also cause respiratory or cardiovascular depression or low blood pressure, Dr. Faruki said, so most institutions require an anesthesiologist to oversee its use.
 

NAS versus MAC: Seeking the superior model

To see which approach was faster, Dr. Faruki and colleagues recorded times for endoscopic procedures from Aug. 1, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2021, and compared them with the data they had logged in electronic medical records from Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. They excluded the month of July to allow for a transition period between the two approaches.

After comparing results from 4,606 patients undergoing endoscopy with NAS to 1,034 undergoing it with MAC, they observed that switching to the latter model reduced the time from sedation start to scope-in by 2-2.5 minutes.

Because recovery is faster with propofol, the patients also spent 7 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit for upper GI endoscopies and 2 minutes less for lower GI endoscopies. Patients also told the researchers they felt less groggy.

At the same time the unit was transitioning from NAS to MAC, they also began requiring patients to sign consent forms for both the anesthesia and GI procedures in the preoperative room rather than in the procedure room. That saved about 19 minutes.

Putting all these changes together, the researchers calculated that they increased the capacity of their GI unit by 25%.

“With a pandemic raging and capacity crises continuing, it becomes very relevant to the care we can provide patients,” Dr. Faruki said. “That’s something we’re actually really proud of.”

The university is now instituting similar procedures at its other ambulatory surgical centers, he added.
 

How efficient is your endoscopy center?

“Other factors can also affect the efficiency of endoscopy,” said Joseph Vicari, MD, MBA, a partner at Rockford (Ill.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in this study.

For example, the unit has to have enough endoscopes and enough techs to clean them so they’re always available, he said in an interview. There have to be enough nurses and other staff to turn the rooms over efficiently. There also have to be enough pre- and postoperative beds, so that no one is waiting for either one.

Dr. Vicari recommended that GI endoscopy centers compare their times with those of benchmarks provided by professional societies and in published papers.

Having sorted out these factors, the MAC and NAS approaches both have their pros and cons, said Dr. Vicari.

“I think it’s a good idea for units that are struggling with efficiency, especially hospital-based units, to consider new ways to upload patient information and maybe have a dedicated anesthesia team to improve efficiency,” he said. “Procedure time can be reduced because you generally have a much steadier state of sedation with MAC, and then the recovery is much faster with propofol. Your patients wake up faster.”

But Rockford Gastroenterology continues to use the NAS approach in at least 90% of its endoscopies, because it is already so efficient that it doesn’t believe that MAC would make a significant difference.

“Academic centers tend to be less efficient,” he said. “Units like ours, an ambulatory endoscopy center, are different.”

NAS is also less expensive, Dr. Vicari said. “We have leveraged our lower-cost ambulatory endoscopy center by providing fentanyl and Versed [midazolam], turning it into an advantage in developing bundled contracts. Payers can significantly reduce expenses.”

The involvement of an anesthesiologist could increase the cost, Dr. Faruki acknowledged, and he said the researchers are analyzing that question. But he added that anesthesiologists can also oversee four rooms at once.

Dr. Faruki and Dr. Vicari reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy takes less time when an anesthesiologist oversees the sedation, researchers say.

“We have increased patient access to our GI unit by making these modifications,” said Adeel Faruki, MD, a senior instructor of anesthesiology and fellow in operations at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The finding was presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ ADVANCE 2022, the Anesthesiology Business Event.

Sedation for endoscopy in the United States generally follows one of two models, Dr. Faruki told this news organization: nurse-administered sedation (NAS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). During NAS, a GI proceduralist monitors a registered nurse who sedates patients using medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine. This was the approach at the researchers’ GI unit until July 1, 2021.

After that date, the GI unit switched to the MAC model, in which an anesthesiologist supervises a certified registered nurse anesthesiologist or an anesthesiology assistant who administers propofol. Propofol is faster acting than the drug combination the GI unit previously used and causes deeper sedation. But it can also cause respiratory or cardiovascular depression or low blood pressure, Dr. Faruki said, so most institutions require an anesthesiologist to oversee its use.
 

