While rheumatologists reported small pay gains this year, more than half said the specialty was underpaid.

In the Medscape Rheumatologist Compensation Report 2024, 53% said that they did not feel fairly paid given their work demands. Rheumatologist respondents reported earning an average of $286,000 annually, ranking them as the seventh lowest earners out of a total of 29 specialties surveyed. Orthopedics was the highest earning specialty, with $558,000 in annual income, and diabetes & endocrinology was the lowest earning specialty, with $256,000 in annual compensation.

In last year’s report, a rheumatologist’s average income was $281,000.

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 7000 physicians from 29 specialties, of whom 1% of respondents were rheumatologists. Most respondents (58%) were women, and 39% were men. The survey was available from October 2, 2023, to January 16, 2024.

Rheumatologists reported a 2% increase in pay compared with that cited in the previous year’s report. Physical medicine and rehabilitation had the largest bump in pay at 11%. A total of 29% of rheumatologists said their pay had increased from that in the previous year, and 18% reported fewer earnings. About half (53%) reported that their income remained the same.

When asked about physician pay in the United States, 61% of rheumatologists said most physicians were underpaid, 34% said physicians were paid fairly, and only 4% said most physicians were overpaid.

“Most physicians who take care of chronic illnesses in long-term patients are underpaid. Not all doctors are,” said one survey respondent.

Another 41% of rheumatologists said they supplemented income with additional work, including other medical-related work (30%), nonmedical-related work (5%), adding more hours to their primary job (5%), and medical moonlighting (4%). (Respondents could choose more than one option in the survey.) This is slightly lower than last year’s survey, where 46% of rheumatologist respondents said they took on additional work.

About three out of four rheumatologists said that other medical businesses or competing physician practices did not affect their income, and only 5% said these competitors considerably affected income.

Rheumatologists listed being good at their job/diagnosing (36%) as the most rewarding part of their profession, followed by gratitude from/relationships with patients (26%) and making the world a better place/helping others (19%). Difficulties with insurance and receiving fair reimbursement (22%), dealing with difficult patients (20%), having many rules and regulations (18%), and working with an electronic health record system (15%) were the most commonly reported challenges for rheumatologists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While rheumatologists reported small pay gains this year, more than half said the specialty was underpaid.

In the Medscape Rheumatologist Compensation Report 2024, 53% said that they did not feel fairly paid given their work demands. Rheumatologist respondents reported earning an average of $286,000 annually, ranking them as the seventh lowest earners out of a total of 29 specialties surveyed. Orthopedics was the highest earning specialty, with $558,000 in annual income, and diabetes & endocrinology was the lowest earning specialty, with $256,000 in annual compensation.

In last year’s report, a rheumatologist’s average income was $281,000.

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 7000 physicians from 29 specialties, of whom 1% of respondents were rheumatologists. Most respondents (58%) were women, and 39% were men. The survey was available from October 2, 2023, to January 16, 2024.

Rheumatologists reported a 2% increase in pay compared with that cited in the previous year’s report. Physical medicine and rehabilitation had the largest bump in pay at 11%. A total of 29% of rheumatologists said their pay had increased from that in the previous year, and 18% reported fewer earnings. About half (53%) reported that their income remained the same.

When asked about physician pay in the United States, 61% of rheumatologists said most physicians were underpaid, 34% said physicians were paid fairly, and only 4% said most physicians were overpaid.

“Most physicians who take care of chronic illnesses in long-term patients are underpaid. Not all doctors are,” said one survey respondent.

Another 41% of rheumatologists said they supplemented income with additional work, including other medical-related work (30%), nonmedical-related work (5%), adding more hours to their primary job (5%), and medical moonlighting (4%). (Respondents could choose more than one option in the survey.) This is slightly lower than last year’s survey, where 46% of rheumatologist respondents said they took on additional work.

About three out of four rheumatologists said that other medical businesses or competing physician practices did not affect their income, and only 5% said these competitors considerably affected income.

Rheumatologists listed being good at their job/diagnosing (36%) as the most rewarding part of their profession, followed by gratitude from/relationships with patients (26%) and making the world a better place/helping others (19%). Difficulties with insurance and receiving fair reimbursement (22%), dealing with difficult patients (20%), having many rules and regulations (18%), and working with an electronic health record system (15%) were the most commonly reported challenges for rheumatologists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

While rheumatologists reported small pay gains this year, more than half said the specialty was underpaid.

In the Medscape Rheumatologist Compensation Report 2024, 53% said that they did not feel fairly paid given their work demands. Rheumatologist respondents reported earning an average of $286,000 annually, ranking them as the seventh lowest earners out of a total of 29 specialties surveyed. Orthopedics was the highest earning specialty, with $558,000 in annual income, and diabetes & endocrinology was the lowest earning specialty, with $256,000 in annual compensation.

In last year’s report, a rheumatologist’s average income was $281,000.

This new report was compiled from an online survey including more than 7000 physicians from 29 specialties, of whom 1% of respondents were rheumatologists. Most respondents (58%) were women, and 39% were men. The survey was available from October 2, 2023, to January 16, 2024.

Rheumatologists reported a 2% increase in pay compared with that cited in the previous year’s report. Physical medicine and rehabilitation had the largest bump in pay at 11%. A total of 29% of rheumatologists said their pay had increased from that in the previous year, and 18% reported fewer earnings. About half (53%) reported that their income remained the same.

When asked about physician pay in the United States, 61% of rheumatologists said most physicians were underpaid, 34% said physicians were paid fairly, and only 4% said most physicians were overpaid.

“Most physicians who take care of chronic illnesses in long-term patients are underpaid. Not all doctors are,” said one survey respondent.

Another 41% of rheumatologists said they supplemented income with additional work, including other medical-related work (30%), nonmedical-related work (5%), adding more hours to their primary job (5%), and medical moonlighting (4%). (Respondents could choose more than one option in the survey.) This is slightly lower than last year’s survey, where 46% of rheumatologist respondents said they took on additional work.

About three out of four rheumatologists said that other medical businesses or competing physician practices did not affect their income, and only 5% said these competitors considerably affected income.

