Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Biogen’s announcement on January 31 that it will discontinue development and commercialization of the anti-amyloid agent, aducanumab (Aduhelm), for Alzheimer’s disease came as no surprise to many experts in the field. 

“Clearly, the drug was a commercial failure,” Dave Knopman, MD, professor of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, said. “Despite the accelerated approval, the uncertainty of clinical benefits was transparent, and the public failed to generate any enthusiasm for the drug.”

Aducanumab received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2021 despite a recommendation by its own advisory panel not to approve the drug. Dr. Knopman was a member of that panel and one of three members who resigned after the agency’s decision to approve the drug. 

“The decision by Biogen to cancel the aducanumab program was not surprising, as the company steadily withdrew their engagement in the program over the past year,” Dr. Knopman noted. 

“This was a commercial decision — not so much a scientific decision,” Howard Fillit, MD, founding executive director of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said. 

“The process by which the [aducanumab] program was handled and some of the conflicting opinions at the FDA led to uncertainty about the efficacy of the drug, and it wasn’t being prescribed,” Dr. Fillit said. 

After its approval, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services restricted coverage of aducanumab to patients enrolled in clinical trials, which experts say likely contributed to Biogen’s decision to ditch the drug. 

It also limited the number of people living with Alzheimer’s disease who could get access to the treatment and “created significant confusion for patients and doctors,” the Alzheimer’s Association said in a statement on Biogen’s decision. 

Biogen will also terminate the post-approval clinical trial known as ENVISION, which sought to confirm aducanumab’s benefits in patients with early Alzheimer’s disease. 

Going forward, Biogen said that it will now focus on advancing lecanemab (Leqembi), the first anti-amyloid to receive traditional FDA approval.

“We have learned much from the mistakes and misjudgments that plagued aducanumab, but the field has moved on and is a little the wiser,” Dr. Knopman said. “With the standard approval of lecanemab, which showed clear, albeit modest, clinical benefits, we are focusing on providing safe and efficient access to lecanemab.” 

Biogen plans to accelerate the development of potential new treatment modalities. These include BIIB080, an investigational antisense oligonucleotide therapy targeting tau, and BIIB113, an oral small-molecule inhibitor of tau aggregation.

Dr. Fillit said that he’s “very excited” about the current pipeline of Alzheimer’s disease drugs, starting with donanemab, which is currently under review at the FDA, and “looks like it has somewhat better efficacy data than lecanemab.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

TOPLINE:

Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.

The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.

Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.

TAKEAWAY: 

After 4 weeks, 30.9% of patients with axSpA and 29.1% of patients with non-axSpA back pain had any response, and 23.5% and 16.4% of patients with axSpA and non-axSpA back pain, respectively, had a good response.

The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.

No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE: 

The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.

The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.

Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.

TAKEAWAY: 

After 4 weeks, 30.9% of patients with axSpA and 29.1% of patients with non-axSpA back pain had any response, and 23.5% and 16.4% of patients with axSpA and non-axSpA back pain, respectively, had a good response.

The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.

No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE: 

The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with longstanding back pain symptoms had response rates to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) that were no different from patients with non-axSpA back pain of similar duration, according to findings from a prospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

The researchers recruited 233 consecutive outpatients with chronic back pain, including 68 with axSpA and 165 with non-axSpA back pain.

The mean ages of the participants in the axSpA and non-axSpA groups were 42.7 years and 49.3 years, respectively; symptom durations were approximately 15 years in both groups.

Participants were given NSAIDs and “any response” was defined as back pain improvement of more than two units on the Numerical Rating Scale, while “good response” was defined as an improvement of > 50% compared with baseline.

TAKEAWAY: 

After 4 weeks, 30.9% of patients with axSpA and 29.1% of patients with non-axSpA back pain had any response, and 23.5% and 16.4% of patients with axSpA and non-axSpA back pain, respectively, had a good response.

The proportion of patients showing improvement ranged from 19% to 31% in both groups after 4 weeks of treatment.

No significant differences in response appeared in subgroups of patients based on inflammatory back pain stage or in different axSpA stages.

IN PRACTICE:

“We think that this information has an effect on clinical practice since a response to NSAIDs is an important criterion in the ASAS [Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society]/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology treatment recommendations that may influence decisions to initiate treatment with biologic or targeted-synthetic DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs]. Further, a good response to NSAIDs is also an important clinical feature in the ASAS classification criteria,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE: 

The lead author on the study was Xenofon Baraliakos, MD, of Ruhr University Bochum, Germany. The study was published online on January 15, 2024, in The Journal of Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The uneven sex match in the diagnoses and the history of NSAID treatment among patients in both groups were potential limiting factors. The researchers also noted that a similarly conducted study in patients with early disease could have findings that are “much different.”