NAS versus MAC: Seeking the superior model

To see which approach was faster, Dr. Faruki and colleagues recorded times for endoscopic procedures from Aug. 1, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2021, and compared them with the data they had logged in electronic medical records from Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. They excluded the month of July to allow for a transition period between the two approaches.

After comparing results from 4,606 patients undergoing endoscopy with NAS to 1,034 undergoing it with MAC, they observed that switching to the latter model reduced the time from sedation start to scope-in by 2-2.5 minutes.

Because recovery is faster with propofol, the patients also spent 7 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit for upper GI endoscopies and 2 minutes less for lower GI endoscopies. Patients also told the researchers they felt less groggy.

At the same time the unit was transitioning from NAS to MAC, they also began requiring patients to sign consent forms for both the anesthesia and GI procedures in the preoperative room rather than in the procedure room. That saved about 19 minutes.

Putting all these changes together, the researchers calculated that they increased the capacity of their GI unit by 25%.

“With a pandemic raging and capacity crises continuing, it becomes very relevant to the care we can provide patients,” Dr. Faruki said. “That’s something we’re actually really proud of.”

The university is now instituting similar procedures at its other ambulatory surgical centers, he added.
 

How efficient is your endoscopy center?

“Other factors can also affect the efficiency of endoscopy,” said Joseph Vicari, MD, MBA, a partner at Rockford (Ill.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in this study.

For example, the unit has to have enough endoscopes and enough techs to clean them so they’re always available, he said in an interview. There have to be enough nurses and other staff to turn the rooms over efficiently. There also have to be enough pre- and postoperative beds, so that no one is waiting for either one.

Dr. Vicari recommended that GI endoscopy centers compare their times with those of benchmarks provided by professional societies and in published papers.

Having sorted out these factors, the MAC and NAS approaches both have their pros and cons, said Dr. Vicari.

“I think it’s a good idea for units that are struggling with efficiency, especially hospital-based units, to consider new ways to upload patient information and maybe have a dedicated anesthesia team to improve efficiency,” he said. “Procedure time can be reduced because you generally have a much steadier state of sedation with MAC, and then the recovery is much faster with propofol. Your patients wake up faster.”

But Rockford Gastroenterology continues to use the NAS approach in at least 90% of its endoscopies, because it is already so efficient that it doesn’t believe that MAC would make a significant difference.

“Academic centers tend to be less efficient,” he said. “Units like ours, an ambulatory endoscopy center, are different.”

NAS is also less expensive, Dr. Vicari said. “We have leveraged our lower-cost ambulatory endoscopy center by providing fentanyl and Versed [midazolam], turning it into an advantage in developing bundled contracts. Payers can significantly reduce expenses.”

The involvement of an anesthesiologist could increase the cost, Dr. Faruki acknowledged, and he said the researchers are analyzing that question. But he added that anesthesiologists can also oversee four rooms at once.

Dr. Faruki and Dr. Vicari reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gastrointestinal endoscopy takes less time when an anesthesiologist oversees the sedation, researchers say.

“We have increased patient access to our GI unit by making these modifications,” said Adeel Faruki, MD, a senior instructor of anesthesiology and fellow in operations at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

The finding was presented at the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ ADVANCE 2022, the Anesthesiology Business Event.

Sedation for endoscopy in the United States generally follows one of two models, Dr. Faruki told this news organization: nurse-administered sedation (NAS) or monitored anesthesia care (MAC). During NAS, a GI proceduralist monitors a registered nurse who sedates patients using medications such as fentanyl, midazolam, and diphenhydramine. This was the approach at the researchers’ GI unit until July 1, 2021.