Rheumatologists listed being good at their job/diagnosing (36%) as the most rewarding part of their profession, followed by gratitude from/relationships with patients (26%) and making the world a better place/helping others (19%). Difficulties with insurance and receiving fair reimbursement (22%), dealing with difficult patients (20%), having many rules and regulations (18%), and working with an electronic health record system (15%) were the most commonly reported challenges for rheumatologists.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The cumulative effect of frequent corticosteroid injections (CSIs), a common treatment for musculoskeletal pain, does not appear to increase the risk for fractures.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers utilized an institutional electronic health record database to identify adults in Olmsted County, Minnesota, receiving corticosteroid injections from May 1, 2018, to July 1, 2022.
• Corticosteroid equivalents were calculated for medications injected, including methylprednisolone, triamcinolone, betamethasone, and dexamethasone.
• Patients were excluded if they had a prescription for oral prednisone equivalents greater than 2.5 mg/day for more than 30 days.
• Fracture events were identified using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes and were included only if they occurred after the first corticosteroid injection.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 7197 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 64.4 years, and of these patients, 346 (4.8%) had a new fracture in a mean time of 329 days from the first corticosteroid injection, including 149 (43.1%) in classic osteoporotic locations.
• The study reported no increased fracture risk associated with corticosteroid injections and no significant difference in fracture rates across cumulative corticosteroid injection dose quartiles, regardless of osteoporosis status.
• Factors such as previous fractures, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were associated with a higher risk for fractures, not corticosteroid injections.

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians should be reassured that frequent CSI is not associated with higher fracture risk and should not withhold these important pain treatments owing to concern for fracture,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Terin T. Sytsma, MD, Division of Community Internal Medicine, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s retrospective cohort design and its focus on a predominantly White population in a single community may limit the generalizability of the findings. Confounding variables such as smoking status, alcohol intake, and physical activity were acknowledged as potential contributors to fracture risk. Only clinically apparent fractures were considered, excluding silent vertebral fractures, and differences in corticosteroid formulation were not delineated.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a Mayo Clinic Catalyst Award to Dr. Sytsma. The authors had no conflicts of interest to report.

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

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Among people with MS who have mild symptoms, non-motor symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and spasticity predict later perception of balance, walking, and physical quality of life. However, these associations fall away among patients with more severe disease, according to a new study performed in Australia. The findings could eventually help tailor physical activity interventions.

The research grew out of frustrations with developing interventions focused on strength. “There are many systematic reviews showing stronger and stronger evidence that exercise is beneficial. It does change your walking. It does improve your balance,” said Katrina Williams, PhD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

However, when her group’s intervention studies yielded no statistically significant improvements, she began to search for explanations, and began to suspect heterogeneity among MS patients. Their clinic took all comers, regardless of disability level. “[Our attitude was] we will make it work. We’ll get you actively moving and exercising. But when you break down a lot of those systematic reviews, there’s not a lot of teasing out of disability levels. So, potentially, it is the disability level that might be leading to why some people don’t change or why we’re not getting the statistically significant benefits, because we’re not addressing the individual at their level of disease progression,” said Dr. Williams, who is a senior lecturer in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“Physiotherapists, we love exercise, we love movement, but we’re a bit unidimensional. It’s some strength training, [or] let’s get on that bike and do cardiovascular. But that may not be enough for individuals who have different symptoms profiles. We’re assuming that the motor profile is the most important, and the one that needs to be addressed in these individuals,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Focusing on Non-Motor Symptoms

When she searched the literature, she could find little evidence of non-motor symptoms correlating to walking, balance, or even quality of life. To dig deeper, her group studied 220 MS patients in Australia who self-reported symptoms of dizziness, vision problems, fatigue, and spasticity. The population had a mean age of 42 years, and 82% were female. They ranged in disease severity from disease step (DS) 0 to DS 6. The researchers categorized respondents as between DS 0 (mild symptoms that were mostly sensory) to DS 3 (MS interferes with walking) and from DS 4 (early cane use) to DS 6 (requiring bilateral walking support).

Deficits were more commonly reported in the DS 4-6 group than the DS 0-3 group with respect to light touch (88% vs 72%), proprioception (63% vs 41%), fatigue (100% vs 96%), and spasticity (78% vs 69%). There were no significant differences in dizziness, vision, or memory/cognition/emotion.

A linear regression model incorporating sensory worsening, age, social participation, perceived deficit, and spasticity showed an R² adjusted value of 0.73. However, when they looked only at DS 0-3 patients, the R² value strengthened to 0.86. Among the DS 4-6 group, the correlation largely disappeared with an R² value of 0.16. Specifically, there were stronger associations in the DS 0-3 group than the overall group (DS 0-6) between perceived walking deficit and sensory worsening (R² 0.45 vs 0.31), fatigue (0.67 vs 0.05), spasticity (0.47 vs 0.16), and balance (0.8 vs 0.16).

“Most non-motor symptoms do have moderate to weak correlations to walking confidence and walking balance, and quality of life, and the correlations do decline as disability worsens. Those with less disability had more correlations that were stronger, particularly for the walking and balance confidence. So [among those] walking without an aid, there are more non-motor correlations aligned to the actual outcomes. In more disabled, they fell away, so there’s something else going on that we do have to look at,” said Dr. Williams.

She called for other clinicians to explore non-motor symptoms in patients with less disability, and the relationships of those symptoms to gait, balance, and overall MS impact, in the hopes that such observations could improve the tailoring of physiotherapy programs.
 

Perception May Differ From Actual Function

During the Q&A session, Nora Fritz, PhD, an associate professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, asked about the lack of correlations seen in more disabled patients. “It’s not exactly what you would expect to happen,” said Dr. Fritz, in an interview.

She asked Dr. Williams if the study had sufficient power to detect associations in patients with more severe disability, since the study had a relatively small sample size and many predictors in its regression model. Dr. Fritz also noted that perceptions may differ from actual function, so actual function can’t be captured using a survey. Dr. Williams responded that the group is now working to incorporate more clinical measures to their correlations.

Another audience member said she was “perplexed” by the drop-off of correlation in the most severe group. She suggested the possibility that as patients become more disabled, they may be less likely to perceive the relatively less severe non-motor symptoms and therefore did not report them.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Fritz have no relevant financial disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Among people with MS who have mild symptoms, non-motor symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and spasticity predict later perception of balance, walking, and physical quality of life. However, these associations fall away among patients with more severe disease, according to a new study performed in Australia. The findings could eventually help tailor physical activity interventions.

