User login
Monoclonal Antibody With Unique Mechanism Gets Second Chance in RA
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.
The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).
However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.
Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
Choice of Endpoint
“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.
DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.
“Ironically, it has to be said that had we chosen ACR20, we would have hit the primary endpoint. One lives and learns,” noted Dr. Taylor.
Proof of Concept
IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.
The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.
Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.
“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
Are ACPA Really Lowered?
Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.
Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”
Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”
Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.
“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.
“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.
As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
Safety and Other Results
With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).
There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.
Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).
Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
Combination and Further Trials
Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.
In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.
The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.
The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).
However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.
Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
Choice of Endpoint
“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.
DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.
“Ironically, it has to be said that had we chosen ACR20, we would have hit the primary endpoint. One lives and learns,” noted Dr. Taylor.
Proof of Concept
IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.
The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.
Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.
“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
Are ACPA Really Lowered?
Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.
Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”
Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”
Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.
“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.
“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.
As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
Safety and Other Results
With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).
There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.
Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).
Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
Combination and Further Trials
Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.
In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.
The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The IRIS-RA study of the investigational monoclonal antibody drug nipocalimab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) did not meet its primary endpoint, but there could still be people with moderate to severe RA who might benefit from treatment with the drug, according to information reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual meeting.
The primary endpoint for the phase 2A trial was the least squares mean change in Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) from baseline to 12 weeks of treatment. This was reduced by −1.03 with nipocalimab and by −0.58 with placebo, giving a mean difference of just −0.45 (P = .224).
However, one of the key secondary endpoints was the proportion of patients who had 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR20). Results for this endpoint showed a greater difference in response to nipocalimab vs placebo, with a respective 45.5% and 20.0% (P = .055) of individuals achieving ACR20.
Moreover, an analysis stratifying for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibody (ACPA) levels at baseline found that people with higher levels had a better response to nipocalimab.
Choice of Endpoint
“The way this study was powered was to look at a change between the treatment groups of a DAS28-CRP reduction of 1.0,” said Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in Oxford, England.
DAS28-CRP was often chosen as the primary endpoint in small proof-of-concept studies, such as IRIS-RA, because it was a “measure of continuous change [that] theoretically, would allow greater sensitivity to change,” Dr. Taylor added.
“Ironically, it has to be said that had we chosen ACR20, we would have hit the primary endpoint. One lives and learns,” noted Dr. Taylor.
Proof of Concept
IRIS-RA was billed as a “proof-of-concept” study because it was the first time that a monoclonal antibody targeting the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor (FcRn) was being tested in an RA population.
The study was a randomized double-blind trial in which 33 people with moderate to severe RA who had an inadequate response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors were treated with nipocalimab at a dose of 15 mg/kg given intravenously every 2 weeks, and 20 received a matching placebo. Participants were treated for 10 weeks, and then the primary follow-up was at 12 weeks, with additional follow-up for safety undertaken at 18 weeks.
Nipocalimab is a fully human, immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1) monoclonal antibody that is designed to selectively block the FcRn. By doing so, it essentially stops IgG from being recycled within the immune system, and this in turn lowers IgG levels. That includes potentially harmful ACPAs, among other pathogenic antibodies, Dr. Taylor and fellow investigators explained in their abstract.
“We’ve known for a long time that ACPA have prognostic value, but there’s been controversy about whether or not ACPA are actually pathogenic,” Dr. Taylor said. “So, one of the hypotheses that this study gives rise to is that by blocking FcRn, and thereby reducing, potentially, the concentration of ACPA in the blood, will we actually have efficacy in patients?”
Are ACPA Really Lowered?
Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in Leeds, England, questioned the reduction in antibody levels during the discussion that followed.
Although these data had not been presented, Dr. Emery observed that the reduction in IgG was actually greater than that in ACPA, “which is fairly critical. Is it feasible to look to selectively lower normal immunoglobulin over pathogenic autoantibodies?”
Dr. Emery also wanted to know if there “was a floor on the reduction of immunoglobulin” with long-term therapy, “which would be a worry.”
Dr. Taylor responded that total IgG had been reduced by about 65% and ACPA by about 40%. Why this difference exists is not yet clear. It could be because ACPA are part of complexed antibodies.
“Most of these patients are rheumatoid factor [RF]–positive,” said Taylor, pointing out that although IgM “wouldn’t normally be affected by FcRn blockade,” there was a 10% reduction in RF IgM, probably because it was complexed to IgG.
“So, the hypothesis here is that if you look at the clearance of complexes, they’re handled differently in the cytoplasm from the clearance of monomeric IgG. But that’s a hypothesis. It needs further investigation. In vitro, there’s very good, confirmatory evidence to support that. But we’ve yet to explore that more fully in vivo,” Dr. Taylor said.
As for long-term effects, Dr. Taylor responded: “All I can tell you is [that] after the 10-week intervention, that up to an 18-week observation period, immunoglobulin levels recovered very rapidly afterwards. And you mustn’t forget that other isotypes are not affected, unlike rituximab.”
Safety and Other Results
With regard to safety, 27 (82%) of nipocalimab- and 12 (60%) of placebo-treated participants experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). The most common, occurring in 10% or more of cases, were RA flares (36.4% for nipocalimab vs 15.0% with placebo), headache (12.1% vs 5.0%), and COVID-19 (12.1% vs 0.0%).
There were three serious TEAEs, all in the nipocalimab-treatment group: One was an infection of a burn that had been present at inclusion, another was a deep vein thrombosis that resolved with apixaban treatment, and the other was an infusion-related reaction that resolved with supportive treatment.
Another notable efficacy finding was the proportion of patients achieving DAS28-CRP remission at 12 weeks in the nipocalimab vs the placebo group was substantially greater if considering only people with high baseline ACPA levels, at a respective 40.0% vs 16.7%, when compared with the total population (21.2% vs 10.0%).
Similar findings were seen for the proportion of patients achieving an ACR50, and there were numerically greater reductions in the components of the ACR response criteria such as tender and swollen joints with nipocalimab vs placebo. All of these were exploratory observations, Dr. Taylor emphasized.
Combination and Further Trials
Further trials of nipocalimab are planned or are already ongoing in systemic lupus erythematosus, active lupus nephritis, Sjögren disease, and five other diseases.
In RA, nipocalimab is now being tested in combination with the TNF inhibitor certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) in the DAISY-RA trial. This is another proof-of-concept, phase 2A trial with a target accrual of 104 patients.
The IRIS-RA study was funded by Janssen Research & Development. Dr. Taylor serves as a consultant to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB and received research funding from Galapagos, among others. Dr. Emery received research grants paid to his institution from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Pfizer, MSD, and Roche; received consultant fees from BMS, AbbVie, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and UCB; and has undertaken clinical trials and provided expert advice to Pfizer, MSD, AbbVie, BMS, UCB, Roche, Novartis, Samsung, Sandoz, and Lilly.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BSR 2024
Survey Spotlights Identification of Dermatologic Adverse Events From Cancer Therapies
“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.
The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”
To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.
Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).
“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”
Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”
Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.
“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”
Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.
The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”
To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.
Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).
“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”
Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”
Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.
“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”
Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.
The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”
To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.
Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).
“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”
Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”
Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”
Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.
“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”
Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM AAD 2024
Traffic Noise Negatively Impacts Health
New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.
Morbidity and Mortality
Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
Consequences and Pathomechanisms
In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.
The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.
Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor
“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”
Heart Attack Outcomes
Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.
The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.
The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.
Clinical Confirmation
These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”
Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).
The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.
Mental Health Effects
Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.
Depression Risk Doubled
Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.
Fine Particulate Matter
According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”
This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.
New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.
Morbidity and Mortality
Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
Consequences and Pathomechanisms
In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.
The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.
Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor
“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”
Heart Attack Outcomes
Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.
The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.
The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.
Clinical Confirmation
These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”
Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).
The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.
Mental Health Effects
Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.
Depression Risk Doubled
Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.
Fine Particulate Matter
According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”
This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.
New research by Thomas Münzel, MD, senior professor of cardiology at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz in Mainz, Germany, and colleagues again emphasized the harmful effects of noise on the heart and blood vessels. An analysis of current epidemiologic data provided strong indications that transportation noise is closely related to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, according to a statement on the data analysis. The results were published in Circulation Research.
Morbidity and Mortality
Epidemiologic studies have shown that road, rail, or air traffic noise increases the risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, with strong evidence for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, according to the scientists. These factors could favor vascular (endothelial) dysfunction, inflammation, and hypertension, thereby increasing cardiovascular risk.
Consequences and Pathomechanisms
In the current publication, the authors provided an overview of epidemiologic research on the effects of transportation noise on cardiovascular risk factors and diseases, discussed mechanistic insights from the latest clinical and experimental studies, and proposed new risk markers to address noise-induced cardiovascular effects in the general population. An integrated analysis in the article demonstrated that for every 10 dB(A) increase, the risk for cardiovascular diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and heart failure significantly increases by 3.2%.