After that date, the GI unit switched to the MAC model, in which an anesthesiologist supervises a certified registered nurse anesthesiologist or an anesthesiology assistant who administers propofol. Propofol is faster acting than the drug combination the GI unit previously used and causes deeper sedation. But it can also cause respiratory or cardiovascular depression or low blood pressure, Dr. Faruki said, so most institutions require an anesthesiologist to oversee its use.
 

NAS versus MAC: Seeking the superior model

To see which approach was faster, Dr. Faruki and colleagues recorded times for endoscopic procedures from Aug. 1, 2021, to Oct. 31, 2021, and compared them with the data they had logged in electronic medical records from Jan. 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021. They excluded the month of July to allow for a transition period between the two approaches.

After comparing results from 4,606 patients undergoing endoscopy with NAS to 1,034 undergoing it with MAC, they observed that switching to the latter model reduced the time from sedation start to scope-in by 2-2.5 minutes.

Because recovery is faster with propofol, the patients also spent 7 minutes less in the postanesthesia care unit for upper GI endoscopies and 2 minutes less for lower GI endoscopies. Patients also told the researchers they felt less groggy.

At the same time the unit was transitioning from NAS to MAC, they also began requiring patients to sign consent forms for both the anesthesia and GI procedures in the preoperative room rather than in the procedure room. That saved about 19 minutes.

Putting all these changes together, the researchers calculated that they increased the capacity of their GI unit by 25%.

“With a pandemic raging and capacity crises continuing, it becomes very relevant to the care we can provide patients,” Dr. Faruki said. “That’s something we’re actually really proud of.”

The university is now instituting similar procedures at its other ambulatory surgical centers, he added.
 

How efficient is your endoscopy center?

“Other factors can also affect the efficiency of endoscopy,” said Joseph Vicari, MD, MBA, a partner at Rockford (Ill.) Gastroenterology Associates, who was not involved in this study.

For example, the unit has to have enough endoscopes and enough techs to clean them so they’re always available, he said in an interview. There have to be enough nurses and other staff to turn the rooms over efficiently. There also have to be enough pre- and postoperative beds, so that no one is waiting for either one.

Dr. Vicari recommended that GI endoscopy centers compare their times with those of benchmarks provided by professional societies and in published papers.

Having sorted out these factors, the MAC and NAS approaches both have their pros and cons, said Dr. Vicari.

“I think it’s a good idea for units that are struggling with efficiency, especially hospital-based units, to consider new ways to upload patient information and maybe have a dedicated anesthesia team to improve efficiency,” he said. “Procedure time can be reduced because you generally have a much steadier state of sedation with MAC, and then the recovery is much faster with propofol. Your patients wake up faster.”

But Rockford Gastroenterology continues to use the NAS approach in at least 90% of its endoscopies, because it is already so efficient that it doesn’t believe that MAC would make a significant difference.

“Academic centers tend to be less efficient,” he said. “Units like ours, an ambulatory endoscopy center, are different.”

NAS is also less expensive, Dr. Vicari said. “We have leveraged our lower-cost ambulatory endoscopy center by providing fentanyl and Versed [midazolam], turning it into an advantage in developing bundled contracts. Payers can significantly reduce expenses.”

The involvement of an anesthesiologist could increase the cost, Dr. Faruki acknowledged, and he said the researchers are analyzing that question. But he added that anesthesiologists can also oversee four rooms at once.

Dr. Faruki and Dr. Vicari reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s the season of love. In that spirit, we’re offering you a bouquet of absurd TikTok health trends that physicians love to hate — and explain the absurdity of. Lean in and get a whiff of the latest good, bad, and ugly videos making the rounds on the internet’s most perplexing platform. But don’t get too close; these videos are especially ripe.

The bad: NyQuil chicken

You know something bad has happened when your TikTok search ends with a warning from the app that says “Learn how to recognize harmful trends and hoaxes.” That’s what shows up now when you try to find out what the “NyQuil chicken” or “sleepy chicken” trend is (or was) all about.