The research grew out of frustrations with developing interventions focused on strength. “There are many systematic reviews showing stronger and stronger evidence that exercise is beneficial. It does change your walking. It does improve your balance,” said Katrina Williams, PhD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

However, when her group’s intervention studies yielded no statistically significant improvements, she began to search for explanations, and began to suspect heterogeneity among MS patients. Their clinic took all comers, regardless of disability level. “[Our attitude was] we will make it work. We’ll get you actively moving and exercising. But when you break down a lot of those systematic reviews, there’s not a lot of teasing out of disability levels. So, potentially, it is the disability level that might be leading to why some people don’t change or why we’re not getting the statistically significant benefits, because we’re not addressing the individual at their level of disease progression,” said Dr. Williams, who is a senior lecturer in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“Physiotherapists, we love exercise, we love movement, but we’re a bit unidimensional. It’s some strength training, [or] let’s get on that bike and do cardiovascular. But that may not be enough for individuals who have different symptoms profiles. We’re assuming that the motor profile is the most important, and the one that needs to be addressed in these individuals,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Focusing on Non-Motor Symptoms

When she searched the literature, she could find little evidence of non-motor symptoms correlating to walking, balance, or even quality of life. To dig deeper, her group studied 220 MS patients in Australia who self-reported symptoms of dizziness, vision problems, fatigue, and spasticity. The population had a mean age of 42 years, and 82% were female. They ranged in disease severity from disease step (DS) 0 to DS 6. The researchers categorized respondents as between DS 0 (mild symptoms that were mostly sensory) to DS 3 (MS interferes with walking) and from DS 4 (early cane use) to DS 6 (requiring bilateral walking support).

Deficits were more commonly reported in the DS 4-6 group than the DS 0-3 group with respect to light touch (88% vs 72%), proprioception (63% vs 41%), fatigue (100% vs 96%), and spasticity (78% vs 69%). There were no significant differences in dizziness, vision, or memory/cognition/emotion.

A linear regression model incorporating sensory worsening, age, social participation, perceived deficit, and spasticity showed an R² adjusted value of 0.73. However, when they looked only at DS 0-3 patients, the R² value strengthened to 0.86. Among the DS 4-6 group, the correlation largely disappeared with an R² value of 0.16. Specifically, there were stronger associations in the DS 0-3 group than the overall group (DS 0-6) between perceived walking deficit and sensory worsening (R² 0.45 vs 0.31), fatigue (0.67 vs 0.05), spasticity (0.47 vs 0.16), and balance (0.8 vs 0.16).

“Most non-motor symptoms do have moderate to weak correlations to walking confidence and walking balance, and quality of life, and the correlations do decline as disability worsens. Those with less disability had more correlations that were stronger, particularly for the walking and balance confidence. So [among those] walking without an aid, there are more non-motor correlations aligned to the actual outcomes. In more disabled, they fell away, so there’s something else going on that we do have to look at,” said Dr. Williams.

She called for other clinicians to explore non-motor symptoms in patients with less disability, and the relationships of those symptoms to gait, balance, and overall MS impact, in the hopes that such observations could improve the tailoring of physiotherapy programs.
 

Perception May Differ From Actual Function

During the Q&A session, Nora Fritz, PhD, an associate professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, asked about the lack of correlations seen in more disabled patients. “It’s not exactly what you would expect to happen,” said Dr. Fritz, in an interview.

She asked Dr. Williams if the study had sufficient power to detect associations in patients with more severe disability, since the study had a relatively small sample size and many predictors in its regression model. Dr. Fritz also noted that perceptions may differ from actual function, so actual function can’t be captured using a survey. Dr. Williams responded that the group is now working to incorporate more clinical measures to their correlations.

Another audience member said she was “perplexed” by the drop-off of correlation in the most severe group. She suggested the possibility that as patients become more disabled, they may be less likely to perceive the relatively less severe non-motor symptoms and therefore did not report them.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Fritz have no relevant financial disclosures.

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE — Among people with MS who have mild symptoms, non-motor symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, and spasticity predict later perception of balance, walking, and physical quality of life. However, these associations fall away among patients with more severe disease, according to a new study performed in Australia. The findings could eventually help tailor physical activity interventions.

The research grew out of frustrations with developing interventions focused on strength. “There are many systematic reviews showing stronger and stronger evidence that exercise is beneficial. It does change your walking. It does improve your balance,” said Katrina Williams, PhD, during a presentation of the results at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

However, when her group’s intervention studies yielded no statistically significant improvements, she began to search for explanations, and began to suspect heterogeneity among MS patients. Their clinic took all comers, regardless of disability level. “[Our attitude was] we will make it work. We’ll get you actively moving and exercising. But when you break down a lot of those systematic reviews, there’s not a lot of teasing out of disability levels. So, potentially, it is the disability level that might be leading to why some people don’t change or why we’re not getting the statistically significant benefits, because we’re not addressing the individual at their level of disease progression,” said Dr. Williams, who is a senior lecturer in physiotherapy at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

“Physiotherapists, we love exercise, we love movement, but we’re a bit unidimensional. It’s some strength training, [or] let’s get on that bike and do cardiovascular. But that may not be enough for individuals who have different symptoms profiles. We’re assuming that the motor profile is the most important, and the one that needs to be addressed in these individuals,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Focusing on Non-Motor Symptoms

When she searched the literature, she could find little evidence of non-motor symptoms correlating to walking, balance, or even quality of life. To dig deeper, her group studied 220 MS patients in Australia who self-reported symptoms of dizziness, vision problems, fatigue, and spasticity. The population had a mean age of 42 years, and 82% were female. They ranged in disease severity from disease step (DS) 0 to DS 6. The researchers categorized respondents as between DS 0 (mild symptoms that were mostly sensory) to DS 3 (MS interferes with walking) and from DS 4 (early cane use) to DS 6 (requiring bilateral walking support).

Deficits were more commonly reported in the DS 4-6 group than the DS 0-3 group with respect to light touch (88% vs 72%), proprioception (63% vs 41%), fatigue (100% vs 96%), and spasticity (78% vs 69%). There were no significant differences in dizziness, vision, or memory/cognition/emotion.

A linear regression model incorporating sensory worsening, age, social participation, perceived deficit, and spasticity showed an R² adjusted value of 0.73. However, when they looked only at DS 0-3 patients, the R² value strengthened to 0.86. Among the DS 4-6 group, the correlation largely disappeared with an R² value of 0.16. Specifically, there were stronger associations in the DS 0-3 group than the overall group (DS 0-6) between perceived walking deficit and sensory worsening (R² 0.45 vs 0.31), fatigue (0.67 vs 0.05), spasticity (0.47 vs 0.16), and balance (0.8 vs 0.16).

“Most non-motor symptoms do have moderate to weak correlations to walking confidence and walking balance, and quality of life, and the correlations do decline as disability worsens. Those with less disability had more correlations that were stronger, particularly for the walking and balance confidence. So [among those] walking without an aid, there are more non-motor correlations aligned to the actual outcomes. In more disabled, they fell away, so there’s something else going on that we do have to look at,” said Dr. Williams.

She called for other clinicians to explore non-motor symptoms in patients with less disability, and the relationships of those symptoms to gait, balance, and overall MS impact, in the hopes that such observations could improve the tailoring of physiotherapy programs.
 