The authors also explained the possible effects of noise on changes in gene networks, epigenetic pathways, circadian rhythms, signal transmission along the neuronal-cardiovascular axis, oxidative stress, inflammation, and metabolism. Finally, current and future noise protection strategies are described, and the existing evidence on noise as a cardiovascular risk factor is discussed.
Confirmed Cardiovascular Risk Factor
“As an increasing proportion of the population is exposed to harmful traffic noise, efforts to reduce noise and laws for noise reduction are of great importance for future public health,” said Dr. Münzel. “It is also important for us that due to the strong evidence, traffic noise is finally recognized as a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases.”
Heart Attack Outcomes
Dr. Münzel and other researchers from Mainz have been studying the cardiovascular consequences of air pollution and traffic noise for several years. For example, they found that heart attacks in people and animals exposed to high noise levels earlier in life healed poorly. These results were published last year in Cardiovascular Research. According to the authors, the findings suggest that traffic noise may play a significant role in the development and course of coronary heart disease, such as after a heart attack.
The scientists initially found in animal experiments that exposure to aircraft noise for 4 days led to increased inflammation in the vessels. Compared with mice not exposed to aircraft noise, the noise-exposed animals showed an increase in free radicals; these animals exhibited a significant inflammatory response and had impaired vessel function.
The researchers explained that the experimental data showed aircraft noise alone triggers a proinflammatory transcription program that promotes the infiltration of immune cells into cardiovascular tissue in animals with acute myocardial infarction. They noted an increased infiltration of CD45+ cells into the vessels and heart, dominated by neutrophils in vessel tissue and Ly6Chigh monocytes in heart tissue. This infiltration creates a proinflammatory milieu that adversely affects the outcome after myocardial infarction by predisposing the heart tissue to greater ischemic damage and functional impairment. Exposure of animals to aircraft noise before induction of myocardial infarction by left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery ligation impaired left ventricular function and increased infarct size after cardiac ischemia. In addition, noise exposure exacerbated infarct-induced endothelial dysfunction of peripheral vessels as early as 24 hours after LAD ligation.
Clinical Confirmation
These experimental results were confirmed by observations in the population-based Gutenberg Health Study. The researchers analyzed data from 100 patients with heart attack. The lead and senior authors of the study Michael Molitor, MD, and Philip Wenzel, MD, of the University of Mainz, explained, “From our studies, we have learned that exposure to aircraft noise before a heart attack significantly amplifies subsequent cardiovascular inflammation and exacerbates ischemic heart failure, which is favored by inflammation-promoting vascular conditioning. Our translational results show that people who have been exposed to noise in the past have a worse course if they experience a heart attack later in life.”
Study participants who had experienced a heart attack in their medical history had elevated levels of C-reactive protein if they had been exposed to aircraft noise in the past and subsequently developed noise annoyance reactions (0.305 vs 1.5; P = .0094). In addition, left ventricular ejection fraction in these patients after a heart attack was worse than that in patients with infarction without noise exposure in their medical history (62.5 vs 65.6; P = .0053).
The results suggest that measures to reduce environmental noise could help improve the clinical outcomes of heart attack patients, according to the authors.
Mental Health Effects
Traffic noise also may be associated with an increased risk for depression and anxiety disorders, as reported 2 years ago by the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy. Evolution has programmed the human organism to perceive noises as indicators of potential sources of danger — even during sleep. “Noise puts the body on alert,” explained Manfred E. Beutel, MD, director of the Clinic for Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy at the University of Mainz. As a result, the autonomic nervous system activates stress hormones such as adrenaline and cortisol, leading to an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. If noise becomes chronic, chronic diseases can develop. “Indeed, observational and experimental studies have shown that persistent noise annoyance promotes incident hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and type 2 diabetes,” said Dr. Beutel.
Depression Risk Doubled
Among the negative effects of noise annoyance are also mental illnesses, as has become increasingly clear. “Noise annoyance disrupts daily activities and interferes with feelings and thoughts, sleep, and recovery,” said Dr. Beutel. The interruptions trigger negative emotional reactions such as anger, distress, exhaustion, flight impulses, and stress symptoms. “Such conditions promote the development of depression over time,” said Dr. Beutel. This observation was confirmed by the large-scale Gutenberg Health Study using the example of the Mainz population, which suffers to a large extent from noise annoyance because of the nearby Frankfurt Airport. “With increasing noise annoyance, the rates of depression and anxiety disorders steadily increased, until the risks eventually doubled with extreme annoyance,” said Dr. Beutel. Other studies point in the same direction. For example, a meta-analysis found a 12% increase in the risk for depression per 10-dB increase in noise. Another study found an association between nocturnal noise annoyance and the use of antidepressants.
Fine Particulate Matter
According to an evaluation of the Gutenberg Study, people perceive noise annoyance from aircraft noise as the most pronounced, followed by road, neighborhood, industrial, and railway noise. Noise occurs most frequently in urban areas that also produce air pollution such as fine particulate matter. “Fine particulate matter is also suspected of promoting anxiety and depression,” said Dr. Beutel, “because the small particles of fine particulate matter can enter the bloodstream and trigger inflammatory processes there, which in turn are closely related to depression.”
This story was translated from Univadis Germany, which is part of the Medscape professional network, 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.
Is Red Meat Healthy? Multiverse Analysis Has Lessons Beyond Meat
Observational studies on red meat consumption and lifespan are prime examples of attempts to find signal in a sea of noise.
Randomized controlled trials are the best way to sort cause from mere correlation. But these are not possible in most matters of food consumption. So, we look back and observe groups with different exposures.
My most frequent complaint about these nonrandom comparison studies has been the chance that the two groups differ in important ways, and it’s these differences — not the food in question — that account for the disparate outcomes.
But selection biases are only one issue. There is also the matter of analytic flexibility. Observational studies are born from large databases. Researchers have many choices in how to analyze all these data.
A few years ago, Brian Nosek, PhD, and colleagues elegantly showed that analytic choices can affect results. His Many Analysts, One Data Set study had little uptake in the medical community, perhaps because he studied a social science question.
Multiple Ways to Slice the Data
Recently, a group from McMaster University, led by Dena Zeraatkar, PhD, has confirmed the analytic choices problem, using the question of red meat consumption and mortality.
Their idea was simple: Because there are many plausible and defensible ways to analyze a dataset, we should not choose one method; rather, we should choose thousands, combine the results, and see where the truth lies.
You might wonder how there could be thousands of ways to analyze a dataset. I surely did.
The answer stems from the choices that researchers face. For instance, there is the selection of eligible participants, the choice of analytic model (logistic, Poisson, etc.), and covariates for which to adjust. Think exponents when combining possible choices.
Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues are research methodologists, so, sadly, they are comfortable with the clunky name of this approach: specification curve analysis. Don’t be deterred. It means that they analyze the data in thousands of ways using computers. Each way is a specification. In the end, the specifications give rise to a curve of hazard ratios for red meat and mortality. Another name for this approach is multiverse analysis.
For their paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, aptly named “Grilling the Data,” they didn’t just conjure up the many analytic ways to study the red meat–mortality question. Instead, they used a published systematic review of 15 studies on unprocessed red meat and early mortality. The studies included in this review reported 70 unique ways to analyze the association.
Is Red Meat Good or Bad?
Their first finding was that this analysis yielded widely disparate effect estimates, from 0.63 (reduced risk for early death) to 2.31 (a higher risk). The median hazard ratio was 1.14 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1.02-1.23. One might conclude from this that eating red meat is associated with a slightly higher risk for early mortality.
Their second step was to calculate how many ways (specifications) there were to analyze the data by totaling all possible combinations of choices in the 70 ways found in the systematic review.
They calculated a total of 10 quadrillion possible unique analyses. A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros. Computing power cannot handle that amount of analyses yet. So, they generated 20 random unique combinations of covariates, which narrowed the number of analyses to about 1400. About 200 of these were excluded due to implausibly wide confidence intervals.
Voilà. They now had about 1200 different ways to analyze a dataset; they chose an NHANES longitudinal cohort study from 2007-2014. They deemed each of the more than 1200 approaches plausible because they were derived from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in epidemiology.
Specification Curve Analyses Results
Each analysis (or specification) yielded a hazard ratio for red meat exposure and death.
- The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
- The range of hazard ratios was large. They went from 0.51 — a 49% reduced risk for early mortality — to 1.75: a 75% increase in early mortality.
- Among all analyses, 36% yielded hazard ratios above 1.0 and 64% less than 1.0.
- As for statistical significance, defined as P ≤.05, only 4% (or 48 specifications) met this threshold. Zeraatkar reminded me that this is what you’d expect if unprocessed red meat has no effect on longevity.
- Of the 48 analyses deemed statistically significant, 40 indicated that red meat consumption reduced early death and eight indicated that eating red meat led to higher mortality.
- Nearly half the analyses yielded unexciting point estimates, with hazard ratios between 0.90 and 1.10.
Paradigm Changing
As a user of evidence, I find this a potentially paradigm-changing study. Observational studies far outnumber randomized trials. For many medical questions, observational data are all we have.
