TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

TOPLINE:

In patients with Hashimoto disease and persistent symptoms despite adequate medical treatment, total thyroidectomy had a beneficial effect up to 5 years but with a substantially higher risk for complications than initially anticipated.

METHODOLOGY:

• The 5-year follow-up of 65 participants in a randomized, open-label trial of thyroidectomy plus medical management vs medical management alone aimed at testing the hypothesis that persistent symptoms despite adequate thyroxine replacement may be related to extrathyroidal autoimmune reactions and that complete removal of thyroid tissues may attenuate autoimmune responses and relieve symptoms.
• Patients in the control group were given the option of having surgery 18 months after enrollment, depending on trial results.
• The primary outcome was patient-reported health-related quality of life measured by the dimensional general health score in the generic Short Form-36 Health Survey questionnaire.

TAKEAWAY:

• The positive treatment effect seen after 18 months was maintained throughout the 3-year follow-up.
• In the intervention group, the improved general health score remained at the same level during the 5-year follow-up.
• Results were similar for the other Short Form-36 Health Survey domains and for total fatigue and chronic fatigue.
• Short-term (<12 months) or longer-lasting complications occurred in 23 patients, including 6 with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis (4 were long-term) and 12 with hypoparathyroidism (6 long-term, including 3 permanent).
• Five patients had postoperative hematoma and/or infection requiring intervention.

IN PRACTICE:

“The improvements in patient-reported outcome measures reported at 18 months after surgery were maintained at 5 years after surgery in the intervention group. In contrast, no spontaneous improvement was seen during 3 years in the control group.”

“Long-term complications in 10 of 73 (14%) patients despite use of meticulous dissection to achieve total thyroidectomy is unacceptably high. Medication and compensatory mechanisms for hypoparathyroidism and unilateral recurrent nerve injury, respectively, did alleviate symptoms.”

SOURCE:

This study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine, by Geir Hoff, MD, PhD, of the Department of Research, Telemark Hospital, Skien, and the Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues.

LIMITATIONS:

None listed.

DISCLOSURES:

None.

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Systematically biased artificial intelligence (AI) models did not improve clinicians’ accuracy in diagnosing hospitalized patients, based on data from more than 450 clinicians.

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) could support clinicians in their diagnostic decisions of hospitalized patients but could also be biased and cause potential harm,” said Sarah Jabbour, MSE, a PhD candidate in computer science and engineering at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in an interview.

“Regulatory guidance has suggested that the use of AI explanations could mitigate these harms, but the effectiveness of using AI explanations has not been established,” she said.

To examine whether AI explanations can be effective in mitigating the potential harms of systemic bias in AI models, Ms. Jabbour and colleagues conducted a randomized clinical vignette survey study. The survey was administered between April 2022 and January 2023 across 13 states, and the study population included hospitalist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The results were published in JAMA.

Participants were randomized to AI predictions with AI explanations (226 clinicians) or without AI explanations (231 clinicians).

The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy for pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, defined as the number of correct diagnoses over the total number of assessments, the researchers wrote.

The clinicians viewed nine clinical vignettes of patients hospitalized with acute respiratory failure, including their presenting symptoms, physical examination, laboratory results, and chest radiographs. Clinicians viewed two vignettes with no AI model input to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy. They made three assessments in each vignette, one for each diagnosis. The order of the vignettes was two without AI predictions (to establish baseline diagnostic accuracy), six with AI predictions, and one with a clinical consultation by a hypothetical colleague. The vignettes included standard and systematically biased AI models.

The baseline diagnostic accuracy was 73% for the diagnoses of pneumonia, heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Clinicians’ accuracy increased by 2.9% when they viewed a standard diagnostic AI model without explanations and by 4.4% when they viewed models with AI explanations.

However, clinicians’ accuracy decreased by 11.3% after viewing systematically biased AI model predictions without explanations compared with baseline, and biased AI model predictions with explanations decreased accuracy by 9.1%.

The decrease in accuracy with systematically biased AI predictions without explanations was mainly attributable to a decrease in the participants’ diagnostic specificity, the researchers noted, but the addition of explanations did little to improve it, the researchers said.