Perception May Differ From Actual Function

During the Q&A session, Nora Fritz, PhD, an associate professor of neurology at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, asked about the lack of correlations seen in more disabled patients. “It’s not exactly what you would expect to happen,” said Dr. Fritz, in an interview.

She asked Dr. Williams if the study had sufficient power to detect associations in patients with more severe disability, since the study had a relatively small sample size and many predictors in its regression model. Dr. Fritz also noted that perceptions may differ from actual function, so actual function can’t be captured using a survey. Dr. Williams responded that the group is now working to incorporate more clinical measures to their correlations.

Another audience member said she was “perplexed” by the drop-off of correlation in the most severe group. She suggested the possibility that as patients become more disabled, they may be less likely to perceive the relatively less severe non-motor symptoms and therefore did not report them.

Dr. Williams and Dr. Fritz have no relevant financial disclosures.

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Early education is right up there with motherhood and apple pie as unarguable positive concepts. How could exposing young children to a school-like atmosphere not be a benefit, particularly in communities dominated by socioeconomic challenges? While there are some questions about the value of playing Mozart to infants, early education in the traditional sense continues to be viewed as a key strategy for providing young children a preschool foundation on which a successful academic career can be built. Several oft-cited randomized controlled trials have fueled both private and public interest and funding.

However, a recent commentary published in Science suggests that all programs are “not unequivocally positive and much more research is needed.” “Worrisome results in Tennessee,” “Success in Boston,” and “Largely null results for Headstart” are just a few of the article’s section titles and convey a sense of the inconsistency the investigators found as they reviewed early education systems around the country.

While there may be some politicians who may attempt to use the results of this investigation as a reason to cancel public funding of underperforming early education programs, the authors avoid this baby-and-the-bathwater conclusion. Instead, they urge more rigorous research “to understand how effective programs can be designed and implemented.”

The kind of re-thinking and brainstorming these investigators suggest takes time. While we’re waiting for this process to gain traction, this might be a good time to consider some of the benefits of early education that we don’t usually consider when our focus is on academic metrics.

A recent paper in Children’s Health Care by investigators at the Boston University Medical Center and School of Medicine considered the diet of children attending preschool. Looking at the dietary records of more than 300 children attending 30 childcare centers, the researchers found that the children’s diets before arrival at daycare was less healthy than while they were in daycare. “The hour after pickup appeared to be the least healthful” of any of the time periods surveyed. Of course, we will all conjure up images of what this chaotic post-daycare pickup may look like and cut the harried parents and grandparents some slack when it comes to nutritional choices. However, the bottom line is that for the group of children surveyed being in preschool or daycare protected them from a less healthy diet they were being provided outside of school hours.

Our recent experience with pandemic-related school closures provides more evidence that being in school was superior to any remote experience academically. School-age children and adolescents gained weight when school closures were the norm. Play patterns for children shifted from outdoor play to indoor play — often dominated by more sedentary video games. Both fatal and non-fatal gun-related injuries surged during the pandemic and, by far, the majority of these occur in the home and not at school.

Stepping back to look at this broader picture that includes diet, physical activity, and safety — not to mention the benefits of socialization — leads one to arrive at the unfortunate conclusion that for many children in this country, being at home is considerably less healthy than being in school. Of course there will be those who point to the belief that schools are petri dishes putting children at greater risk for respiratory infections. On the other hand, we must accept that schools haven’t proved to be a major factor in the spread of COVID that many had feared.

The authors of the study in Science are certainly correct in recommending a more thorough investigation into the academic benefits of preschool education. However, we must keep in mind that preschool offers an environment that can be a positive influence on young children.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Women who used levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LG-IUDs) were 22% less likely to have a stroke than those who did not use hormonal contraception, new research suggested.

The Danish study, which included 1.7 million women, also showed no increased risk for intracerebral hemorrhage for those using the IUDs.

“The finding raises the question of whether levonorgestrel, in addition to its contraceptive properties, could have the potential to prevent (ischemic stroke),” wrote corresponding author Tom Skyhøj Olsen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, and coauthors.

The research was published online on May 16, 2024, in the journal Stroke.
 

A Big-Picture Look

Commonly used combined hormonal contraceptives that contain both progestins and ethinylestradiol are linked to an increased risk for ischemic stroke. Previous research suggested that progestin-only options, including LG-IUDs, are not associated with elevated risk and may even lower the risk. The IUDs had also been previously associated with lower risk for thromboembolism.

The new study was a large-scale investigation of all reproductive-age women in Denmark that compared stroke risk in those who used the progestin-only IUDs with those who didn’t use hormonal contraception. It also examined the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage, which had not been previously studied.

The historic cohort study drew on several large national databases in Denmark, including the Danish Stroke Registry, to evaluate the interplay between IUD contraception, stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. The study looked back at data collected on all nonpregnant Danish women aged 18-49 years who lived in Denmark for some or all of the period between 2004 and 2021.

Mean age of the 1.7 million women in the study was 30 years, and the mean follow-up period was about 7 years. More than 364,700 participants used LG-IUDs.

During the study period, 2916 women had an ischemic stroke, and 367 experienced intracerebral hemorrhage.

Among IUD users, the incidence of stroke was 19.2 per 100,000 person years. For women who didn’t use contraception, the rate was 25.2.

Overall, those who used an IUD had a 22% lower risk for ischemic stroke than those who didn’t (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

The incidence of brain bleeds was similar in both groups.

Does Age Matter?

The incidence of stroke did not differ significantly between the three age groups analyzed in the study: Women aged 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were similar between age groups 30-39 years and 40-49 years, but the risk was higher for those aged 18-29 years than for those aged 40-49 years (IRR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.65-12.19).

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the apparent higher risk for brain bleeds in younger women, noting that the overall number of events was low, resulting in wide CIs.

Investigators also found that women who moved to Denmark from non-Western countries had a significantly lower stroke rate than native Danes. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were not affected by country of origin.

The research team noted that they had only indirect information about women’s stroke risk factors including diabetes, high blood pressure, and migraine and had no information about smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

“Regarding a possible potential for stroke prevention, our study cannot stand alone and requires confirmation in further research. Even though the incidence rate for [ischemic stroke] and [intracerebral hemorrhage] did not significantly change after adjustment for various factors, bias…cannot be fully ruled out,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who used levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LG-IUDs) were 22% less likely to have a stroke than those who did not use hormonal contraception, new research suggested.

The Danish study, which included 1.7 million women, also showed no increased risk for intracerebral hemorrhage for those using the IUDs.

“The finding raises the question of whether levonorgestrel, in addition to its contraceptive properties, could have the potential to prevent (ischemic stroke),” wrote corresponding author Tom Skyhøj Olsen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, and coauthors.