Now think about every observational study published. The authors tell you — post hoc — which method they used to analyze the data. The key point is that it is one method.
Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues have shown that there are thousands of plausible ways to analyze the data, and this can lead to very different findings. In the specific question of red meat and mortality, their many analyses yielded a null result.
Now imagine other cases where the researchers did many analyses of a dataset and chose to publish only the significant ones. Observational studies are rarely preregistered, so a reader cannot know how a result would vary depending on analytic choices. A specification curve analysis of a dataset provides a much broader picture. In the case of red meat, you see some significant results, but the vast majority hover around null.
What about the difficulty in analyzing a dataset 1000 different ways? Dr. Zeraatkar told me that it is harder than just choosing one method, but it’s not impossible.
The main barrier to adopting this multiverse approach to data, she noted, was not the extra work but the entrenched belief among researchers that there is a best way to analyze data.
I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices?
Nutritional epidemiology would benefit greatly from this approach. But so would any observational study of an exposure and outcome. I suspect that the number of “positive” associations would diminish. And that would not be a bad thing.
Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Observational studies on red meat consumption and lifespan are prime examples of attempts to find signal in a sea of noise.
Randomized controlled trials are the best way to sort cause from mere correlation. But these are not possible in most matters of food consumption. So, we look back and observe groups with different exposures.
My most frequent complaint about these nonrandom comparison studies has been the chance that the two groups differ in important ways, and it’s these differences — not the food in question — that account for the disparate outcomes.
But selection biases are only one issue. There is also the matter of analytic flexibility. Observational studies are born from large databases. Researchers have many choices in how to analyze all these data.
A few years ago, Brian Nosek, PhD, and colleagues elegantly showed that analytic choices can affect results. His Many Analysts, One Data Set study had little uptake in the medical community, perhaps because he studied a social science question.
Multiple Ways to Slice the Data
Recently, a group from McMaster University, led by Dena Zeraatkar, PhD, has confirmed the analytic choices problem, using the question of red meat consumption and mortality.
Their idea was simple: Because there are many plausible and defensible ways to analyze a dataset, we should not choose one method; rather, we should choose thousands, combine the results, and see where the truth lies.
You might wonder how there could be thousands of ways to analyze a dataset. I surely did.
The answer stems from the choices that researchers face. For instance, there is the selection of eligible participants, the choice of analytic model (logistic, Poisson, etc.), and covariates for which to adjust. Think exponents when combining possible choices.
Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues are research methodologists, so, sadly, they are comfortable with the clunky name of this approach: specification curve analysis. Don’t be deterred. It means that they analyze the data in thousands of ways using computers. Each way is a specification. In the end, the specifications give rise to a curve of hazard ratios for red meat and mortality. Another name for this approach is multiverse analysis.
For their paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, aptly named “Grilling the Data,” they didn’t just conjure up the many analytic ways to study the red meat–mortality question. Instead, they used a published systematic review of 15 studies on unprocessed red meat and early mortality. The studies included in this review reported 70 unique ways to analyze the association.
Is Red Meat Good or Bad?
Their first finding was that this analysis yielded widely disparate effect estimates, from 0.63 (reduced risk for early death) to 2.31 (a higher risk). The median hazard ratio was 1.14 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1.02-1.23. One might conclude from this that eating red meat is associated with a slightly higher risk for early mortality.
Their second step was to calculate how many ways (specifications) there were to analyze the data by totaling all possible combinations of choices in the 70 ways found in the systematic review.
They calculated a total of 10 quadrillion possible unique analyses. A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros. Computing power cannot handle that amount of analyses yet. So, they generated 20 random unique combinations of covariates, which narrowed the number of analyses to about 1400. About 200 of these were excluded due to implausibly wide confidence intervals.
Voilà. They now had about 1200 different ways to analyze a dataset; they chose an NHANES longitudinal cohort study from 2007-2014. They deemed each of the more than 1200 approaches plausible because they were derived from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in epidemiology.
Specification Curve Analyses Results
Each analysis (or specification) yielded a hazard ratio for red meat exposure and death.
- The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
- The range of hazard ratios was large. They went from 0.51 — a 49% reduced risk for early mortality — to 1.75: a 75% increase in early mortality.
- Among all analyses, 36% yielded hazard ratios above 1.0 and 64% less than 1.0.
- As for statistical significance, defined as P ≤.05, only 4% (or 48 specifications) met this threshold. Zeraatkar reminded me that this is what you’d expect if unprocessed red meat has no effect on longevity.
- Of the 48 analyses deemed statistically significant, 40 indicated that red meat consumption reduced early death and eight indicated that eating red meat led to higher mortality.
- Nearly half the analyses yielded unexciting point estimates, with hazard ratios between 0.90 and 1.10.
Paradigm Changing
As a user of evidence, I find this a potentially paradigm-changing study. Observational studies far outnumber randomized trials. For many medical questions, observational data are all we have.
Now think about every observational study published. The authors tell you — post hoc — which method they used to analyze the data. The key point is that it is one method.
Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues have shown that there are thousands of plausible ways to analyze the data, and this can lead to very different findings. In the specific question of red meat and mortality, their many analyses yielded a null result.
Now imagine other cases where the researchers did many analyses of a dataset and chose to publish only the significant ones. Observational studies are rarely preregistered, so a reader cannot know how a result would vary depending on analytic choices. A specification curve analysis of a dataset provides a much broader picture. In the case of red meat, you see some significant results, but the vast majority hover around null.
What about the difficulty in analyzing a dataset 1000 different ways? Dr. Zeraatkar told me that it is harder than just choosing one method, but it’s not impossible.
The main barrier to adopting this multiverse approach to data, she noted, was not the extra work but the entrenched belief among researchers that there is a best way to analyze data.
I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices?
Nutritional epidemiology would benefit greatly from this approach. But so would any observational study of an exposure and outcome. I suspect that the number of “positive” associations would diminish. And that would not be a bad thing.
Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Observational studies on red meat consumption and lifespan are prime examples of attempts to find signal in a sea of noise.
Randomized controlled trials are the best way to sort cause from mere correlation. But these are not possible in most matters of food consumption. So, we look back and observe groups with different exposures.
My most frequent complaint about these nonrandom comparison studies has been the chance that the two groups differ in important ways, and it’s these differences — not the food in question — that account for the disparate outcomes.
But selection biases are only one issue. There is also the matter of analytic flexibility. Observational studies are born from large databases. Researchers have many choices in how to analyze all these data.
A few years ago, Brian Nosek, PhD, and colleagues elegantly showed that analytic choices can affect results. His Many Analysts, One Data Set study had little uptake in the medical community, perhaps because he studied a social science question.
Multiple Ways to Slice the Data
Recently, a group from McMaster University, led by Dena Zeraatkar, PhD, has confirmed the analytic choices problem, using the question of red meat consumption and mortality.
Their idea was simple: Because there are many plausible and defensible ways to analyze a dataset, we should not choose one method; rather, we should choose thousands, combine the results, and see where the truth lies.
You might wonder how there could be thousands of ways to analyze a dataset. I surely did.
The answer stems from the choices that researchers face. For instance, there is the selection of eligible participants, the choice of analytic model (logistic, Poisson, etc.), and covariates for which to adjust. Think exponents when combining possible choices.
Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues are research methodologists, so, sadly, they are comfortable with the clunky name of this approach: specification curve analysis. Don’t be deterred. It means that they analyze the data in thousands of ways using computers. Each way is a specification. In the end, the specifications give rise to a curve of hazard ratios for red meat and mortality. Another name for this approach is multiverse analysis.
For their paper in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, aptly named “Grilling the Data,” they didn’t just conjure up the many analytic ways to study the red meat–mortality question. Instead, they used a published systematic review of 15 studies on unprocessed red meat and early mortality. The studies included in this review reported 70 unique ways to analyze the association.
Is Red Meat Good or Bad?
Their first finding was that this analysis yielded widely disparate effect estimates, from 0.63 (reduced risk for early death) to 2.31 (a higher risk). The median hazard ratio was 1.14 with an interquartile range (IQR) of 1.02-1.23. One might conclude from this that eating red meat is associated with a slightly higher risk for early mortality.
Their second step was to calculate how many ways (specifications) there were to analyze the data by totaling all possible combinations of choices in the 70 ways found in the systematic review.
They calculated a total of 10 quadrillion possible unique analyses. A quadrillion is 1 with 15 zeros. Computing power cannot handle that amount of analyses yet. So, they generated 20 random unique combinations of covariates, which narrowed the number of analyses to about 1400. About 200 of these were excluded due to implausibly wide confidence intervals.
Voilà. They now had about 1200 different ways to analyze a dataset; they chose an NHANES longitudinal cohort study from 2007-2014. They deemed each of the more than 1200 approaches plausible because they were derived from peer-reviewed papers written by experts in epidemiology.
Specification Curve Analyses Results
Each analysis (or specification) yielded a hazard ratio for red meat exposure and death.
- The median HR was 0.94 (IQR, 0.83-1.05) for the effect of red meat on all-cause mortality — ie, not significant.