Potentially Useful but Still Imperfect

The findings were limited by several factors including the use of a web-based survey, which differs from surveys in a clinical setting, the researchers wrote. Other limitations included the younger than average study population, and the focus on the clinicians making treatment decisions, vs other clinicians who might have a better understanding of the AI explanations.

“In our study, explanations were presented in a way that were considered to be obvious, where the AI model was completely focused on areas of the chest X-rays unrelated to the clinical condition,” Ms. Jabbour told this news organization. “We hypothesized that if presented with such explanations, the participants in our study would notice that the model was behaving incorrectly and not rely on its predictions. This was surprisingly not the case, and the explanations when presented alongside biased AI predictions had seemingly no effect in mitigating clinicians’ overreliance on biased AI,” she said.

“AI is being developed at an extraordinary rate, and our study shows that it has the potential to improve clinical decision-making. At the same time, it could harm clinical decision-making when biased,” Ms. Jabbour said. “We must be thoughtful about how to carefully integrate AI into clinical workflows, with the goal of improving clinical care while not introducing systematic errors or harming patients,” she added.

Looking ahead, “There are several potential research areas that could be explored,” said Ms. Jabbour. “Researchers should focus on careful validation of AI models to identify biased model behavior prior to deployment. AI researchers should also continue including and communicating with clinicians during the development of AI tools to better understand clinicians’ needs and how they interact with AI,” she said. “This is not an exhaustive list of research directions, and it will take much discussion between experts across disciplines such as AI, human computer interaction, and medicine to ultimately deploy AI safely into clinical care.”

Don’t Overestimate AI

“With the increasing use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in other spheres, there has been an increase in interest in exploring how they can be utilized to improve clinical outcomes,” said Suman Pal, MD, assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, in an interview. “However, concerns remain regarding the possible harms and ways to mitigate them,” said Dr. Pal, who was not involved in the current study.

In the current study, “It was interesting to note that explanations did not significantly mitigate the decrease in clinician accuracy from systematically biased AI model predictions,” Dr. Pal said.

“For the clinician, the findings of this study caution against overreliance on AI in clinical decision-making, especially because of the risk of exacerbating existing health disparities due to systemic inequities in existing literature,” Dr. Pal told this news organization.

“Additional research is needed to explore how clinicians can be better trained in identifying both the utility and the limitations of AI and into methods of validation and continuous quality checks with integration of AI into clinical workflows,” he noted.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Pal had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr. JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk about a recent report in the journal Hypertension that raises questions about whether blood pressure (BP) guidelines should be revisited and whether sex-specific thresholds and targets should be considered. Current BP guidelines are sex-agnostic.

This study was done in the large-scale nationally representative NHANES cohort. It included more than 53,000 US men and women. The average age was about 45 years, with an average duration of follow-up of 9.5 years. During that time, about 2400 cardiovascular (CVD) deaths were documented at baseline. The BP was measured three times, and the results were averaged. About 20% of the cohort were taking antihypertensive medications, and 80% were not.

Sex differences were observed in the association between BP and CVD mortality. The systolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 110-119 mm Hg in men and 100-109 mm Hg in women. In men, however, compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, at which point, the hazard ratio was 1.76, or 76% higher risk.

In women, the risk for CVD death began to increase significantly at a lower threshold. Compared with a reference category of systolic BP of 100-109 mm Hg, women whose systolic BP was 130-139 mm Hg had a significant 61% increase in CVD death, and among those with a systolic BP of 140-159 mm Hg, the risk was increased by 75%. With a systolic BP ≥ 160 mm Hg, CVD deaths among women were more than doubled, with a hazard ratio of 2.13.

Overall, these findings suggest sex differences, with women having an increased risk for CVD death beginning at a lower elevation of their systolic BP. For diastolic BP, both men and women showed the typical U-shaped curve and the diastolic BP associated with the lowest risk for CVD death was 70-80 mm Hg.

If these findings can be replicated with additional research and other large-scale cohort studies, and randomized trials show differences in lowering BP, then sex-specific BP guidelines could have advantages and should be seriously considered. Furthermore, some of the CVD risk scores and risk modeling should perhaps use sex-specific blood pressure thresholds.Dr. Manson received study pill donation and infrastructure support from Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study published last spring suggesting that hearing aids may help reduce dementia risk has been retracted due to a coding error identified by the authors. 