TikTok videos, including this one from TikTok user @janelleandkate, show users trying out a trend meant to cook up a meal that will also cure your cold symptoms. The trend involves cooking chicken in a pan full of the cold and flu medicine NyQuil. The NyQuil chicken idea stems from a Twitter meme from 2017, so it is possible that some of the recent videos are fake (blue food coloring is easy to get, people).

However, in the instance that people believe the videos to be real and want to try the trend out, it is important to warn that this shouldn’t be attempted.

Aaron Hartman, MD, assistant clinical professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, told the website Mic about the trend’s dangers: “When you cook cough medicine like NyQuil, however, you boil off the water and alcohol in it, leaving the chicken saturated with a super concentrated amount of drugs in the meat. If you ate one of those cutlets completely cooked, it’d be as if you’re actually consuming a quarter to half a bottle of NyQuil.”

And that’s not good for anyone. What ever happened to an old fashioned herb marinade?

The good: Can you fart yourself blind? Doc explains

It’s something we’ve all wondered about, right?

TikTok and YouTube’s mainstay plastic surgeon Anthony Youn, MD, took it upon himself to reply to a comment saying “I once farted so hard I went blind for 3 minutes.” This phenomenon, according to Dr. Youn, is very rare, but not impossible, though we wouldn’t exactly want to try it for ourselves.

In the humorous (but very informative!) video, Dr. Youn explains that particularly pungent flatulence can contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is known for smelling like rotten eggs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hydrogen sulfide is produced in a number of industries, like oil and gas refining, mining, and paper processing. Exposure to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous, with prolonged exposure at a 2-5 parts per million (ppm) concentration causing nausea, headaches, and airway problems in some asthma patients. At very high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Thankfully, a person’s gas is not at all that dangerous. When it comes to the commentor’s claim, Dr. Youn says that something else hydrogen sulfide can do is reduce blood pressure.

“If it reduces blood pressure to the central retinal artery,” Dr. Youn says, “your silent but deadly toot could theoretically make you go blind.”

Thank goodness we can lay that question to rest.
 

The ugly: Eye boogers from hell

Get a look at this!

This video from @mikaylaadiorr has amassed over 8 million likes and over 89,000 comments, and shows someone, who we can assume is Mikayla, pulling some sort of long string-like material out of the corner of her eye. It’s like a clown’s never-ending handkerchief, only goopy.

These mucus eye strings are caused by untreated eye conditions, like dry eye or pink eye (conjunctivitis), but pulling the mucus out is actually a symptom of what is called mucus fishing syndrome. As you know, our eyes are covered in layers of mucus and tears, which keeps our eyeballs lubricated and also protects us from bacteria and viruses. It’s possible to dry out the eyes by pulling some mucus off, but our eyes aren’t big fans of that, so they’ll create more mucus to keep from drying out.

A person who might get a bit addicted to pulling the strings out has likely developed mucus fishing syndrome, which is considered a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB); other BFRBs include skin-picking (dermatillomania) or picking hairs out (trichotillomania).

Popular TikToker and Oregon ophthalmologist Will Flanary, MD, aka Dr. Glaucomflecken, responded to the videos, which have been encouraging others to try it.

“This is called mucus fishing syndrome,” the ophthalmologist explained via text captions in his video. “The trauma from pulling mucus out of your eye causes more mucus to form. You get caught in a never-ending cycle that gets worse over time. So…stop it.”

Fingers off the mucus, people.

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

It’s the season of love. In that spirit, we’re offering you a bouquet of absurd TikTok health trends that physicians love to hate — and explain the absurdity of. Lean in and get a whiff of the latest good, bad, and ugly videos making the rounds on the internet’s most perplexing platform. But don’t get too close; these videos are especially ripe.

The bad: NyQuil chicken

You know something bad has happened when your TikTok search ends with a warning from the app that says “Learn how to recognize harmful trends and hoaxes.” That’s what shows up now when you try to find out what the “NyQuil chicken” or “sleepy chicken” trend is (or was) all about.