- The range of hazard ratios was large. They went from 0.51 — a 49% reduced risk for early mortality — to 1.75: a 75% increase in early mortality.
- Among all analyses, 36% yielded hazard ratios above 1.0 and 64% less than 1.0.
- As for statistical significance, defined as P ≤.05, only 4% (or 48 specifications) met this threshold. Zeraatkar reminded me that this is what you’d expect if unprocessed red meat has no effect on longevity.
- Of the 48 analyses deemed statistically significant, 40 indicated that red meat consumption reduced early death and eight indicated that eating red meat led to higher mortality.
- Nearly half the analyses yielded unexciting point estimates, with hazard ratios between 0.90 and 1.10.
Paradigm Changing
As a user of evidence, I find this a potentially paradigm-changing study. Observational studies far outnumber randomized trials. For many medical questions, observational data are all we have.
Now think about every observational study published. The authors tell you — post hoc — which method they used to analyze the data. The key point is that it is one method.
Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues have shown that there are thousands of plausible ways to analyze the data, and this can lead to very different findings. In the specific question of red meat and mortality, their many analyses yielded a null result.
Now imagine other cases where the researchers did many analyses of a dataset and chose to publish only the significant ones. Observational studies are rarely preregistered, so a reader cannot know how a result would vary depending on analytic choices. A specification curve analysis of a dataset provides a much broader picture. In the case of red meat, you see some significant results, but the vast majority hover around null.
What about the difficulty in analyzing a dataset 1000 different ways? Dr. Zeraatkar told me that it is harder than just choosing one method, but it’s not impossible.
The main barrier to adopting this multiverse approach to data, she noted, was not the extra work but the entrenched belief among researchers that there is a best way to analyze data.
I hope you read this paper and think about it every time you read an observational study that finds a positive or negative association between two things. Ask: What if the researchers were as careful as Dr. Zeraatkar and colleagues and did multiple different analyses? Would the finding hold up to a series of plausible analytic choices?
Nutritional epidemiology would benefit greatly from this approach. But so would any observational study of an exposure and outcome. I suspect that the number of “positive” associations would diminish. And that would not be a bad thing.
Dr. Mandrola, a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Kentucky, disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Video Games Marketing Food Impacts Teens’ Eating
, according to research presented on May 12, 2024, at the 31st European Congress on Obesity in Venice, Italy.
The presentation by Rebecca Evans, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom, included findings from three recently published studies and a submitted randomized controlled trial. At the time of the research, the top VGLSPs globally were Twitch (with 77% of the market share by hours watched), YouTube Gaming (15%), and Facebook Gaming Live (7%).
“Endorsement deals for prominent streamers on Twitch can be worth many millions of dollars, and younger people, who are attractive to advertisers, are moving away from television to these more interactive forms of entertainment,” Evans said. “These deals involve collaborating with brands and promoting their products, including foods that are high in fats, salt, and/or sugar.”
To delve more deeply into the extent and consequences of VGLSP advertising for HFSS, the researchers first analyzed 52 hour-long Twitch videos uploaded to gaming platforms by three popular influencers. They found that food cues appeared at an average rate of 2.6 per hour, and the average duration of each cue was 20 minutes.
Most cues (70.7%) were for branded HFSS (80.5%), led by energy drinks (62.4%). Most (97.7%) were not accompanied by an advertising disclosure. Most food cues were either product placement (44.0%) and looping banners (40.6%) or features such as tie-ins, logos, or offers. Notably, these forms of advertising are always visible on the video game screen, so viewers cannot skip over them or close them.
Next, the team did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relationship between exposure to digital game-based or influencer food marketing with food-related outcomes. They found that young people were twice as likely to prefer foods displayed via digital game-based marketing, and that influencer and digital game-based marketing was associated with increased HFSS food consumption of about 37 additional calories in one sitting.
Researchers then surveyed 490 youngsters (mean age, 16.8 years; 70%, female) to explore associations between recall of food marketing of the top VGLSPs and food-related outcomes. Recall was associated with more positive attitudes towards HFSS foods and, in turn, the purchase and consumption of the marketed HFSS foods.
In addition, the researchers conducted a lab-based randomized controlled trial to explore associations between HFSS food marketing via a mock Twitch stream and subsequent snack intake. A total of 91 youngsters (average age, 18 years; 69% women) viewed the mock stream, which contained either an advertisement (an image overlaid on the video featuring a brand logo and product) for an HFSS food, or a non-branded food. They were then offered a snack. Acute exposure to HFSS food marketing was not associated with immediate consumption, but more habitual use of VGLSPs was associated with increased intake of the marketed snack.
The observational studies could not prove cause and effect, and may not be generalizable to all teens, the authors acknowledged. They also noted that some of the findings are based on self-report surveys, which can lead to recall bias and may have affected the results.
Nevertheless, Ms. Evans said, “The high level of exposure to digital marketing of unhealthy food could drive excess calorie consumption and weight gain, particularly in adolescents who are more susceptible to advertising. It is important that digital food marketing restrictions encompass innovative and emerging digital media such as VGLSPs.”
The research formed Ms. Evans’ PhD work, which is funded by the University of Liverpool. Evans and colleagues declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
, according to research presented on May 12, 2024, at the 31st European Congress on Obesity in Venice, Italy.
The presentation by Rebecca Evans, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom, included findings from three recently published studies and a submitted randomized controlled trial. At the time of the research, the top VGLSPs globally were Twitch (with 77% of the market share by hours watched), YouTube Gaming (15%), and Facebook Gaming Live (7%).
“Endorsement deals for prominent streamers on Twitch can be worth many millions of dollars, and younger people, who are attractive to advertisers, are moving away from television to these more interactive forms of entertainment,” Evans said. “These deals involve collaborating with brands and promoting their products, including foods that are high in fats, salt, and/or sugar.”
To delve more deeply into the extent and consequences of VGLSP advertising for HFSS, the researchers first analyzed 52 hour-long Twitch videos uploaded to gaming platforms by three popular influencers. They found that food cues appeared at an average rate of 2.6 per hour, and the average duration of each cue was 20 minutes.
Most cues (70.7%) were for branded HFSS (80.5%), led by energy drinks (62.4%). Most (97.7%) were not accompanied by an advertising disclosure. Most food cues were either product placement (44.0%) and looping banners (40.6%) or features such as tie-ins, logos, or offers. Notably, these forms of advertising are always visible on the video game screen, so viewers cannot skip over them or close them.
Next, the team did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relationship between exposure to digital game-based or influencer food marketing with food-related outcomes. They found that young people were twice as likely to prefer foods displayed via digital game-based marketing, and that influencer and digital game-based marketing was associated with increased HFSS food consumption of about 37 additional calories in one sitting.
Researchers then surveyed 490 youngsters (mean age, 16.8 years; 70%, female) to explore associations between recall of food marketing of the top VGLSPs and food-related outcomes. Recall was associated with more positive attitudes towards HFSS foods and, in turn, the purchase and consumption of the marketed HFSS foods.
In addition, the researchers conducted a lab-based randomized controlled trial to explore associations between HFSS food marketing via a mock Twitch stream and subsequent snack intake. A total of 91 youngsters (average age, 18 years; 69% women) viewed the mock stream, which contained either an advertisement (an image overlaid on the video featuring a brand logo and product) for an HFSS food, or a non-branded food. They were then offered a snack. Acute exposure to HFSS food marketing was not associated with immediate consumption, but more habitual use of VGLSPs was associated with increased intake of the marketed snack.
The observational studies could not prove cause and effect, and may not be generalizable to all teens, the authors acknowledged. They also noted that some of the findings are based on self-report surveys, which can lead to recall bias and may have affected the results.
Nevertheless, Ms. Evans said, “The high level of exposure to digital marketing of unhealthy food could drive excess calorie consumption and weight gain, particularly in adolescents who are more susceptible to advertising. It is important that digital food marketing restrictions encompass innovative and emerging digital media such as VGLSPs.”
The research formed Ms. Evans’ PhD work, which is funded by the University of Liverpool. Evans and colleagues declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
, according to research presented on May 12, 2024, at the 31st European Congress on Obesity in Venice, Italy.
The presentation by Rebecca Evans, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom, included findings from three recently published studies and a submitted randomized controlled trial. At the time of the research, the top VGLSPs globally were Twitch (with 77% of the market share by hours watched), YouTube Gaming (15%), and Facebook Gaming Live (7%).
“Endorsement deals for prominent streamers on Twitch can be worth many millions of dollars, and younger people, who are attractive to advertisers, are moving away from television to these more interactive forms of entertainment,” Evans said. “These deals involve collaborating with brands and promoting their products, including foods that are high in fats, salt, and/or sugar.”
To delve more deeply into the extent and consequences of VGLSP advertising for HFSS, the researchers first analyzed 52 hour-long Twitch videos uploaded to gaming platforms by three popular influencers. They found that food cues appeared at an average rate of 2.6 per hour, and the average duration of each cue was 20 minutes.