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored in part by Novartis. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

In a significant victory for patients and healthcare providers, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) has officially postponed its restrictive anesthesia policy until further notice. The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, so no claims will be rejected for payment.

The decision follows intense advocacy efforts by a coalition that included AGA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the American College of Surgeons (ACS), with the Massachusetts Gastroenterology Association demonstrating exceptional leadership and the Massachusetts Society of Anesthesiologists (MSA) persevering throughout the process. The BCBSMA heeded the coalition’s warnings about the potential impact on cancer screening access and patient choice in GI care.

Physician leaders representing the societies played a crucial role in meetings with BCBSMA, contributing to this positive outcome. Member engagement, including contacting legislators, media outreach, and participation in the #Noto154 campaign, had a substantial impact.

BCBSMA informed the societies that all claims will be paid; however, documentation will still be required for patients presenting with ASA 1 and ASA 2. Providers may download a list of commonly used diagnosis codes documented with the administration of propofol. The AGA encourages members to still be mindful that BCBSMA will be monitoring the use of these codes for propofol administration. Members can see BCBSMA policy 154 for the complete list of diagnosis codes that support use of MAC. The societies have requested that BCBSMA provide education to providers on this requirement.

The AGA intends to closely monitor developments to ensure similar policies are not introduced nationally.

In a significant victory for patients and healthcare providers, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) has officially postponed its restrictive anesthesia policy until further notice. The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, so no claims will be rejected for payment.

The decision follows intense advocacy efforts by a coalition that included AGA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the American College of Surgeons (ACS), with the Massachusetts Gastroenterology Association demonstrating exceptional leadership and the Massachusetts Society of Anesthesiologists (MSA) persevering throughout the process. The BCBSMA heeded the coalition’s warnings about the potential impact on cancer screening access and patient choice in GI care.

Physician leaders representing the societies played a crucial role in meetings with BCBSMA, contributing to this positive outcome. Member engagement, including contacting legislators, media outreach, and participation in the #Noto154 campaign, had a substantial impact.

BCBSMA informed the societies that all claims will be paid; however, documentation will still be required for patients presenting with ASA 1 and ASA 2. Providers may download a list of commonly used diagnosis codes documented with the administration of propofol. The AGA encourages members to still be mindful that BCBSMA will be monitoring the use of these codes for propofol administration. Members can see BCBSMA policy 154 for the complete list of diagnosis codes that support use of MAC. The societies have requested that BCBSMA provide education to providers on this requirement.

The AGA intends to closely monitor developments to ensure similar policies are not introduced nationally.

In a significant victory for patients and healthcare providers, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) has officially postponed its restrictive anesthesia policy until further notice. The change is retroactive to Jan. 1, 2024, so no claims will be rejected for payment.

The decision follows intense advocacy efforts by a coalition that included AGA, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the American College of Surgeons (ACS), with the Massachusetts Gastroenterology Association demonstrating exceptional leadership and the Massachusetts Society of Anesthesiologists (MSA) persevering throughout the process. The BCBSMA heeded the coalition’s warnings about the potential impact on cancer screening access and patient choice in GI care.

Physician leaders representing the societies played a crucial role in meetings with BCBSMA, contributing to this positive outcome. Member engagement, including contacting legislators, media outreach, and participation in the #Noto154 campaign, had a substantial impact.

BCBSMA informed the societies that all claims will be paid; however, documentation will still be required for patients presenting with ASA 1 and ASA 2. Providers may download a list of commonly used diagnosis codes documented with the administration of propofol. The AGA encourages members to still be mindful that BCBSMA will be monitoring the use of these codes for propofol administration. Members can see BCBSMA policy 154 for the complete list of diagnosis codes that support use of MAC. The societies have requested that BCBSMA provide education to providers on this requirement.

The AGA intends to closely monitor developments to ensure similar policies are not introduced nationally.

Two species of gut bacteria modulate the immune system and even the survival of one another to impact the progression of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), according to investigators.

While Ruminococcus gnavus promotes immune tolerance and therefore HBV persistence, Akkermansia muciniphila stimulates the immune system, promoting viral clearance, reported lead author Huey-Huey Chua, MD, of the National Taiwan University College of Medicine and Children’s Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues.