TikTok videos, including this one from TikTok user @janelleandkate, show users trying out a trend meant to cook up a meal that will also cure your cold symptoms. The trend involves cooking chicken in a pan full of the cold and flu medicine NyQuil. The NyQuil chicken idea stems from a Twitter meme from 2017, so it is possible that some of the recent videos are fake (blue food coloring is easy to get, people).

However, in the instance that people believe the videos to be real and want to try the trend out, it is important to warn that this shouldn’t be attempted.

Aaron Hartman, MD, assistant clinical professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, told the website Mic about the trend’s dangers: “When you cook cough medicine like NyQuil, however, you boil off the water and alcohol in it, leaving the chicken saturated with a super concentrated amount of drugs in the meat. If you ate one of those cutlets completely cooked, it’d be as if you’re actually consuming a quarter to half a bottle of NyQuil.”

And that’s not good for anyone. What ever happened to an old fashioned herb marinade?

The good: Can you fart yourself blind? Doc explains

It’s something we’ve all wondered about, right?

TikTok and YouTube’s mainstay plastic surgeon Anthony Youn, MD, took it upon himself to reply to a comment saying “I once farted so hard I went blind for 3 minutes.” This phenomenon, according to Dr. Youn, is very rare, but not impossible, though we wouldn’t exactly want to try it for ourselves.

In the humorous (but very informative!) video, Dr. Youn explains that particularly pungent flatulence can contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is known for smelling like rotten eggs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hydrogen sulfide is produced in a number of industries, like oil and gas refining, mining, and paper processing. Exposure to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous, with prolonged exposure at a 2-5 parts per million (ppm) concentration causing nausea, headaches, and airway problems in some asthma patients. At very high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Thankfully, a person’s gas is not at all that dangerous. When it comes to the commentor’s claim, Dr. Youn says that something else hydrogen sulfide can do is reduce blood pressure.

“If it reduces blood pressure to the central retinal artery,” Dr. Youn says, “your silent but deadly toot could theoretically make you go blind.”

Thank goodness we can lay that question to rest.
 

The ugly: Eye boogers from hell

Get a look at this!

This video from @mikaylaadiorr has amassed over 8 million likes and over 89,000 comments, and shows someone, who we can assume is Mikayla, pulling some sort of long string-like material out of the corner of her eye. It’s like a clown’s never-ending handkerchief, only goopy.

These mucus eye strings are caused by untreated eye conditions, like dry eye or pink eye (conjunctivitis), but pulling the mucus out is actually a symptom of what is called mucus fishing syndrome. As you know, our eyes are covered in layers of mucus and tears, which keeps our eyeballs lubricated and also protects us from bacteria and viruses. It’s possible to dry out the eyes by pulling some mucus off, but our eyes aren’t big fans of that, so they’ll create more mucus to keep from drying out.

A person who might get a bit addicted to pulling the strings out has likely developed mucus fishing syndrome, which is considered a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB); other BFRBs include skin-picking (dermatillomania) or picking hairs out (trichotillomania).

Popular TikToker and Oregon ophthalmologist Will Flanary, MD, aka Dr. Glaucomflecken, responded to the videos, which have been encouraging others to try it.

“This is called mucus fishing syndrome,” the ophthalmologist explained via text captions in his video. “The trauma from pulling mucus out of your eye causes more mucus to form. You get caught in a never-ending cycle that gets worse over time. So…stop it.”

Fingers off the mucus, people.

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

It’s the season of love. In that spirit, we’re offering you a bouquet of absurd TikTok health trends that physicians love to hate — and explain the absurdity of. Lean in and get a whiff of the latest good, bad, and ugly videos making the rounds on the internet’s most perplexing platform. But don’t get too close; these videos are especially ripe.