The study was published April 13 in The Lancet Public Health and reported at that time. It was retracted by the journal on December 12.

According to the retraction notice, the journal editors in late November were informed by the authors of the paper that an error was introduced in the output format setting of their SAS codes, which led to data for people with hearing loss using hearing aids and those with hearing loss without using hearing aids being switched. 

This led to errors in their analysis, “which render their findings and conclusions false and misleading,” the retraction notice states. 

These errors were identified by the researchers following an exchange with scientists seeking to reproduce the authors’ findings.In a statement, The Lancet Group said it “takes issues relating to research integrity extremely seriously” and follows best-practice guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

“Retractions are a rare but important part of the publishing process, and we are grateful to the scientists who prompted the re-examination of the data,” the statement reads. 

Despite the retraction, other studies have suggested a link between hearing and dementia. 

One study of US Medicare beneficiaries found a 61% higher dementia prevalence in those with moderate to severe hearing loss compared to those with normal hearing.

In this research, even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and use of hearing aids was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence. 

In addition, a large meta-analysis showed that hearing aids significantly reduce the risk for cognitive decline and dementia and even improve short-term cognitive function in individuals with hearing loss.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study published last spring suggesting that hearing aids may help reduce dementia risk has been retracted due to a coding error identified by the authors. 

The study was published April 13 in The Lancet Public Health and reported at that time. It was retracted by the journal on December 12.

According to the retraction notice, the journal editors in late November were informed by the authors of the paper that an error was introduced in the output format setting of their SAS codes, which led to data for people with hearing loss using hearing aids and those with hearing loss without using hearing aids being switched. 

This led to errors in their analysis, “which render their findings and conclusions false and misleading,” the retraction notice states. 

These errors were identified by the researchers following an exchange with scientists seeking to reproduce the authors’ findings.In a statement, The Lancet Group said it “takes issues relating to research integrity extremely seriously” and follows best-practice guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

“Retractions are a rare but important part of the publishing process, and we are grateful to the scientists who prompted the re-examination of the data,” the statement reads. 

Despite the retraction, other studies have suggested a link between hearing and dementia. 

One study of US Medicare beneficiaries found a 61% higher dementia prevalence in those with moderate to severe hearing loss compared to those with normal hearing.

In this research, even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and use of hearing aids was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence. 

In addition, a large meta-analysis showed that hearing aids significantly reduce the risk for cognitive decline and dementia and even improve short-term cognitive function in individuals with hearing loss.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A study published last spring suggesting that hearing aids may help reduce dementia risk has been retracted due to a coding error identified by the authors. 

The study was published April 13 in The Lancet Public Health and reported at that time. It was retracted by the journal on December 12.

According to the retraction notice, the journal editors in late November were informed by the authors of the paper that an error was introduced in the output format setting of their SAS codes, which led to data for people with hearing loss using hearing aids and those with hearing loss without using hearing aids being switched. 

This led to errors in their analysis, “which render their findings and conclusions false and misleading,” the retraction notice states. 

These errors were identified by the researchers following an exchange with scientists seeking to reproduce the authors’ findings.In a statement, The Lancet Group said it “takes issues relating to research integrity extremely seriously” and follows best-practice guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). 

“Retractions are a rare but important part of the publishing process, and we are grateful to the scientists who prompted the re-examination of the data,” the statement reads. 

Despite the retraction, other studies have suggested a link between hearing and dementia. 

One study of US Medicare beneficiaries found a 61% higher dementia prevalence in those with moderate to severe hearing loss compared to those with normal hearing.

In this research, even mild hearing loss was associated with increased dementia risk, although it was not statistically significant, and use of hearing aids was tied to a 32% decrease in dementia prevalence. 

In addition, a large meta-analysis showed that hearing aids significantly reduce the risk for cognitive decline and dementia and even improve short-term cognitive function in individuals with hearing loss.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

‘Twas the night before Festivus and all through the house, everyone was griping.

In case you’ve only been watching Friends reruns lately, Festivus is a holiday that originated 25 years ago in the last season of Seinfeld. George’s father created it as an alternative to Christmas hype. In addition to an aluminum pole, the holiday features the annual airing of grievances, when one is encouraged to voice complaints. Aluminum poles haven’t replaced Christmas trees, but the spirit of Festivus is still with us in the widespread airing of grievances in 2023.