These findings could lead to new therapeutic strategies, such as administration of the secretory products of A. muciniphila, or provision of probiotics and prebiotics that tip the balance toward this more beneficial bacterium, the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Their study, which included data from both human patients and mouse models of CHB, was grounded in prior research showing a link between gut microbiota and the age-dependence of HBV immunity.

“Sterilization of the gut microbiota using antibiotics prevents adult mice from rapidly clearing HBV and restores the tolerance phenotype, implying that the gut microbiota may transmit signals to break liver tolerance and evoke rapid HBV clearance,” Dr. Chua and colleagues wrote. “We hypothesized that the wax and wane of gut microbiota signatures may determine the progression of CHB. We aimed to delineate what the pivotal bacteria are and how they manipulate the progression of CHB.”

They began by analyzing fecal samples from 102 patients with CHB either in the immune-tolerant (IT) or immune-active (IA) phase of infection.

R. gnavus was the most abundant species among IT patients, whereas A. muciniphila was most abundant among patients in the IA phase. Higher levels of A. muciniphila were also associated with early hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAG) loss, HBeAG seroconversion, and flares of aminotransferase. A mouse model echoed these findings.

Further experiments with mouse models revealed that R. gnavus modulates bile acids to promote HBV persistence and prolongation of the IT course. In opposition, A. muciniphila removes cholesterol and secretes metabolites that inhibit growth and function of R. gnavus.

“These novel findings will certainly confer a groundbreaking impact on the future therapy of CHB,” Dr. Chua and colleagues wrote.

They went on to describe several therapeutic strategies worth further investigation.

“A key step to promote switching from the IT to IA phase is to lessen the richness of R. gnavus and bile acid bioconversion from cholesterol,” they wrote. The secretory products of A. muciniphila that successfully ameliorate the burden of R. gnavus outgrowth can be provided as useful means to induce anti-HBV efficacy. Also, the development of targeted probiotics or prebiotics that can modulate the gut microbiota composition to favor the beneficial effects of A. muciniphila while inhibiting the detrimental effects of R. gnavus may have translational value for CHB.”

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan, Taiwan and the Center of Precision Medicine from Featured Areas Research Center Program within the Framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Two species of gut bacteria modulate the immune system and even the survival of one another to impact the progression of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), according to investigators.

While Ruminococcus gnavus promotes immune tolerance and therefore HBV persistence, Akkermansia muciniphila stimulates the immune system, promoting viral clearance, reported lead author Huey-Huey Chua, MD, of the National Taiwan University College of Medicine and Children’s Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues.

These findings could lead to new therapeutic strategies, such as administration of the secretory products of A. muciniphila, or provision of probiotics and prebiotics that tip the balance toward this more beneficial bacterium, the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Their study, which included data from both human patients and mouse models of CHB, was grounded in prior research showing a link between gut microbiota and the age-dependence of HBV immunity.

“Sterilization of the gut microbiota using antibiotics prevents adult mice from rapidly clearing HBV and restores the tolerance phenotype, implying that the gut microbiota may transmit signals to break liver tolerance and evoke rapid HBV clearance,” Dr. Chua and colleagues wrote. “We hypothesized that the wax and wane of gut microbiota signatures may determine the progression of CHB. We aimed to delineate what the pivotal bacteria are and how they manipulate the progression of CHB.”

They began by analyzing fecal samples from 102 patients with CHB either in the immune-tolerant (IT) or immune-active (IA) phase of infection.

R. gnavus was the most abundant species among IT patients, whereas A. muciniphila was most abundant among patients in the IA phase. Higher levels of A. muciniphila were also associated with early hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAG) loss, HBeAG seroconversion, and flares of aminotransferase. A mouse model echoed these findings.

Further experiments with mouse models revealed that R. gnavus modulates bile acids to promote HBV persistence and prolongation of the IT course. In opposition, A. muciniphila removes cholesterol and secretes metabolites that inhibit growth and function of R. gnavus.

“These novel findings will certainly confer a groundbreaking impact on the future therapy of CHB,” Dr. Chua and colleagues wrote.

They went on to describe several therapeutic strategies worth further investigation.

“A key step to promote switching from the IT to IA phase is to lessen the richness of R. gnavus and bile acid bioconversion from cholesterol,” they wrote. The secretory products of A. muciniphila that successfully ameliorate the burden of R. gnavus outgrowth can be provided as useful means to induce anti-HBV efficacy. Also, the development of targeted probiotics or prebiotics that can modulate the gut microbiota composition to favor the beneficial effects of A. muciniphila while inhibiting the detrimental effects of R. gnavus may have translational value for CHB.”