Most cues (70.7%) were for branded HFSS (80.5%), led by energy drinks (62.4%). Most (97.7%) were not accompanied by an advertising disclosure. Most food cues were either product placement (44.0%) and looping banners (40.6%) or features such as tie-ins, logos, or offers. Notably, these forms of advertising are always visible on the video game screen, so viewers cannot skip over them or close them.
Next, the team did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the relationship between exposure to digital game-based or influencer food marketing with food-related outcomes. They found that young people were twice as likely to prefer foods displayed via digital game-based marketing, and that influencer and digital game-based marketing was associated with increased HFSS food consumption of about 37 additional calories in one sitting.
Researchers then surveyed 490 youngsters (mean age, 16.8 years; 70%, female) to explore associations between recall of food marketing of the top VGLSPs and food-related outcomes. Recall was associated with more positive attitudes towards HFSS foods and, in turn, the purchase and consumption of the marketed HFSS foods.
In addition, the researchers conducted a lab-based randomized controlled trial to explore associations between HFSS food marketing via a mock Twitch stream and subsequent snack intake. A total of 91 youngsters (average age, 18 years; 69% women) viewed the mock stream, which contained either an advertisement (an image overlaid on the video featuring a brand logo and product) for an HFSS food, or a non-branded food. They were then offered a snack. Acute exposure to HFSS food marketing was not associated with immediate consumption, but more habitual use of VGLSPs was associated with increased intake of the marketed snack.
The observational studies could not prove cause and effect, and may not be generalizable to all teens, the authors acknowledged. They also noted that some of the findings are based on self-report surveys, which can lead to recall bias and may have affected the results.
Nevertheless, Ms. Evans said, “The high level of exposure to digital marketing of unhealthy food could drive excess calorie consumption and weight gain, particularly in adolescents who are more susceptible to advertising. It is important that digital food marketing restrictions encompass innovative and emerging digital media such as VGLSPs.”
The research formed Ms. Evans’ PhD work, which is funded by the University of Liverpool. Evans and colleagues declared no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
New and Emerging Treatments for Major Depressive Disorder
Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.
In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.
Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.
--
Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies
Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press
Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.
In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.
Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.
--
Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies
Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press
Outside of treating major depressive disorder (MDD) through the monoamine system with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, exploration of other treatment pathways has opened the possibility of faster onset of action and fewer side effects.
In this ReCAP, Dr Joseph Goldberg, from Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, NY, outlines how a better understanding of the glutamate system has led to the emergence of ketamine and esketamine as important treatment options, as well as the combination therapy of dextromethorphan with bupropion.
Dr Goldberg also discusses new results from serotonin system modulation through the 5HT1A receptor with gepirone, or the 5HT2A receptor with psilocybin. He also reports on a new compound esmethadone, known as REL-1017. Finally, he discusses the first approval of a digital therapeutic app designed to augment pharmacotherapy, and the dopamine partial agonist cariprazine as an adjunctive therapy.
--
Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Teaching Attending, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY
Joseph F. Goldberg, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:
Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: AbbVie; Genomind; Luye Pharma; Neuroma; Neurelis; Otsuka; Sunovion
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AbbVie; Alkermes; Axsome; Intracellular Therapies
Receive(d) royalties from: American Psychiatric Publishing; Cambridge University Press
Darker Skin Tones Underrepresented on Skin Cancer Education Websites
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”
For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker).
Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.
In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.
The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.
“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”
The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JOURNAL OF DRUGS IN DERMATOLOGY
Throbbing headache and nausea
Migraine is a form of recurrent headache that can present as migraine with aura or migraine without aura, with the latter being the most common form. As in this patient, migraine without aura is a chronic form of headache of moderate to severe intensity that usually lasts for several hours but rarely may persist for up to 3 days. Headache pain is unilateral and often aggravated by triggers such as routine physical activity. The American Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine without aura include having symptoms of nausea and/or hypersensitivity to light or sound. This patient also described symptoms typical of the prodromal phase of migraine, which include yawning, temperature control, excessive thirst, and mood swings.
Patients who have migraine with aura also have unilateral headache pain of several hours' duration but experience visual (eg, dots or flashes) or sensory (prickly sensation on skin) symptoms, or may have brief difficulty with speech or motor function. These aura symptoms generally last 5 to 60 minutes before abating.
The worldwide impact of migraine potentially reaches a billion individuals. Its prevalence is second only to tension-type headaches. Migraine occurs in patients of all ages and affects women at a rate two to three times higher than in men. Prevalence appears to peak in the third and fourth decades of life and tends to be lower among older adults. Migraine also has a negative effect on patients' work, school, or social lives, and is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety in adults. For patients who are prone to migraines, potential triggers include some foods and beverages (including those that contain caffeine and alcohol), menstrual cycles in women, exposure to strobing or bright lights or loud sounds, stressful situations, extra physical activity, and too much or too little sleep.
Migraine is a clinical diagnosis based on number of headaches (five or more episodes) plus two or more of the characteristic signs (unilateral, throbbing pain, pain intensity of ≥ 5 on a 10-point scale, and pain aggravated by routine physical motion, such as climbing stairs or bending over) plus nausea and/or photosensitivity or phonosensitivity. Prodrome symptoms are reported by about 70% of adult patients. Diagnosis rarely requires neuroimaging; however, before prescribing medication, a complete lab and metabolic workup should be done.
Management of migraine without aura includes acute and preventive interventions. Acute interventions cited by the American Headache Society include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen for mild pain, and migraine-specific therapies such as the triptans, ergotamine derivatives, gepants (rimegepant, ubrogepant), and lasmiditan. Because response to any of these therapies will differ among patients with migraine, shared decision-making with patients about benefits and potential side effects is necessary and should include flexibility to change therapy if needed.
Preventive therapy should be offered to patients experiencing six or more migraines a month (regardless of impairment) and those, like this patient, with three or more migraines a month that significantly impair daily activities. Preventive therapy can be considered for those with fewer monthly episodes, depending on the degree of impairment. Oral preventive therapies with established efficacy include candesartan, certain beta-blockers, topiramate, and valproate. Parenteral monoclonal antibodies that inhibit calcitonin gene-related peptide activity (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and onabotulinumtoxinA may be considered if oral therapies provide inadequate prevention.
Tension-type headache is the most common form of primary headache. These headaches are bilateral and characterized by a pressing or dull sensation that is often mild in intensity. They are different from migraine in that they occur infrequently, lack sensory symptoms, and generally are of shorter duration (30 minutes to 24 hours). Fasting-related headache is characterized by diffuse, nonpulsating pain and is relieved with food.
Heidi Moawad, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Heidi Moawad, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
Migraine is a form of recurrent headache that can present as migraine with aura or migraine without aura, with the latter being the most common form. As in this patient, migraine without aura is a chronic form of headache of moderate to severe intensity that usually lasts for several hours but rarely may persist for up to 3 days. Headache pain is unilateral and often aggravated by triggers such as routine physical activity. The American Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine without aura include having symptoms of nausea and/or hypersensitivity to light or sound. This patient also described symptoms typical of the prodromal phase of migraine, which include yawning, temperature control, excessive thirst, and mood swings.
Patients who have migraine with aura also have unilateral headache pain of several hours' duration but experience visual (eg, dots or flashes) or sensory (prickly sensation on skin) symptoms, or may have brief difficulty with speech or motor function. These aura symptoms generally last 5 to 60 minutes before abating.
The worldwide impact of migraine potentially reaches a billion individuals. Its prevalence is second only to tension-type headaches. Migraine occurs in patients of all ages and affects women at a rate two to three times higher than in men. Prevalence appears to peak in the third and fourth decades of life and tends to be lower among older adults. Migraine also has a negative effect on patients' work, school, or social lives, and is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety in adults. For patients who are prone to migraines, potential triggers include some foods and beverages (including those that contain caffeine and alcohol), menstrual cycles in women, exposure to strobing or bright lights or loud sounds, stressful situations, extra physical activity, and too much or too little sleep.
Migraine is a clinical diagnosis based on number of headaches (five or more episodes) plus two or more of the characteristic signs (unilateral, throbbing pain, pain intensity of ≥ 5 on a 10-point scale, and pain aggravated by routine physical motion, such as climbing stairs or bending over) plus nausea and/or photosensitivity or phonosensitivity. Prodrome symptoms are reported by about 70% of adult patients. Diagnosis rarely requires neuroimaging; however, before prescribing medication, a complete lab and metabolic workup should be done.
Management of migraine without aura includes acute and preventive interventions. Acute interventions cited by the American Headache Society include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen for mild pain, and migraine-specific therapies such as the triptans, ergotamine derivatives, gepants (rimegepant, ubrogepant), and lasmiditan. Because response to any of these therapies will differ among patients with migraine, shared decision-making with patients about benefits and potential side effects is necessary and should include flexibility to change therapy if needed.