The bad: NyQuil chicken

You know something bad has happened when your TikTok search ends with a warning from the app that says “Learn how to recognize harmful trends and hoaxes.” That’s what shows up now when you try to find out what the “NyQuil chicken” or “sleepy chicken” trend is (or was) all about.

TikTok videos, including this one from TikTok user @janelleandkate, show users trying out a trend meant to cook up a meal that will also cure your cold symptoms. The trend involves cooking chicken in a pan full of the cold and flu medicine NyQuil. The NyQuil chicken idea stems from a Twitter meme from 2017, so it is possible that some of the recent videos are fake (blue food coloring is easy to get, people).

However, in the instance that people believe the videos to be real and want to try the trend out, it is important to warn that this shouldn’t be attempted.

Aaron Hartman, MD, assistant clinical professor of family medicine at Virginia Commonwealth University, told the website Mic about the trend’s dangers: “When you cook cough medicine like NyQuil, however, you boil off the water and alcohol in it, leaving the chicken saturated with a super concentrated amount of drugs in the meat. If you ate one of those cutlets completely cooked, it’d be as if you’re actually consuming a quarter to half a bottle of NyQuil.”

And that’s not good for anyone. What ever happened to an old fashioned herb marinade?

The good: Can you fart yourself blind? Doc explains

It’s something we’ve all wondered about, right?

TikTok and YouTube’s mainstay plastic surgeon Anthony Youn, MD, took it upon himself to reply to a comment saying “I once farted so hard I went blind for 3 minutes.” This phenomenon, according to Dr. Youn, is very rare, but not impossible, though we wouldn’t exactly want to try it for ourselves.

In the humorous (but very informative!) video, Dr. Youn explains that particularly pungent flatulence can contain large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, a gas that is known for smelling like rotten eggs. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, hydrogen sulfide is produced in a number of industries, like oil and gas refining, mining, and paper processing. Exposure to higher concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can be dangerous, with prolonged exposure at a 2-5 parts per million (ppm) concentration causing nausea, headaches, and airway problems in some asthma patients. At very high concentrations, it can be fatal.

Thankfully, a person’s gas is not at all that dangerous. When it comes to the commentor’s claim, Dr. Youn says that something else hydrogen sulfide can do is reduce blood pressure.

“If it reduces blood pressure to the central retinal artery,” Dr. Youn says, “your silent but deadly toot could theoretically make you go blind.”

Thank goodness we can lay that question to rest.
 

The ugly: Eye boogers from hell

Get a look at this!

This video from @mikaylaadiorr has amassed over 8 million likes and over 89,000 comments, and shows someone, who we can assume is Mikayla, pulling some sort of long string-like material out of the corner of her eye. It’s like a clown’s never-ending handkerchief, only goopy.

These mucus eye strings are caused by untreated eye conditions, like dry eye or pink eye (conjunctivitis), but pulling the mucus out is actually a symptom of what is called mucus fishing syndrome. As you know, our eyes are covered in layers of mucus and tears, which keeps our eyeballs lubricated and also protects us from bacteria and viruses. It’s possible to dry out the eyes by pulling some mucus off, but our eyes aren’t big fans of that, so they’ll create more mucus to keep from drying out.

A person who might get a bit addicted to pulling the strings out has likely developed mucus fishing syndrome, which is considered a body-focused repetitive behavior (BFRB); other BFRBs include skin-picking (dermatillomania) or picking hairs out (trichotillomania).

Popular TikToker and Oregon ophthalmologist Will Flanary, MD, aka Dr. Glaucomflecken, responded to the videos, which have been encouraging others to try it.

“This is called mucus fishing syndrome,” the ophthalmologist explained via text captions in his video. “The trauma from pulling mucus out of your eye causes more mucus to form. You get caught in a never-ending cycle that gets worse over time. So…stop it.”

Fingers off the mucus, people.

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

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Researchers evaluating whether endometriosis is linked with preterm birth found no such association in a multicenter cohort study of more than 1300 women.