The research was published online on May 16, 2024, in the journal Stroke.
 

A Big-Picture Look

Commonly used combined hormonal contraceptives that contain both progestins and ethinylestradiol are linked to an increased risk for ischemic stroke. Previous research suggested that progestin-only options, including LG-IUDs, are not associated with elevated risk and may even lower the risk. The IUDs had also been previously associated with lower risk for thromboembolism.

The new study was a large-scale investigation of all reproductive-age women in Denmark that compared stroke risk in those who used the progestin-only IUDs with those who didn’t use hormonal contraception. It also examined the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage, which had not been previously studied.

The historic cohort study drew on several large national databases in Denmark, including the Danish Stroke Registry, to evaluate the interplay between IUD contraception, stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. The study looked back at data collected on all nonpregnant Danish women aged 18-49 years who lived in Denmark for some or all of the period between 2004 and 2021.

Mean age of the 1.7 million women in the study was 30 years, and the mean follow-up period was about 7 years. More than 364,700 participants used LG-IUDs.

During the study period, 2916 women had an ischemic stroke, and 367 experienced intracerebral hemorrhage.

Among IUD users, the incidence of stroke was 19.2 per 100,000 person years. For women who didn’t use contraception, the rate was 25.2.

Overall, those who used an IUD had a 22% lower risk for ischemic stroke than those who didn’t (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

The incidence of brain bleeds was similar in both groups.

Does Age Matter?

The incidence of stroke did not differ significantly between the three age groups analyzed in the study: Women aged 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were similar between age groups 30-39 years and 40-49 years, but the risk was higher for those aged 18-29 years than for those aged 40-49 years (IRR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.65-12.19).

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the apparent higher risk for brain bleeds in younger women, noting that the overall number of events was low, resulting in wide CIs.

Investigators also found that women who moved to Denmark from non-Western countries had a significantly lower stroke rate than native Danes. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were not affected by country of origin.

The research team noted that they had only indirect information about women’s stroke risk factors including diabetes, high blood pressure, and migraine and had no information about smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

“Regarding a possible potential for stroke prevention, our study cannot stand alone and requires confirmation in further research. Even though the incidence rate for [ischemic stroke] and [intracerebral hemorrhage] did not significantly change after adjustment for various factors, bias…cannot be fully ruled out,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Women who used levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices (LG-IUDs) were 22% less likely to have a stroke than those who did not use hormonal contraception, new research suggested.

The Danish study, which included 1.7 million women, also showed no increased risk for intracerebral hemorrhage for those using the IUDs.

“The finding raises the question of whether levonorgestrel, in addition to its contraceptive properties, could have the potential to prevent (ischemic stroke),” wrote corresponding author Tom Skyhøj Olsen, MD, PhD, of Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark, and coauthors.

The research was published online on May 16, 2024, in the journal Stroke.
 

A Big-Picture Look

Commonly used combined hormonal contraceptives that contain both progestins and ethinylestradiol are linked to an increased risk for ischemic stroke. Previous research suggested that progestin-only options, including LG-IUDs, are not associated with elevated risk and may even lower the risk. The IUDs had also been previously associated with lower risk for thromboembolism.

The new study was a large-scale investigation of all reproductive-age women in Denmark that compared stroke risk in those who used the progestin-only IUDs with those who didn’t use hormonal contraception. It also examined the risk for intracerebral hemorrhage, which had not been previously studied.

The historic cohort study drew on several large national databases in Denmark, including the Danish Stroke Registry, to evaluate the interplay between IUD contraception, stroke, and intracerebral hemorrhage. The study looked back at data collected on all nonpregnant Danish women aged 18-49 years who lived in Denmark for some or all of the period between 2004 and 2021.

Mean age of the 1.7 million women in the study was 30 years, and the mean follow-up period was about 7 years. More than 364,700 participants used LG-IUDs.

During the study period, 2916 women had an ischemic stroke, and 367 experienced intracerebral hemorrhage.

Among IUD users, the incidence of stroke was 19.2 per 100,000 person years. For women who didn’t use contraception, the rate was 25.2.

Overall, those who used an IUD had a 22% lower risk for ischemic stroke than those who didn’t (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88).

The incidence of brain bleeds was similar in both groups.

Does Age Matter?

The incidence of stroke did not differ significantly between the three age groups analyzed in the study: Women aged 18-29 years, 30-39 years, and 40-49 years. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were similar between age groups 30-39 years and 40-49 years, but the risk was higher for those aged 18-29 years than for those aged 40-49 years (IRR, 4.49; 95% CI, 1.65-12.19).

The researchers urged caution in interpreting the apparent higher risk for brain bleeds in younger women, noting that the overall number of events was low, resulting in wide CIs.

Investigators also found that women who moved to Denmark from non-Western countries had a significantly lower stroke rate than native Danes. Incidence rates of intracerebral hemorrhage were not affected by country of origin.

The research team noted that they had only indirect information about women’s stroke risk factors including diabetes, high blood pressure, and migraine and had no information about smoking, alcohol consumption, and body mass index.

“Regarding a possible potential for stroke prevention, our study cannot stand alone and requires confirmation in further research. Even though the incidence rate for [ischemic stroke] and [intracerebral hemorrhage] did not significantly change after adjustment for various factors, bias…cannot be fully ruled out,” the researchers wrote.

The study was funded by the Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and Familien Hede Nielsens Fond. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with concomitant atopic dermatitis (AD) and alopecia areata (AA) who were treated with dupilumab demonstrated significant hair regrowth over a mean of nearly 68 weeks, preliminary results from a small case series showed.

“We might be opening a new avenue for a safe, long-term treatment for our children with AA,” the study’s lead investigator, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview during the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID), where the results were presented during a poster session. “I think AA is likely joining the atopic march, which may allow us to adapt some treatments from the atopy world to AA.”

When the original phase 2 and phase 3 trials of dupilumab for patients with moderate to severe AD were being conducted, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, one of the investigators, recalled observing that some patients who also had patch alopecia experienced hair regrowth. “I was scratching my head because, at the time, AA was considered to be only a Th1-driven disease,” she said. “I asked myself, ‘How can this happen?’ I looked in the literature and found many publications linking atopy in general to alopecia areata. The largest of the dermatologic publications showed that eczema and atopy in general are the highest comorbidities in alopecia areata.”

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“This and other findings such as IL [interleukin]-13 genetic linkage with AA and high IgE in patients with AA link AA with Th2 immune skewing, particularly in the setting of atopy,” she continued. In addition, she said, in a large biomarker study involving the scalp and blood of patients with AA, “we found increases in Th2 biomarkers that were associated with alopecia severity.”
 