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan, Taiwan and the Center of Precision Medicine from Featured Areas Research Center Program within the Framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Two species of gut bacteria modulate the immune system and even the survival of one another to impact the progression of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), according to investigators.

While Ruminococcus gnavus promotes immune tolerance and therefore HBV persistence, Akkermansia muciniphila stimulates the immune system, promoting viral clearance, reported lead author Huey-Huey Chua, MD, of the National Taiwan University College of Medicine and Children’s Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues.

These findings could lead to new therapeutic strategies, such as administration of the secretory products of A. muciniphila, or provision of probiotics and prebiotics that tip the balance toward this more beneficial bacterium, the investigators wrote in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Their study, which included data from both human patients and mouse models of CHB, was grounded in prior research showing a link between gut microbiota and the age-dependence of HBV immunity.

“Sterilization of the gut microbiota using antibiotics prevents adult mice from rapidly clearing HBV and restores the tolerance phenotype, implying that the gut microbiota may transmit signals to break liver tolerance and evoke rapid HBV clearance,” Dr. Chua and colleagues wrote. “We hypothesized that the wax and wane of gut microbiota signatures may determine the progression of CHB. We aimed to delineate what the pivotal bacteria are and how they manipulate the progression of CHB.”

They began by analyzing fecal samples from 102 patients with CHB either in the immune-tolerant (IT) or immune-active (IA) phase of infection.

R. gnavus was the most abundant species among IT patients, whereas A. muciniphila was most abundant among patients in the IA phase. Higher levels of A. muciniphila were also associated with early hepatitis B e-antigen (HBeAG) loss, HBeAG seroconversion, and flares of aminotransferase. A mouse model echoed these findings.

Further experiments with mouse models revealed that R. gnavus modulates bile acids to promote HBV persistence and prolongation of the IT course. In opposition, A. muciniphila removes cholesterol and secretes metabolites that inhibit growth and function of R. gnavus.

“These novel findings will certainly confer a groundbreaking impact on the future therapy of CHB,” Dr. Chua and colleagues wrote.

They went on to describe several therapeutic strategies worth further investigation.

“A key step to promote switching from the IT to IA phase is to lessen the richness of R. gnavus and bile acid bioconversion from cholesterol,” they wrote. The secretory products of A. muciniphila that successfully ameliorate the burden of R. gnavus outgrowth can be provided as useful means to induce anti-HBV efficacy. Also, the development of targeted probiotics or prebiotics that can modulate the gut microbiota composition to favor the beneficial effects of A. muciniphila while inhibiting the detrimental effects of R. gnavus may have translational value for CHB.”

The study was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Executive Yuan, Taiwan and the Center of Precision Medicine from Featured Areas Research Center Program within the Framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education in Taiwan. The investigators disclosed no conflicts of interest.

“He was one of those fresh Jewish types you want to kill at sight ... she on the other hand looked Italian, a goaty slant to her eyes ... She looked dirty. So did he ... And she smelled, the usual smell of sweat and dirt you find among people who habitually do not wash or bathe ... People like that belong in clinics ... Just dumb oxen. Why the hell do they let them into the country? Half idiots at best.”

Who wrote that? Some hate-mongering pundit on a cable channel? A Twitter troll?

Nope. It was William Carlos Williams, MD, the patron saint of physician-writers.

You’re thinking “No! Not him!” We all read “The Use of Force” and “Red Wheelbarrow” in high school or college. But this blatant anti-Semitism and xenophobia?

The short story is “A Face of Stone” from his collection “The Doctor Stories” (highly recommended). When Williams was asked to remove those parts before publication, he refused because they’re a key part of the story. And I agree with him.

The point, as in so much of life, is the big picture. Despite his vivid disgust, he examines their infant, reassuring the mother that everything is okay, and later helping her with her leg pain and walking difficulties. At the end of the short story he realizes that his impressions were wrong and that people he started out hating are, well, just people who need help. And, as doctors, isn’t helping what we’re here to do?

It’s not just Williams, it’s all of us. First impressions aren’t always correct, but we rely on them — a lot. We’re programmed to. Our ancestors in the caves didn’t have much time to decided friend or foe when they encountered others.

So we initially judge people on their faces, expressions, hair, clothes, religious symbols (if present), jewelry ... The things that are registered by the brain in a split-second before the first words are exchanged.