Kaiser Permanente

Complaining isn’t just a post-pandemic problem. Hector spends quite a bit of time complaining about Paris in the Iliad. That was a few pandemics ago. And repining is ubiquitous in literature — as human as walking on two limbs it seems. Ostensibly, we complain to effect change: Something is wrong and we expect it to be different. But that’s not the whole story. No one believes the weather will improve or the Patriots will play better because we complain about them. So why do we bother?

Even if nothing changes on the outside, it does seem to alter our internal state, serving a healthy psychological function. Putting to words what is aggravating can have the same benefit of deep breathing. We describe it as “getting something off our chest” because that’s what it feels like. We feel unburdened just by saying it out loud. Complaining is also a way to bond with others. We have a strong instinct to be with people like ourselves and what better way to connect than to find common suffering? Think about the last time you complained: Cranky staff, prior auths, Medicare, disrespectful patients, many of your colleagues will nod in agreement, validating your feelings and making you feel less isolated.

There are also maladaptive reasons for whining. It’s obviously an elementary way to get attention or to remove responsibility. It can also be a political weapon (office politics included). It’s such a potent way to connect that it’s used to build alliances and clout. “Washington is doing a great job,” said no candidate ever. No, if you want to get people on your side, find something irritating and complain to everyone how annoying it is. This solidifies “us” versus “them,” which can harm organizations and families alike.

Yet, eliminating all complaints is neither feasible, nor probably advisable. You could try to make your office a complaint-free zone, but the likely result would be to push any griping to the remote corners where you can no longer hear them. These criticisms might have uncovered missed opportunities, identify problems, and even improve cohesion if done in a safe and transparent setting. If they are left unaddressed or if the underlying culture isn’t sound, then they can propagate and lead to factions that harm productivity.

Griping is as much part of the holiday season as jingle bells and jelly donuts. I don’t believe complaining is up now because people were grumpier in 2023. Rather I think people just craved connection more than ever. So join in: Traffic after the time change, Tesla service, (super) late patients, prior auths, perioral dermatitis, post-COVID telogen effluvium.

I feel better.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X (formerly Twitter). Write to him at [email protected].

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Human microbiome research has progressed in leaps and bounds over the past decades, from pivotal studies begun in the 1970s to the launch of the Human Microbiome Project in 2007. Breakthroughs have laid the groundwork for more recent clinical applications, such as fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT), and advanced techniques to explore new therapeutic pathways. Yet the “microbiome revolution” is just getting started, according to professor Martin J. Blaser, MD, one of the field’s pioneers.

The ongoing research and clinical trials into the microbiome’s link to the major causes of death in the United States hold the promise of interventions that manipulate the microbiome to prevent, slow, or perhaps even cure these conditions, says Dr. Blaser, who holds the Henry Rutgers Chair of the Human Microbiome and is director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Dr. Blaser is the author of Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics Is Fueling Our Modern Plagues, serves as chair of the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria and is a member of the scientific advisory board of the biotech startup Micronoma.

In this interview, which has been condensed and edited for clarity, Dr. Blaser discusses where we’re at now and where he sees the microbiome field evolving in the coming years.

Highlighting the Most Promising Applications

Which recent studies on the link between the human microbiome and disease have you found particularly promising?

There have been a number of studies, including our own, focusing on the gut-kidney axis. The gut microbiome produces, or detoxifies, metabolites that are toxic to the kidney: for example, those involved in the formation of kidney stones and in the worsening of uremia. 

Altering the microbiome to reduce the uremic toxins and the nidus for stone formation is a very promising field of research. 

What other disease states may be amenable to microbiome-based interventions?

There are diseases that are caused by known genetic mutations. Yet, for nearly all of them, there is great variation in clinical outcomes, which might be classed as genes multiplied by environment interactions. 

It seems likely to me that microbiome variation could account for some proportion of those differences for some genetic diseases. 

It’s now well established that altering the microbiome with FMT is a successful intervention for recurrent  Clostridioides difficile  infections. What do you see as the next disease states where FMT could prove successful?