Case Series of 20 Pediatric Patients

As part of a case series of children with both AD and AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky and colleagues evaluated hair regrowth using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) in 20 pediatric patients (mean age, 10.8 years) who were being treated at Mount Sinai. They collected patient demographics, atopic history, immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and SALT scores at follow-up visits every 12-16 weeks for more than 72 weeks and performed Spearman correlations between clinical scores, demographics, and IgE levels.

At baseline, the mean SALT score was 54.4, the mean IgE level was 1567.7 IU/mL, and 75% of patients also had a family history of atopy. The mean follow-up was 67.6 weeks. The researchers observed a significant reduction in SALT scores at week 48 compared with baseline (a mean score of 20.4; P < .01) and continued improvement up to at least 72 weeks (P < .01 vs baseline). They also noted that patients who achieved a treatment response at week 24 had baseline IgE levels > 200 IU/mL.

In other findings, baseline IgE positively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at week 36 (P < .05), while baseline SALT scores positively correlated with disease duration (P < .01) and negatively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at weeks 24, 36, and 48 (P < .005). “The robustness of the response surprised me,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in the interview. “Dupilumab for AA takes time to work, but once it kicks in, it kicks in. It takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months to see hair regrowth.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its small sample size and the fact that it was not a standardized trial. “But, based on our data and the adult data, we are very encouraged about the potential of using dupilumab for children with AA,” she said.

Mount Sinai recently announced that the National Institutes of Health awarded a $6.6 million, 5-year grant to Dr. Guttman-Yassky to further investigate dupilumab as a treatment for children with AA. She will lead a multicenter controlled trial of 76 children with alopecia affecting at least 30% of the scalp, who will be randomized 2:1 (dupilumab:placebo) for 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of open-label dupilumab for all participants, with 16 weeks of follow-up, for a total of 112 weeks. Participating sites include Mount Sinai, Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky disclosed that she is a consultant to many pharmaceutical companies, including dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with concomitant atopic dermatitis (AD) and alopecia areata (AA) who were treated with dupilumab demonstrated significant hair regrowth over a mean of nearly 68 weeks, preliminary results from a small case series showed.

“We might be opening a new avenue for a safe, long-term treatment for our children with AA,” the study’s lead investigator, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview during the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID), where the results were presented during a poster session. “I think AA is likely joining the atopic march, which may allow us to adapt some treatments from the atopy world to AA.”

When the original phase 2 and phase 3 trials of dupilumab for patients with moderate to severe AD were being conducted, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, one of the investigators, recalled observing that some patients who also had patch alopecia experienced hair regrowth. “I was scratching my head because, at the time, AA was considered to be only a Th1-driven disease,” she said. “I asked myself, ‘How can this happen?’ I looked in the literature and found many publications linking atopy in general to alopecia areata. The largest of the dermatologic publications showed that eczema and atopy in general are the highest comorbidities in alopecia areata.”

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“This and other findings such as IL [interleukin]-13 genetic linkage with AA and high IgE in patients with AA link AA with Th2 immune skewing, particularly in the setting of atopy,” she continued. In addition, she said, in a large biomarker study involving the scalp and blood of patients with AA, “we found increases in Th2 biomarkers that were associated with alopecia severity.”
 

Case Series of 20 Pediatric Patients

As part of a case series of children with both AD and AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky and colleagues evaluated hair regrowth using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) in 20 pediatric patients (mean age, 10.8 years) who were being treated at Mount Sinai. They collected patient demographics, atopic history, immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and SALT scores at follow-up visits every 12-16 weeks for more than 72 weeks and performed Spearman correlations between clinical scores, demographics, and IgE levels.

At baseline, the mean SALT score was 54.4, the mean IgE level was 1567.7 IU/mL, and 75% of patients also had a family history of atopy. The mean follow-up was 67.6 weeks. The researchers observed a significant reduction in SALT scores at week 48 compared with baseline (a mean score of 20.4; P < .01) and continued improvement up to at least 72 weeks (P < .01 vs baseline). They also noted that patients who achieved a treatment response at week 24 had baseline IgE levels > 200 IU/mL.

In other findings, baseline IgE positively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at week 36 (P < .05), while baseline SALT scores positively correlated with disease duration (P < .01) and negatively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at weeks 24, 36, and 48 (P < .005). “The robustness of the response surprised me,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in the interview. “Dupilumab for AA takes time to work, but once it kicks in, it kicks in. It takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months to see hair regrowth.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its small sample size and the fact that it was not a standardized trial. “But, based on our data and the adult data, we are very encouraged about the potential of using dupilumab for children with AA,” she said.

Mount Sinai recently announced that the National Institutes of Health awarded a $6.6 million, 5-year grant to Dr. Guttman-Yassky to further investigate dupilumab as a treatment for children with AA. She will lead a multicenter controlled trial of 76 children with alopecia affecting at least 30% of the scalp, who will be randomized 2:1 (dupilumab:placebo) for 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of open-label dupilumab for all participants, with 16 weeks of follow-up, for a total of 112 weeks. Participating sites include Mount Sinai, Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky disclosed that she is a consultant to many pharmaceutical companies, including dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children with concomitant atopic dermatitis (AD) and alopecia areata (AA) who were treated with dupilumab demonstrated significant hair regrowth over a mean of nearly 68 weeks, preliminary results from a small case series showed.

“We might be opening a new avenue for a safe, long-term treatment for our children with AA,” the study’s lead investigator, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, said in an interview during the annual meeting of the Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID), where the results were presented during a poster session. “I think AA is likely joining the atopic march, which may allow us to adapt some treatments from the atopy world to AA.”

When the original phase 2 and phase 3 trials of dupilumab for patients with moderate to severe AD were being conducted, Dr. Guttman-Yassky, one of the investigators, recalled observing that some patients who also had patch alopecia experienced hair regrowth. “I was scratching my head because, at the time, AA was considered to be only a Th1-driven disease,” she said. “I asked myself, ‘How can this happen?’ I looked in the literature and found many publications linking atopy in general to alopecia areata. The largest of the dermatologic publications showed that eczema and atopy in general are the highest comorbidities in alopecia areata.”

Courtesy Mount Sinai Health System

“This and other findings such as IL [interleukin]-13 genetic linkage with AA and high IgE in patients with AA link AA with Th2 immune skewing, particularly in the setting of atopy,” she continued. In addition, she said, in a large biomarker study involving the scalp and blood of patients with AA, “we found increases in Th2 biomarkers that were associated with alopecia severity.”
 