All of us are constantly “scanning” others we encounter. In the office, store, restaurant, whatever. Usually those impressions are fleeting as we forget that person within a minute or two since we don’t see them again. But as doctors we do get to know them as patients, and so are constantly “updating” our mental files as new information comes in.

As Williams tells the story, he realizes that the “face of stone” isn’t that of the young mother he mentally derided — it’s his own face, turned that way by his first dismissive impression of the family, and then melted as he realizes he was wrong and learns from the experience to be a better doctor.

In vivid terms he reminds us that, although doctors, we are still susceptible to the same foibles, errors, and incorrect snap-judgments that all people are, but what matters is that we can, and have to, overcome them.

As a wall plaque in St. Mary’s General Hospital in Passaic, New Jersey, reminds us: “We walk the wards that Williams walked.”

We all do. Everyday. Everywhere.
 

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

“He was one of those fresh Jewish types you want to kill at sight ... she on the other hand looked Italian, a goaty slant to her eyes ... She looked dirty. So did he ... And she smelled, the usual smell of sweat and dirt you find among people who habitually do not wash or bathe ... People like that belong in clinics ... Just dumb oxen. Why the hell do they let them into the country? Half idiots at best.”

Who wrote that? Some hate-mongering pundit on a cable channel? A Twitter troll?

Nope. It was William Carlos Williams, MD, the patron saint of physician-writers.

You’re thinking “No! Not him!” We all read “The Use of Force” and “Red Wheelbarrow” in high school or college. But this blatant anti-Semitism and xenophobia?

The short story is “A Face of Stone” from his collection “The Doctor Stories” (highly recommended). When Williams was asked to remove those parts before publication, he refused because they’re a key part of the story. And I agree with him.

The point, as in so much of life, is the big picture. Despite his vivid disgust, he examines their infant, reassuring the mother that everything is okay, and later helping her with her leg pain and walking difficulties. At the end of the short story he realizes that his impressions were wrong and that people he started out hating are, well, just people who need help. And, as doctors, isn’t helping what we’re here to do?

It’s not just Williams, it’s all of us. First impressions aren’t always correct, but we rely on them — a lot. We’re programmed to. Our ancestors in the caves didn’t have much time to decided friend or foe when they encountered others.

So we initially judge people on their faces, expressions, hair, clothes, religious symbols (if present), jewelry ... The things that are registered by the brain in a split-second before the first words are exchanged.

All of us are constantly “scanning” others we encounter. In the office, store, restaurant, whatever. Usually those impressions are fleeting as we forget that person within a minute or two since we don’t see them again. But as doctors we do get to know them as patients, and so are constantly “updating” our mental files as new information comes in.

As Williams tells the story, he realizes that the “face of stone” isn’t that of the young mother he mentally derided — it’s his own face, turned that way by his first dismissive impression of the family, and then melted as he realizes he was wrong and learns from the experience to be a better doctor.

In vivid terms he reminds us that, although doctors, we are still susceptible to the same foibles, errors, and incorrect snap-judgments that all people are, but what matters is that we can, and have to, overcome them.

As a wall plaque in St. Mary’s General Hospital in Passaic, New Jersey, reminds us: “We walk the wards that Williams walked.”

We all do. Everyday. Everywhere.
 

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

“He was one of those fresh Jewish types you want to kill at sight ... she on the other hand looked Italian, a goaty slant to her eyes ... She looked dirty. So did he ... And she smelled, the usual smell of sweat and dirt you find among people who habitually do not wash or bathe ... People like that belong in clinics ... Just dumb oxen. Why the hell do they let them into the country? Half idiots at best.”

Who wrote that? Some hate-mongering pundit on a cable channel? A Twitter troll?

Nope. It was William Carlos Williams, MD, the patron saint of physician-writers.

You’re thinking “No! Not him!” We all read “The Use of Force” and “Red Wheelbarrow” in high school or college. But this blatant anti-Semitism and xenophobia?

The short story is “A Face of Stone” from his collection “The Doctor Stories” (highly recommended). When Williams was asked to remove those parts before publication, he refused because they’re a key part of the story. And I agree with him.

The point, as in so much of life, is the big picture. Despite his vivid disgust, he examines their infant, reassuring the mother that everything is okay, and later helping her with her leg pain and walking difficulties. At the end of the short story he realizes that his impressions were wrong and that people he started out hating are, well, just people who need help. And, as doctors, isn’t helping what we’re here to do?

It’s not just Williams, it’s all of us. First impressions aren’t always correct, but we rely on them — a lot. We’re programmed to. Our ancestors in the caves didn’t have much time to decided friend or foe when they encountered others.