These new findings, which were published online in JAMA Network Open, suggest that changing monitoring strategies to prevent preterm birth for women with the disease may not be necessary.

The research team, led by Louis Marcellin, MD, PhD, with the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Université de Paris, also found that disease phenotype or whether the preterm birth was induced or spontaneous did not appear to alter the result.

Those results differ from previous research. Data on the phenotypes and their link with preterm birth have been scarce, but previous studies have shown the risk for preterm birth is more pronounced in women who have deep endometriosis than in women with ovarian endometriosis.

Dr. Marcellin said in an interview that “little is known about the impact of endometriosis on obstetric outcomes. In contrast to previous studies, we reported no differences in the risk for preterm delivery between women with endometriosis (34 of 470 [7.2%]) and those without endometriosis (53 of 881 [6.0%]), even when adjusted for multiple factors.”

The authors accounted for mother’s age, body mass index before pregnancy, birth country, number of times the woman had given birth, previous cesarean delivery, and history of preterm birth. After adjusting for potential confounders, endometriosis was not associated with preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.77).

The researchers found no differences among preterm births based on a mother’s endometriosis phenotype. Those phenotypes include Isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma, and deep endometriosis.

“Monitoring pregnancy beyond the normal protocols or changing management strategies may not be warranted in cases of endometriosis,” Dr. Marcellin said.

More research on endometriosis’ potential link to birth outcomes is needed.

An expert not involved with the study said the new paper highlights important new avenues of research but should not be seen as the final word on the connection between endometriosis and preterm birth.

Of the 1,351 study participants (mean age, 32.9 years) who had a singleton delivery after 22 weeks’ gestation, 470 were assigned to the endometriosis group, and 881 were assigned to the control group.

The authors concluded that “pregnant women with endometriosis should not be considered to have an exceptionally high risk for preterm birth. However, further studies are needed to examine the potential for other adverse perinatal outcomes or specific but rare complications.”

Daniela Carusi, MD, said the difficulty with the study’s design is that “premature birth is not one problem or one disease.”

Many very different problems can all end with premature birth. Sometimes it’s an infection or inflammation or bleeding in the uterus or hypertension in the mother, for example, and all those things can lead to a preterm birth, she explained.

“This study inherently lumps all those things together,” said Dr. Carusi, who is director of surgical obstetrics and placental abnormalities in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “It’s quite possible endometriosis can have a big impact in one of those areas and no impact in the other areas, but the study design wouldn’t be able to pick that up.”
 

Editorialists: Results challenge findings of previous studies

In an accompanying commentary, Liisu Saavalainen, MD, PhD, and Oskari Heikinheimo, MD, PhD, both with the department of obstetrics and gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital, wrote that several previous studies have suggested that women with endometriosis have a slightly higher risk for preterm birth.

Those studies were mostly retrospective and differed in the way they classified endometriosis and the way they selected patients, the editorialists write. Also, most women in these studies typically had subfertility, they added.

The study by Dr. Marcellin and colleagues differs from previous related research in that was prospective and assessed the risk for preterm delivery in women both with endometriosis and those without endometriosis from several maternity centers in France. The women with endometriosis were classified according to the severity of their disease.

The editorialists wrote: “The novel results by Marcellin et al. challenge the findings of most previous studies on this topic. These results are valuable and comforting. However, they are also likely to trigger new studies on the pregnancy risks associated with different types of endometriosis. That is good news.”

Dr. Carusi said the study was well done and included a notably large size. Further complimenting the research, she said it’s important to talk about this little-discussed pregnancy complication. There’s been much more focus for women with endometriosis and their physicians on getting pregnant and on talking about the length of their term.

The study leaves some things unanswered.

The study was funded by research grants from the French Ministry of Health and was sponsored by the Département de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement de l’Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris. Dr. Carusi reported no relevant financial relationships. One study coauthor reported receiving personal fees from Bioserinity and Ferring outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

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