Preventive therapy should be offered to patients experiencing six or more migraines a month (regardless of impairment) and those, like this patient, with three or more migraines a month that significantly impair daily activities. Preventive therapy can be considered for those with fewer monthly episodes, depending on the degree of impairment. Oral preventive therapies with established efficacy include candesartan, certain beta-blockers, topiramate, and valproate. Parenteral monoclonal antibodies that inhibit calcitonin gene-related peptide activity (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and onabotulinumtoxinA may be considered if oral therapies provide inadequate prevention.
Tension-type headache is the most common form of primary headache. These headaches are bilateral and characterized by a pressing or dull sensation that is often mild in intensity. They are different from migraine in that they occur infrequently, lack sensory symptoms, and generally are of shorter duration (30 minutes to 24 hours). Fasting-related headache is characterized by diffuse, nonpulsating pain and is relieved with food.
Heidi Moawad, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Heidi Moawad, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
Migraine is a form of recurrent headache that can present as migraine with aura or migraine without aura, with the latter being the most common form. As in this patient, migraine without aura is a chronic form of headache of moderate to severe intensity that usually lasts for several hours but rarely may persist for up to 3 days. Headache pain is unilateral and often aggravated by triggers such as routine physical activity. The American Headache Society diagnostic criteria for migraine without aura include having symptoms of nausea and/or hypersensitivity to light or sound. This patient also described symptoms typical of the prodromal phase of migraine, which include yawning, temperature control, excessive thirst, and mood swings.
Patients who have migraine with aura also have unilateral headache pain of several hours' duration but experience visual (eg, dots or flashes) or sensory (prickly sensation on skin) symptoms, or may have brief difficulty with speech or motor function. These aura symptoms generally last 5 to 60 minutes before abating.
The worldwide impact of migraine potentially reaches a billion individuals. Its prevalence is second only to tension-type headaches. Migraine occurs in patients of all ages and affects women at a rate two to three times higher than in men. Prevalence appears to peak in the third and fourth decades of life and tends to be lower among older adults. Migraine also has a negative effect on patients' work, school, or social lives, and is associated with increased rates of depression and anxiety in adults. For patients who are prone to migraines, potential triggers include some foods and beverages (including those that contain caffeine and alcohol), menstrual cycles in women, exposure to strobing or bright lights or loud sounds, stressful situations, extra physical activity, and too much or too little sleep.
Migraine is a clinical diagnosis based on number of headaches (five or more episodes) plus two or more of the characteristic signs (unilateral, throbbing pain, pain intensity of ≥ 5 on a 10-point scale, and pain aggravated by routine physical motion, such as climbing stairs or bending over) plus nausea and/or photosensitivity or phonosensitivity. Prodrome symptoms are reported by about 70% of adult patients. Diagnosis rarely requires neuroimaging; however, before prescribing medication, a complete lab and metabolic workup should be done.
Management of migraine without aura includes acute and preventive interventions. Acute interventions cited by the American Headache Society include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen for mild pain, and migraine-specific therapies such as the triptans, ergotamine derivatives, gepants (rimegepant, ubrogepant), and lasmiditan. Because response to any of these therapies will differ among patients with migraine, shared decision-making with patients about benefits and potential side effects is necessary and should include flexibility to change therapy if needed.
Preventive therapy should be offered to patients experiencing six or more migraines a month (regardless of impairment) and those, like this patient, with three or more migraines a month that significantly impair daily activities. Preventive therapy can be considered for those with fewer monthly episodes, depending on the degree of impairment. Oral preventive therapies with established efficacy include candesartan, certain beta-blockers, topiramate, and valproate. Parenteral monoclonal antibodies that inhibit calcitonin gene-related peptide activity (eptinezumab, erenumab, fremanezumab, and galcanezumab) and onabotulinumtoxinA may be considered if oral therapies provide inadequate prevention.
Tension-type headache is the most common form of primary headache. These headaches are bilateral and characterized by a pressing or dull sensation that is often mild in intensity. They are different from migraine in that they occur infrequently, lack sensory symptoms, and generally are of shorter duration (30 minutes to 24 hours). Fasting-related headache is characterized by diffuse, nonpulsating pain and is relieved with food.
Heidi Moawad, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medical Education, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio.
Heidi Moawad, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.
A 30-year-old female patient (140 lb and 5 ft 7 in; BMI 21.9) presents at the emergency department with a throbbing headache that began after dinner and was accompanied by queasy nausea. She reports immediately going to bed and sleeping through the night, but pain and other symptoms were still present in the morning. At this point, headache duration is approaching 15 hours. The patient describes the headache pain as throbbing and intense on the left side of her head.
The patient has a demanding job in advertising and often works very long hours on little sleep; this latest headache developed after working through the night before. When asked, she admits to feeling lethargic, yawning (to the point where coworkers commented), and experiencing intervals of excessive sweating earlier in the day before the headache emerged. The patient attributed these to being tired and hungry because of skipped meals since the previous night's dinner.
She has no history of cardiovascular or other chronic illness, and her blood pressure is within normal range. She describes having had about seven similar headaches of shorter duration, over the past 2 months; in each case, the headache led to a missed workday or having to leave work early and/or cancel social plans.
Want a healthy diet? Eat real food, GI physician advises
What exactly is a healthy diet?
Scott Ketover, MD, AGAF, FASGE, will be the first to admit that’s not an easy question to answer. “As much research and information as we have, we don’t really know what a healthy diet is,” said Dr. Ketover, president and CEO of MNGI Digestive Health in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was recognized by AGA this year with the Distinguished Clinician Award in Private Practice.
When patients ask questions about a healthy diet, Dr. Ketover responds with a dose of common sense: “If it’s food that didn’t exist in the year 1900, don’t eat it.” Your grandmother’s apple pie is fine in moderation, he said, but the apple pie you get at the McDonald’s drive-through could sit on your shelf for 6 months and look the same.
That is not something you should eat, he emphasizes.
“I really do believe though, that what crosses our lips and gets into our GI tract really underlies our entire health. It’s just that we don’t have enough information yet to know how we can coach people in telling them: eat this, not that,” he added.
In an interview, Dr. Ketover spoke more about the link between the gut microbiome and health, and the young patient who inspired him to become a GI physician.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Ketover: I was a medical student working on my pediatrics rotation at Children’s Minnesota (Minneapolis Pediatrics Hospital). A 17-year-old young man who had Crohn’s disease really turned this into my lifelong passion. The patient confided in me that when he was 11, he had an ileostomy. He wore an ileostomy bag for 6 years and kept it hidden from all his friends. He was petrified of their knowing. And he told me at the age of 17 that if he knew how hard it was going to be to keep that secret, he would’ve preferred to have died rather than have the ileostomy. That got me thinking a lot about Crohn’s disease, and certainly how it affects patients. It became a very motivating thing for me to be involved in something that could potentially prevent this situation for others.
Today, we have much better treatment for Crohn’s than we did 30 years ago. So that’s all a good thing.
Q: Wellness and therapeutic diets are a specific interest of yours. Can you talk about this?
Dr. Ketover: We talk about things like Cheetos, Twinkies — those are not real foods. I do direct patients to ‘think’ when they go to the grocery store. All the good stuff is in the perimeter of the store. When you walk down the aisles, it’s all the processed food with added chemicals. It’s hard to point at specific things though and say: this is bad for you, but we do know that we should eat real food as often as we can. And I think that will contribute to our knowledge and learning about the intestinal microbiome. Again, we’re really at the beginning of our infancy of this, even though there’s lots of probiotics and things out there that claim to make you healthier. We don’t really know yet. And it’s going to take more time.
Q: What role does diet play in improving the intestinal microbiome?
Dr. Ketover: When you look at people who are healthy and who have low incidence of chronic diseases or inflammatory conditions, obesity, cancer, we’re starting to study their microbiome to see how it differs from people who have those illnesses and conditions and try to understand what the different constituents are of the microbiome. And then the big question is: Okay, so once we know that, how do we take ‘the unhealthy microbiome’ and change it to the ‘healthy microbiome’?
The only method we currently have is fecal transplant for Clostridioides difficile. And that’s just not a feasible way to change the microbiome for most people.
Some studies are going on with this. There’s been laboratory studies done with lab animals that show that fecal transplant can reverse obesity.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
Dr. Ketover: The biggest challenge these days for medical practices is the relationship with the payer world and prior authorization. Where we’ve seen the greatest impact of prior authorization, unfortunately, is in the Medicare Advantage programs. Payers receive money from the federal government on plans that they can better manage the patient on, rather than Medicare. That results in a tremendous amount of prior authorization.
I get particularly incensed when I see that a lot of payers are practicing medicine without a license and they’re not relying on the professionals who are actually in the exam room with patients and doing the history and physical examination to determine what is an appropriate course of diagnosis or therapy for a patient.
It comes around every January. We have patients who are stable on meds, then their insurance gets renewed and the pharmacy formulary changes. Patients stable on various therapies are either kicked off them, or we have to go through the prior authorization process again for the same patient for the umpteenth time to keep them on a stable therapy.
How do I address that? It’s in conversations with payers and policy makers. There’s a lot going on in Washington, talking about prior authorization. I’m not sure that non-practitioners fully feel the pain that it delivers to patients.
Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Dr. Ketover: Phillip M. Kibort, MD, the pediatric physician I worked with as a medical student who really turned me on to GI medicine. We worked together on several patients and I was able to develop an appreciation for the breadth and depth of GI-related abnormalities and diseases and therapies. And I really got excited by the spectrum of opportunity that I would have as a physician to help treat patients with GI illness.
Q: What would you do differently if you had a chance?
Dr. Ketover: I’d travel more both for work and for pleasure. I really enjoy my relationships that I’ve created with lots of other gastroenterologists as well as non-physicians around policy issues. I’m involved in a couple of national organizations that talk to politicians on Capitol Hill and at state houses about patient advocacy. I would have done more of that earlier in my career if I could have.
Q: What do you like to do in your free time?
Dr. Ketover: I like to run, bike, walk. I like being outside as much as possible and enjoy being active.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Texting, very efficient
Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?
Waikiki, Honolulu
Favorite breakfast?
Pancakes
Place you most want to travel to?
Australia and New Zealand
Favorite junk food?
Pretzels and ice cream
Favorite season?
Summer
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
2-3
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Public policy writer
Who inspires you?
My wife
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
Cowboy
Favorite type of music?
Classic rock
Favorite movie genre?
Science fiction, space exploration
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Favorite sport?
Football — to watch
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
Bohemian Rhapsody
Introvert or extrovert?
Introvert
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
What exactly is a healthy diet?
Scott Ketover, MD, AGAF, FASGE, will be the first to admit that’s not an easy question to answer. “As much research and information as we have, we don’t really know what a healthy diet is,” said Dr. Ketover, president and CEO of MNGI Digestive Health in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was recognized by AGA this year with the Distinguished Clinician Award in Private Practice.
When patients ask questions about a healthy diet, Dr. Ketover responds with a dose of common sense: “If it’s food that didn’t exist in the year 1900, don’t eat it.” Your grandmother’s apple pie is fine in moderation, he said, but the apple pie you get at the McDonald’s drive-through could sit on your shelf for 6 months and look the same.
That is not something you should eat, he emphasizes.
“I really do believe though, that what crosses our lips and gets into our GI tract really underlies our entire health. It’s just that we don’t have enough information yet to know how we can coach people in telling them: eat this, not that,” he added.
In an interview, Dr. Ketover spoke more about the link between the gut microbiome and health, and the young patient who inspired him to become a GI physician.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Ketover: I was a medical student working on my pediatrics rotation at Children’s Minnesota (Minneapolis Pediatrics Hospital). A 17-year-old young man who had Crohn’s disease really turned this into my lifelong passion. The patient confided in me that when he was 11, he had an ileostomy. He wore an ileostomy bag for 6 years and kept it hidden from all his friends. He was petrified of their knowing. And he told me at the age of 17 that if he knew how hard it was going to be to keep that secret, he would’ve preferred to have died rather than have the ileostomy. That got me thinking a lot about Crohn’s disease, and certainly how it affects patients. It became a very motivating thing for me to be involved in something that could potentially prevent this situation for others.
Today, we have much better treatment for Crohn’s than we did 30 years ago. So that’s all a good thing.
Q: Wellness and therapeutic diets are a specific interest of yours. Can you talk about this?
Dr. Ketover: We talk about things like Cheetos, Twinkies — those are not real foods. I do direct patients to ‘think’ when they go to the grocery store. All the good stuff is in the perimeter of the store. When you walk down the aisles, it’s all the processed food with added chemicals. It’s hard to point at specific things though and say: this is bad for you, but we do know that we should eat real food as often as we can. And I think that will contribute to our knowledge and learning about the intestinal microbiome. Again, we’re really at the beginning of our infancy of this, even though there’s lots of probiotics and things out there that claim to make you healthier. We don’t really know yet. And it’s going to take more time.
Q: What role does diet play in improving the intestinal microbiome?
Dr. Ketover: When you look at people who are healthy and who have low incidence of chronic diseases or inflammatory conditions, obesity, cancer, we’re starting to study their microbiome to see how it differs from people who have those illnesses and conditions and try to understand what the different constituents are of the microbiome. And then the big question is: Okay, so once we know that, how do we take ‘the unhealthy microbiome’ and change it to the ‘healthy microbiome’?
The only method we currently have is fecal transplant for Clostridioides difficile. And that’s just not a feasible way to change the microbiome for most people.
Some studies are going on with this. There’s been laboratory studies done with lab animals that show that fecal transplant can reverse obesity.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
Dr. Ketover: The biggest challenge these days for medical practices is the relationship with the payer world and prior authorization. Where we’ve seen the greatest impact of prior authorization, unfortunately, is in the Medicare Advantage programs. Payers receive money from the federal government on plans that they can better manage the patient on, rather than Medicare. That results in a tremendous amount of prior authorization.
I get particularly incensed when I see that a lot of payers are practicing medicine without a license and they’re not relying on the professionals who are actually in the exam room with patients and doing the history and physical examination to determine what is an appropriate course of diagnosis or therapy for a patient.
It comes around every January. We have patients who are stable on meds, then their insurance gets renewed and the pharmacy formulary changes. Patients stable on various therapies are either kicked off them, or we have to go through the prior authorization process again for the same patient for the umpteenth time to keep them on a stable therapy.
How do I address that? It’s in conversations with payers and policy makers. There’s a lot going on in Washington, talking about prior authorization. I’m not sure that non-practitioners fully feel the pain that it delivers to patients.
Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Dr. Ketover: Phillip M. Kibort, MD, the pediatric physician I worked with as a medical student who really turned me on to GI medicine. We worked together on several patients and I was able to develop an appreciation for the breadth and depth of GI-related abnormalities and diseases and therapies. And I really got excited by the spectrum of opportunity that I would have as a physician to help treat patients with GI illness.
Q: What would you do differently if you had a chance?
Dr. Ketover: I’d travel more both for work and for pleasure. I really enjoy my relationships that I’ve created with lots of other gastroenterologists as well as non-physicians around policy issues. I’m involved in a couple of national organizations that talk to politicians on Capitol Hill and at state houses about patient advocacy. I would have done more of that earlier in my career if I could have.
Q: What do you like to do in your free time?
Dr. Ketover: I like to run, bike, walk. I like being outside as much as possible and enjoy being active.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Texting, very efficient
Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?
Waikiki, Honolulu
Favorite breakfast?
Pancakes
Place you most want to travel to?
Australia and New Zealand
Favorite junk food?
Pretzels and ice cream
Favorite season?
Summer
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
2-3
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Public policy writer
Who inspires you?
My wife
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
Cowboy
Favorite type of music?
Classic rock
Favorite movie genre?
Science fiction, space exploration
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Favorite sport?
Football — to watch
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
Bohemian Rhapsody
Introvert or extrovert?
Introvert
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
What exactly is a healthy diet?
Scott Ketover, MD, AGAF, FASGE, will be the first to admit that’s not an easy question to answer. “As much research and information as we have, we don’t really know what a healthy diet is,” said Dr. Ketover, president and CEO of MNGI Digestive Health in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He was recognized by AGA this year with the Distinguished Clinician Award in Private Practice.
When patients ask questions about a healthy diet, Dr. Ketover responds with a dose of common sense: “If it’s food that didn’t exist in the year 1900, don’t eat it.” Your grandmother’s apple pie is fine in moderation, he said, but the apple pie you get at the McDonald’s drive-through could sit on your shelf for 6 months and look the same.
That is not something you should eat, he emphasizes.
“I really do believe though, that what crosses our lips and gets into our GI tract really underlies our entire health. It’s just that we don’t have enough information yet to know how we can coach people in telling them: eat this, not that,” he added.
In an interview, Dr. Ketover spoke more about the link between the gut microbiome and health, and the young patient who inspired him to become a GI physician.
Q: Why did you choose GI?
Dr. Ketover: I was a medical student working on my pediatrics rotation at Children’s Minnesota (Minneapolis Pediatrics Hospital). A 17-year-old young man who had Crohn’s disease really turned this into my lifelong passion. The patient confided in me that when he was 11, he had an ileostomy. He wore an ileostomy bag for 6 years and kept it hidden from all his friends. He was petrified of their knowing. And he told me at the age of 17 that if he knew how hard it was going to be to keep that secret, he would’ve preferred to have died rather than have the ileostomy. That got me thinking a lot about Crohn’s disease, and certainly how it affects patients. It became a very motivating thing for me to be involved in something that could potentially prevent this situation for others.
Today, we have much better treatment for Crohn’s than we did 30 years ago. So that’s all a good thing.
Q: Wellness and therapeutic diets are a specific interest of yours. Can you talk about this?
Dr. Ketover: We talk about things like Cheetos, Twinkies — those are not real foods. I do direct patients to ‘think’ when they go to the grocery store. All the good stuff is in the perimeter of the store. When you walk down the aisles, it’s all the processed food with added chemicals. It’s hard to point at specific things though and say: this is bad for you, but we do know that we should eat real food as often as we can. And I think that will contribute to our knowledge and learning about the intestinal microbiome. Again, we’re really at the beginning of our infancy of this, even though there’s lots of probiotics and things out there that claim to make you healthier. We don’t really know yet. And it’s going to take more time.