If you go to ClinicalTrials.gov, you will find that that there are 471 trials registered using FMT. This is across a broad range of illnesses, including metabolic, immunological, autoimmune, inflammatory, degenerative, and neoplastic diseases. 

Which will be the next condition showing marked efficacy is anyone’s guess. That is why we must do clinical trials to assess what works and what does not, regardless of specific illness. 

The donor’s microbiome appears to be vital to engraftment success, with “superdonors” even being identified. What factors do you think primarily influence microbiome engraftment?

There is an emerging science about this question, driven in part by classical ecological theory. 

Right now, we are using FMT as if one size fits all. But this probably would not provide optimal treatment for all. Just as we type blood donors and recipients before the blood transfusion, one could easily imagine a parallel kind of procedure. 

Are there any diseases where it’s just too far-fetched to think altering the microbiome could make a difference?

The link between the microbiome and human health is so pervasive that there are few conditions that are out of the realm of possibility. It really is a frontier. 

Not that the microbiome causes everything, but by understanding and manipulating the microbiome, we could at least palliate, or slow down, particular pathologic processes. 

For all the major causes of death in the United States — cardiovascular disease, cancer, dementia and neurogenerative diseases, diabetes, and lung, liver, and kidney diseases — there is ongoing investigation of the microbiome. A greater promise would be to prevent or cure these illnesses. 

Predicting the Next Stages of the ‘Microbiome Revolution’

Do you believe we are at a turning point with the microbiome in terms of being able to manipulate or engineer it?

The microbiome is a scientific frontier that has an impact across the biosphere. It is a broad frontier involving human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, and the environment. Knowledge is increasing incrementally, as expected. 

Are we at the point yet where doctors should be incorporating microbiome-related lifestyle changes for people with or at risk for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease, or other chronic conditions?

Although we are still in the early stages of the “microbiome revolution,” which I first wrote about in EMBO Reports  in 2006 and then again in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2014, I think important advances for all of these conditions are coming our way in the next 5-10 years. 

How are prebiotics, probiotics, and postbiotics being used to shape the microbiome?

This is a very important and active area in clinical investigation, which needs to be ramped up. 

Tens of millions of people are using probiotics and prebiotics every day for vague indications, and which have only infrequently been tested in robust clinical trials. So, there is a disconnect between what’s being claimed with the bulk of the probiotics at present and what we’ll actually know in the future. 

How do you think the microbiome will stack up to other factors influencing health, such as genetics, exercise, and nutrition?

All are important, but unlike genetics, the microbiome is tractable, like diet and exercise. 

It is essentially impossible to change one’s genome, but that might become more likely before too long. However, we can easily change someone’s microbiome through dietary means, for example. Once we know the ground rules, there will be many options. Right now, it is mostly one-offs, but as the scientific basis broadens, much more will be possible. 

In the future, do you think we’ll be able to look at a person’s microbiome and tell what his or her risk of developing disease is, similar to the way we use gene panels now?

Yes, but we will need scientific advances to teach us what are the important biomarkers in general and in particular people. This will be one area of precision medicine. 

Lessons From Decades at the Forefront

You’ve been involved in this research for over 30 years, and the majority has focused on the human microbiome and its role in disease. When did it become apparent to you that this research had unique therapeutic promise?

From the very start, there was always the potential to harness the microbiome to improve human health. In fact, I wrote a perspective in PNAS on that theme in 2010. 

The key is to understand the biology of the microbiome, and from the scientific study comes new preventives and new treatments. Right now, there are many “probiotic” products on the market. Probiotics have a great future, but most of what is out there has not been rigorously tested for effectiveness. 

Was there a particular series of studies that occurred before the launch of the Human Microbiome Project and brought us to the current era?

The studies in the 1970s-1980s by Carl Woese using 16S rRNA genes to understand phylogeny and evolution opened up the field of DNA sequencing to consider bacterial evolution and issues of ancestry. 

A key subject of your research and the focus of your book is antibiotic-resistant bacteria. What did this work teach you about describing the science of antibiotic resistance to the general public?

People don’t care very much about antibiotic resistance. They think that affects other people, mostly. In contrast, they care about their own health and their children’s health. 

The more that the data show that using antibiotics can be harmful to health in some circumstances, the more that use will diminish. We need more transparency about benefits and costs. 