Case Series of 20 Pediatric Patients

As part of a case series of children with both AD and AA, Dr. Guttman-Yassky and colleagues evaluated hair regrowth using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) in 20 pediatric patients (mean age, 10.8 years) who were being treated at Mount Sinai. They collected patient demographics, atopic history, immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, and SALT scores at follow-up visits every 12-16 weeks for more than 72 weeks and performed Spearman correlations between clinical scores, demographics, and IgE levels.

At baseline, the mean SALT score was 54.4, the mean IgE level was 1567.7 IU/mL, and 75% of patients also had a family history of atopy. The mean follow-up was 67.6 weeks. The researchers observed a significant reduction in SALT scores at week 48 compared with baseline (a mean score of 20.4; P < .01) and continued improvement up to at least 72 weeks (P < .01 vs baseline). They also noted that patients who achieved a treatment response at week 24 had baseline IgE levels > 200 IU/mL.

In other findings, baseline IgE positively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at week 36 (P < .05), while baseline SALT scores positively correlated with disease duration (P < .01) and negatively correlated with improvement in SALT scores at weeks 24, 36, and 48 (P < .005). “The robustness of the response surprised me,” Dr. Guttman-Yassky said in the interview. “Dupilumab for AA takes time to work, but once it kicks in, it kicks in. It takes anywhere from 6 to 12 months to see hair regrowth.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its small sample size and the fact that it was not a standardized trial. “But, based on our data and the adult data, we are very encouraged about the potential of using dupilumab for children with AA,” she said.

Mount Sinai recently announced that the National Institutes of Health awarded a $6.6 million, 5-year grant to Dr. Guttman-Yassky to further investigate dupilumab as a treatment for children with AA. She will lead a multicenter controlled trial of 76 children with alopecia affecting at least 30% of the scalp, who will be randomized 2:1 (dupilumab:placebo) for 48 weeks, followed by 48 weeks of open-label dupilumab for all participants, with 16 weeks of follow-up, for a total of 112 weeks. Participating sites include Mount Sinai, Yale University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Irvine.

Dr. Guttman-Yassky disclosed that she is a consultant to many pharmaceutical companies, including dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with low bone density are more likely to report their first fragility hip fracture in their 60s rather than at older ages.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used hip fracture data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey for 2009-2010, 2013-2014, and 2017-2018.
• They included women older than 60 years with a bone mineral density T score ≤ −1 at the femur neck, measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry.
• Fragility fractures are defined as a self-reported hip fracture resulting from a fall from standing height or less.

TAKEAWAY:

• The number of women in their 60s who reported their first hip fracture grew by 50% from 2009 to 2018.
• The opposite was true for women in their 70s and 80s who reported fewer first hip fractures over the study period.
• Reported fragility hip fractures in women overall decreased by half from 2009 to 2018.
• The prevalence of women with osteoporosis (T score ≤ −2.5) grew from 18.1% to 21.3% over 10 years.

IN PRACTICE:

The decrease in fractures overall and in women older than 70 years “may be due to increasing awareness and utilization of measures to decrease falls such as exercise, nutrition, health education, and environmental modifications targeted toward the elderly population,” the authors wrote. The findings also underscore the importance of earlier bone health awareness in primary care to curb the rising trend in younger women, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Avica Atri, MD, of Albert Einstein Medical Center in Philadelphia. She presented the findings at ENDO 2024: The Endocrine Society Annual Meeting.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was retrospective in nature and included self-reported health data.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Tricia Ward: Hi. I’m Tricia Ward, from theheart.org/Medscape Cardiology. I’m joined today by Dr Matthew Budoff. He is professor of medicine at UCLA and the endowed chair of preventive cardiology at the Lundquist Institute. Welcome, Dr Budoff. 

Matthew J. Budoff, MD: Thank you. 

Dietary Calcium vs Coronary Calcium

Ms. Ward: The reason I wanted to talk to you today is because there have been some recent studies linking calcium supplements to an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. I’m old enough to remember when we used to tell people that dietary calcium and coronary calcium weren’t connected and weren’t the same. Were we wrong?

Dr. Budoff: I think there’s a large amount of mixed data out there still. The US Preventive Services Task Force looked into this a number of years ago and said there’s no association between calcium supplementation and increased risk for cardiovascular disease. 

As you mentioned, there are a couple of newer studies that point us toward a relationship. I think that we still have a little bit of a mixed bag, but we need to dive a little deeper into that to figure out what’s going on. 

Ms. Ward: Does it appear to be connected to calcium in the form of supplements vs calcium from foods? 

Dr. Budoff: We looked very carefully at dietary calcium in the MESA study, the multiethnic study of atherosclerosis. There is no relationship between dietary calcium intake and coronary calcium or cardiovascular events. We’re talking mostly about supplements now when we talk about this increased risk that we’re seeing.
 

Does Vitamin D Exacerbate Risk? 

Ms. Ward: Because it’s seen with supplements, is that likely because that’s a much higher concentration of calcium coming in or do you think it’s something inherent in its being in the form of a supplement?

Dr. Budoff: I think there are two things. One, it’s definitely a higher concentration all at once. You get many more milligrams at a time when you take a supplement than if you had a high-calcium food or drink.

Also, most supplements have vitamin D as well. I think vitamin D and calcium work synergistically. When you give them both together simultaneously, I think that may have more of a potentiating effect that might exacerbate any potential risk. 

Ms. Ward: Is there any reason to think there might be a difference in type of calcium supplement? I always think of the chalky tablet form vs calcium chews. 

Dr. Budoff: I’m not aware of a difference in the supplement type. I think the vitamin D issue is a big problem because we all have patients who take thousands of units of vitamin D — just crazy numbers. People advocate really high numbers and that stays in the system. 

Personally, I think part of the explanation is that with very high levels of vitamin D on top of calcium supplementation, you now absorb it better. You now get it into the bone, but maybe also into the coronary arteries. If you’re very high in vitamin D and then are taking a large calcium supplement, it might be the calcium/vitamin D combination that’s giving us some trouble. I think people on vitamin D supplements really need to watch their levels and not get supratherapeutic. 

Ms. Ward: With the vitamin D? 

Dr. Budoff: With the vitamin D.
 

Diabetes and Renal Function

Ms. Ward: In some of the studies, there seems to be a higher risk in patients with diabetes. Is there any reason why that would be?

Dr. Budoff: I can’t think of a reason exactly why with diabetes per se, except for renal disease. Patients with diabetes have more intrinsic renal disease, proteinuria, and even a reduced eGFR. We’ve seen that the kidney is very strongly tied to this. We have a very strong relationship, in work I’ve done a decade ago now, showing that calcium supplementation (in the form of phosphate binders) in patients on dialysis or with advanced renal disease is linked to much higher coronary calcium progression. 