Q: What role does diet play in improving the intestinal microbiome?
Dr. Ketover: When you look at people who are healthy and who have low incidence of chronic diseases or inflammatory conditions, obesity, cancer, we’re starting to study their microbiome to see how it differs from people who have those illnesses and conditions and try to understand what the different constituents are of the microbiome. And then the big question is: Okay, so once we know that, how do we take ‘the unhealthy microbiome’ and change it to the ‘healthy microbiome’?
The only method we currently have is fecal transplant for Clostridioides difficile. And that’s just not a feasible way to change the microbiome for most people.
Some studies are going on with this. There’s been laboratory studies done with lab animals that show that fecal transplant can reverse obesity.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you are doing to address it.
Dr. Ketover: The biggest challenge these days for medical practices is the relationship with the payer world and prior authorization. Where we’ve seen the greatest impact of prior authorization, unfortunately, is in the Medicare Advantage programs. Payers receive money from the federal government on plans that they can better manage the patient on, rather than Medicare. That results in a tremendous amount of prior authorization.
I get particularly incensed when I see that a lot of payers are practicing medicine without a license and they’re not relying on the professionals who are actually in the exam room with patients and doing the history and physical examination to determine what is an appropriate course of diagnosis or therapy for a patient.
It comes around every January. We have patients who are stable on meds, then their insurance gets renewed and the pharmacy formulary changes. Patients stable on various therapies are either kicked off them, or we have to go through the prior authorization process again for the same patient for the umpteenth time to keep them on a stable therapy.
How do I address that? It’s in conversations with payers and policy makers. There’s a lot going on in Washington, talking about prior authorization. I’m not sure that non-practitioners fully feel the pain that it delivers to patients.
Q: What teacher or mentor had the greatest impact on you?
Dr. Ketover: Phillip M. Kibort, MD, the pediatric physician I worked with as a medical student who really turned me on to GI medicine. We worked together on several patients and I was able to develop an appreciation for the breadth and depth of GI-related abnormalities and diseases and therapies. And I really got excited by the spectrum of opportunity that I would have as a physician to help treat patients with GI illness.
Q: What would you do differently if you had a chance?
Dr. Ketover: I’d travel more both for work and for pleasure. I really enjoy my relationships that I’ve created with lots of other gastroenterologists as well as non-physicians around policy issues. I’m involved in a couple of national organizations that talk to politicians on Capitol Hill and at state houses about patient advocacy. I would have done more of that earlier in my career if I could have.
Q: What do you like to do in your free time?
Dr. Ketover: I like to run, bike, walk. I like being outside as much as possible and enjoy being active.
Lightning Round
Texting or talking?
Texting, very efficient
Favorite city in U.S. besides the one you live in?
Waikiki, Honolulu
Favorite breakfast?
Pancakes
Place you most want to travel to?
Australia and New Zealand
Favorite junk food?
Pretzels and ice cream
Favorite season?
Summer
How many cups of coffee do you drink per day?
2-3
If you weren’t a gastroenterologist, what would you be?
Public policy writer
Who inspires you?
My wife
Best Halloween costume you ever wore?
Cowboy
Favorite type of music?
Classic rock
Favorite movie genre?
Science fiction, space exploration
Cat person or dog person?
Dog
Favorite sport?
Football — to watch
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it?
Bohemian Rhapsody
Introvert or extrovert?
Introvert
Optimist or pessimist?
Optimist
Myth of the Month: Is Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury Real?
A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.
He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.
His hemoglobin is 14 g/dL, his blood sodium is 136 mEq/L, his blood potassium is 4.0 mmol/L, his BUN is 26 mg/dL, and his creatinine is 1.9 mg/dL. His kidney, ureter, bladder x-ray is unremarkable.
What imaging would you recommend?
A) CT without contrast
B) CT with contrast
C) MRI
D) Abdominal ultrasound
This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.
Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.1 They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.
Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.2 They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.3 They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).
Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.4 They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.5 There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).
Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.6 Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.6 Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”7 Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.
Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.
Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.
2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.
3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.
4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.
5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.
6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.
7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.
A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.
He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.
His hemoglobin is 14 g/dL, his blood sodium is 136 mEq/L, his blood potassium is 4.0 mmol/L, his BUN is 26 mg/dL, and his creatinine is 1.9 mg/dL. His kidney, ureter, bladder x-ray is unremarkable.
What imaging would you recommend?
A) CT without contrast
B) CT with contrast
C) MRI
D) Abdominal ultrasound
This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.
Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.1 They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.
Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.2 They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.3 They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).
Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.4 They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.5 There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).
Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.6 Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.6 Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”7 Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.
Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.
Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.
2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.
3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.
4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.
5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.
6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.
7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.
A 59-year-old man presents with abdominal pain. He has a history of small bowel obstruction and diverticulitis. His medical history includes chronic kidney disease (CKD; baseline creatinine, 1.8 mg/dL), hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and depression. He had a colectomy 6 years ago for colon cancer.
He takes the following medications: Semaglutide (1 mg weekly), amlodipine (5 mg once daily), and escitalopram (10 mg once daily). On physical exam his blood pressure is 130/80 mm Hg, his pulse is 90, and his temperature is 37.2 degrees C. He has normal bowel sounds but guarding in the right lower quadrant.
His hemoglobin is 14 g/dL, his blood sodium is 136 mEq/L, his blood potassium is 4.0 mmol/L, his BUN is 26 mg/dL, and his creatinine is 1.9 mg/dL. His kidney, ureter, bladder x-ray is unremarkable.
What imaging would you recommend?
A) CT without contrast
B) CT with contrast
C) MRI
D) Abdominal ultrasound
This patient has several potential causes for his abdominal pain that imaging may clarify. I think a contrast CT scan would be the most likely to provide helpful information. It is likely that if it were ordered, there may be hesitation by the radiologist to perform the scan with contrast because of the patient’s CKD.
Concern for contrast-induced kidney injury has limited diagnostic testing for many years. How strong is the evidence for contrast-induced kidney injury, and should we avoid testing that requires contrast in patients with CKD? McDonald and colleagues performed a meta-analysis with 13 studies meeting inclusion criteria, involving 25,950 patients.1 They found no increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who received contrast medium compared with those who did not receive contrast; relative risk of AKI for those receiving contrast was 0.79 (confidence interval: 0.62-1.02). Importantly, there was no difference in AKI in patients with diabetes or CKD.
Ehmann et al. looked at renal outcomes in patients who received IV contrast when they presented to an emergency department with AKI.2 They found that in patients with AKI, receiving contrast was not associated with persistent AKI at hospital discharge. Hinson and colleagues looked at patients arriving at the emergency department and needing imaging.3 They did a retrospective, cohort analysis of 17,934 patients who had CT with contrast, CT with no contrast, or no CT. Contrast administration was not associated with increased incidence of AKI (odds ratio, 0.96, CI: 0.85-1.08).
Aycock et al. did a meta-analysis of AKI after CT scanning, including 28 studies involving 107,335 patients.4 They found that compared with noncontrast CT, CT scanning with contrast was not associated with AKI (OR, 0.94, CI: 0.83-1.07). Elias and Aronson looked at the risk of AKI after contrast in patients receiving CT scans compared with those who received ventilation/perfusion scans to evaluate for pulmonary embolism.5 There were 44 AKI events (4.5%) in patients exposed to contrast media and 33 events (3.4%) in patients not exposed to contrast media (risk difference: 1.1%, 95% CI: -0.6% to 2.9%; OR, 1.39, CI: 0.86-2.26; P = .18).
Despite multiple studies showing no increased risk, there is still a concern that contrast can cause AKI.6 Animal models have shown iodinated contrast can have a deleterious effect on mitochondria and membrane function.6 Criticisms of the retrospective nature of many of the studies I have shared, and the lack of randomized, controlled trials are that there may be bias in these studies, as the highest-risk patients are the ones most likely not to receive contrast. In a joint guideline from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation, this statement was made: “The risk of acute kidney injury developing in patients with reduced kidney function following exposure to intravenous iodinated contrast media has been overstated.”7 Their recommendation was to give contrast if needed in patients with glomerular filtration rates (GFRs) greater than 30.
Myth: Contrast-induced renal injury is a concern.
Clinical impact: For CT scanning, it is OK to give contrast when needed. A conservative cutoff for contrast use would be a GFR less than 30.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].
References
1. McDonald JS et al. Radiology. 2013:267:119-128.
2. Ehmann MR et al. Intensive Care Med. 2023:49(2):205-215.
3. Hinson JS et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577-586.
4. Aycock RD et al. Ann Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;71(1):44-53.
5. Elias A, Aronson D. Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun;121(6):800-807.
6. Weisbord SD, du Cheryon D. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(1):107-109.
7. Davenport MS et al. Radiology. 2020;294(3):660-668.