So we initially judge people on their faces, expressions, hair, clothes, religious symbols (if present), jewelry ... The things that are registered by the brain in a split-second before the first words are exchanged.

All of us are constantly “scanning” others we encounter. In the office, store, restaurant, whatever. Usually those impressions are fleeting as we forget that person within a minute or two since we don’t see them again. But as doctors we do get to know them as patients, and so are constantly “updating” our mental files as new information comes in.

As Williams tells the story, he realizes that the “face of stone” isn’t that of the young mother he mentally derided — it’s his own face, turned that way by his first dismissive impression of the family, and then melted as he realizes he was wrong and learns from the experience to be a better doctor.

In vivid terms he reminds us that, although doctors, we are still susceptible to the same foibles, errors, and incorrect snap-judgments that all people are, but what matters is that we can, and have to, overcome them.

As a wall plaque in St. Mary’s General Hospital in Passaic, New Jersey, reminds us: “We walk the wards that Williams walked.”

We all do. Everyday. Everywhere.
 

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

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

Key clinical point: Higher dietary intakes of vitamin B₆ and folate were significantly associated with a lower risk for severe headaches or migraines, with a synergistic interaction observed between vitamin B₆ and folate intake and reduced migraine risk.

Major finding: Compared with the lowest quintile of dietary vitamin B₆ (≤1.13 mg/day) and folate (≤240 μg/day) intake, the risk for severe headache or migraine was lower in the highest quintile of vitamin B₆ (≥2.39 mg/day; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.66; P = .01) and folate (≥502.01 μg/day; aOR 0.57; P = .002) intake. A synergistic interaction was observed between the high mass of vitamin B₆ and folate intake and a lower risk for severe headache or migraine (synergy index 0.58; 95% CI 0.40-0.83).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 7017 adult participants (age ≥ 20 years), of whom 1350 (19.23%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, and others. No conflicts of interests were declared.

Source: Tian S et al. Vitamin B₆ and folate intake are associated with lower risk of severe headache or migraine in adults: An analysis based on NHANES 1999-2004. Nutr Res. 2023;121:51-60 (Nov 15). doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2023.11.008

Key clinical point: Higher dietary intakes of vitamin B₆ and folate were significantly associated with a lower risk for severe headaches or migraines, with a synergistic interaction observed between vitamin B₆ and folate intake and reduced migraine risk.

Major finding: Compared with the lowest quintile of dietary vitamin B₆ (≤1.13 mg/day) and folate (≤240 μg/day) intake, the risk for severe headache or migraine was lower in the highest quintile of vitamin B₆ (≥2.39 mg/day; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.66; P = .01) and folate (≥502.01 μg/day; aOR 0.57; P = .002) intake. A synergistic interaction was observed between the high mass of vitamin B₆ and folate intake and a lower risk for severe headache or migraine (synergy index 0.58; 95% CI 0.40-0.83).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 7017 adult participants (age ≥ 20 years), of whom 1350 (19.23%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, and others. No conflicts of interests were declared.

Source: Tian S et al. Vitamin B₆ and folate intake are associated with lower risk of severe headache or migraine in adults: An analysis based on NHANES 1999-2004. Nutr Res. 2023;121:51-60 (Nov 15). doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2023.11.008

Key clinical point: Higher dietary intakes of vitamin B₆ and folate were significantly associated with a lower risk for severe headaches or migraines, with a synergistic interaction observed between vitamin B₆ and folate intake and reduced migraine risk.

Major finding: Compared with the lowest quintile of dietary vitamin B₆ (≤1.13 mg/day) and folate (≤240 μg/day) intake, the risk for severe headache or migraine was lower in the highest quintile of vitamin B₆ (≥2.39 mg/day; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.66; P = .01) and folate (≥502.01 μg/day; aOR 0.57; P = .002) intake. A synergistic interaction was observed between the high mass of vitamin B₆ and folate intake and a lower risk for severe headache or migraine (synergy index 0.58; 95% CI 0.40-0.83).

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 7017 adult participants (age ≥ 20 years), of whom 1350 (19.23%) had migraine.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, and others. No conflicts of interests were declared.

Source: Tian S et al. Vitamin B₆ and folate intake are associated with lower risk of severe headache or migraine in adults: An analysis based on NHANES 1999-2004. Nutr Res. 2023;121:51-60 (Nov 15). doi: 10.1016/j.nutres.2023.11.008