We did prospective, randomized trials showing that calcium intake as binders to reduce phosphorus led to more coronary calcium. We always thought that was just relegated to the renal population, and there might be an overlap here with the diabetes and more renal disease. I have a feeling that it has to do with more of that. It might be regulation of parathyroid hormone as well, which might be more abnormal in patients with diabetes. 
 

Avoid Supratherapeutic Vitamin D Levels

Ms. Ward:: What are you telling your patients? 

Dr. Budoff: I tell patients with normal kidney function that the bone will modulate 99.9% of the calcium uptake. If they have osteopenia or osteoporosis, regardless of their calcium score, I’m very comfortable putting them on supplements. 

I’m a little more cautious with the vitamin D levels, and I keep an eye on that and regulate how much vitamin D they get based on their levels. I get them into the normal range, but I don’t want them supratherapeutic. You can even follow their calcium score. Again, we’ve shown that if you’re taking too much calcium, your calcium score will go up. I can just check it again in a couple of years to make sure that it’s safe. 

Ms. Ward:: In terms of vitamin D levels, when you’re saying “supratherapeutic,” what levels do you consider a safe amount to take?

Dr. Budoff: I’d like them under 100 ng/mL as far as their upper level. Normal is around 70 ng/mL at most labs. I try to keep them in the normal range. I don’t even want them to be high-normal if I’m going to be concomitantly giving them calcium supplements. Of course, if they have renal insufficiency, then I’m much more cautious. We’ve even seen calcium supplements raise the serum calcium, which you never see with dietary calcium. That’s another potential proof that it might be too much too fast. 

For renal patients, even in mild renal insufficiency, maybe even in diabetes where we’ve seen a signal, maybe aim lower in the amount of calcium supplementation if diet is insufficient, and aim a little lower in vitamin D targets, and I think you’ll be in a safer place. 

Ms. Ward: Is there anything else you want to add? 

Dr. Budoff: The evidence is still evolving. I’d say that it’s interesting and maybe a little frustrating that we don’t have a final answer on all of this. I would stay tuned for more data because we’re looking at many of the epidemiologic studies to try to see what happens in the real world, with both dietary intake of calcium and calcium supplementation. 

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today. 

Dr. Budoff: It’s a pleasure. Thanks for having me. 

Dr. Budoff disclosed being a speaker for Amarin Pharma.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

LYON, FRANCE — High levels of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] in the blood are associated with a significantly increased risk for chronic kidney disease, report investigators who are studying the link in a two-part study of more than 100,000 people.

There is already genetic evidence showing that Lp(a) can cause cardiovascular conditions, including myocardial infarction, aortic valve stenosis, peripheral artery disease, and ischemic stroke.

Now, researchers presenting at the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) 2024 Congress are adding new organs – the kidneys – to the list of those that can be damaged by elevated Lp(a).

“This is very important,” said lead investigator Anne Langsted, MD, PhD, DMSc, from the Department of Clinical Biochemistry at the Rigshospitalet in Denmark. And “hopefully, we’ll have a treatment for Lp(a) on the market very soon. Until then, I think individuals who have kidney disease would benefit a lot from reducing other risk factors, if they also have high levels” of Lp(a).

Using data gathered from the Copenhagen General Population Study, the study involved 108,439 individuals who had a range of tests including estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), plasma Lp(a) levels, and LPA genotyping. The patients were then linked to a series of national registries to study outcomes. 

The researchers conducted two separate analyses: an observational study of Lp(a) levels in 70,040 individuals and a Mendelian randomization study of LPA kringle IV–type 2 domain repeats in 106,624 individuals. The number of those repeats is inversely associated with median Lp(a) plasma levels.

The observational study showed that eGFR decreased with increasing median plasma Lp(a) levels; the Mendelian randomization study indicated that eGFR decreased KIV-2 repeat numbers dropped.

Across both parts of the study, it was found that each 50 mg/dL increase in plasma Lp(a) levels was associated with an increased risk of at least 25% for chronic kidney disease.
 

Lp(a) and Chronic Kidney Disease

When high plasma levels of Lp(a) have been spotted before in patients with kidney disease, “we’ve kind of assumed that it was probably the kidney disease that caused the higher levels,” Dr. Langsted said. But her team hypothesized that the opposite was at play and that Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and increased plasma Lp(a) levels may be causally associated with rising risk for chronic kidney disease.

Gerald F. Watts, MD, PhD, DSc, Winthrop Professor of cardiometabolic and internal medicine at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and co-chair of the study, said in an interview that “although Mendelian randomization is a technique that allows you to infer causality, it’s probably a little bit more complex than that in reality,” adding that there is likely a bidirectional relationship between Lp(a) and chronic kidney disease.

Having increased Lp(a) levels on their own is not sufficient to trigger chronic kidney disease. “You probably need another event and then you get into a vicious cycle,” Dr. Watts said.

The mechanism linking Lp(a) with chronic kidney disease remains unclear, but Dr. Watts explained that the lipoprotein probably damages the renal tubes when it is reabsorbed after it dissociates from low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

The next step will be to identify the people who are most susceptible to this and figure out what treatment might help. Dr. Watts suggested that gene silencing, in which Lp(a) is “completely obliterated,” will lead to an improvement in renal function.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

They call it the “golden hour”: 60 minutes, give or take, when the chance to save the life of a trauma victim is at its greatest. If the patient can be resuscitated and stabilized in that time window, they stand a good chance of surviving. If not, well, they don’t.

But resuscitation is complicated. It requires blood products, fluids, vasopressors — all given in precise doses in response to rapidly changing hemodynamics. To do it right takes specialized training, advanced life support (ALS). If the patient is in a remote area or an area without ALS-certified emergency medical services, or is far from the nearest trauma center, that golden hour is lost. And the patient may be as well.

But we live in the future. We have robots in factories, self-driving cars, autonomous drones. Why not an autonomous trauma doctor? If you are in a life-threatening accident, would you want to be treated ... by a robot?

Enter “resuscitation based on functional hemodynamic monitoring,” or “ReFit,” introduced in this article appearing in the journal Intensive Care Medicine Experimental.

The idea behind ReFit is straightforward. Resuscitation after trauma should be based on hitting key hemodynamic targets using the tools we have available in the field: blood, fluids, pressors. The researchers wanted to develop a closed-loop system, something that could be used by minimally trained personnel. The input to the system? Hemodynamic data, provided through a single measurement device, an arterial catheter. The output: blood, fluids, and pressors, delivered intravenously.

The body (a prototype) of the system looks like this. You can see various pumps labeled with various fluids, electronic controllers, and so forth.

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Nate Langer, UPMC

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Intensive Care Medicine Experimental

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.