Are there any common misconceptions about the microbiome that you hear from the general public, or even clinicians, that you would like to see greater efforts to dispel?

The public and the medical profession are in love with probiotics, buying them by the tens of millions. But as stated before, they are very diverse and mostly untested for efficacy. 

The next step is to test specific formulations to see which ones work, and for whom, and which ones don’t. That would be a big advance. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Patients with psoriasis being treated with biologics have a low overall risk for developing the paradoxical symptoms of eczema, with interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitors found to confer the lowest risk of the drug classes examined in a large observational analysis.

Using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) database, Ali Al-Janabi, MA, from the University of Manchester (England) and associates found that 273 (1%) of approximately 25,000 drug exposures in 13,699 biologic-treated patients with psoriasis were associated with paradoxical eczema.

The incidence of paradoxical eczema was found to vary by class. The highest rate was seen for IL-17 inhibitors, at 1.22 per 100,000 person-years, and the lowest rate was seen with IL-23 inhibitors, at 0.56 per 100,000 person-years. The respective incidence rates for tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and IL-12/IL-23 inhibitors were a respective 0.94 and 0.80 per 100,000 person-years.

“Compared with TNF inhibitors, IL-23 inhibitor exposure was associated with significantly lower risk of paradoxical eczema,” the BADBIR Study Group reported in JAMA Dermatology. Indeed, patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors were 61% less likely than were those taking TNF-inhibitors to experience a paradoxical eczema event.

“These findings remained when restricting the analysis to first-line biologic exposures and were specific to this eczema phenotype” the group said.

Cautious Interpretation

As the corresponding author for the work, Mr. Al-Janabi observed in an email that the research needs to be replicated, and the findings need to be interpreted with caution.

“As well as usual clinical variables influencing biologic selection, clinicians could consider IL-23 inhibitors in patients with previous atopic dermatitis, hay fever, or paradoxical eczema episodes, as this class was associated with the lowest risk of paradoxical eczema,” he suggested.

A prior history of atopic dermatitis (AD) and hay fever appears to be particularly relevant, as both substantially upped the chances that paradoxical eczema would occur, with hazard ratios of 12.40 and 3.78, respectively. Increasing age also increased the risk, albeit slightly (hazard ratio [HR], 1.02 per year), and there was an apparent lower risk (HR, 0.60) comparing men and women.

The BADBIR Study Group authors believe that, to the best of their knowledge, this is the first study to compare paradoxical eczema risk by biologic class. “Based on clinical experience and prevalence of eczematous reactions reported in some IL-17 inhibitor clinical trials, we suspected an association between IL-17 inhibitor exposure and paradoxical eczema,” they wrote.

“While the incidence of paradoxical eczema was numerically highest among IL-17 inhibitor exposures, it was not significantly different from the incidence among TNF inhibitor exposures.” The low overall incidence of paradoxical eczema “may be reassuring for patients and clinicians,” they added, “but it is possible that the incidence was underestimated due to underreporting or exclusion of adverse events with insufficient detail.”

Details of the Analysis, Other Findings

To explore the risk of paradoxical eczema by biologic class and identify possible risk factors, the BADBIR Study Group performed a prospective cohort study using data held within the BADBIR database between September 2007 and December 2022.

Adults over the age of 18 year or older with plaque psoriasis and who had been treated with at least one of the following biologics were eligible for inclusion: the TNF inhibitors adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, and infliximab; the IL-17 inhibitors bimekizumab, brodalumab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab; the IL-12/23 inhibitor ustekinumab; and the IL-23 inhibitors guselkumab, risankizumab, and tildrakizumab.

Patient records and adverse event data were reviewed to determine the incidence of paradoxical eczema events, using terms such as eczema, eczematized, eczematous, atopy, atopic, and dermatitis.

Of 24,952 drug exposures analyzed, the majority (11,819) were for TNF inhibitors, followed by IL-17 inhibitors (4,776), IL-12/23 inhibitors (6,423), and finally, IL-23 inhibitors (1,934).

Mr. Al-Janabi and coauthors reported that the median time to onset of paradoxical eczema events was 294 days — approximately 9.8 months. The earliest that these events were recorded was at 120 days (4 months), and the latest at 699 days (almost 2 years).

The face and neck were the most common sites affected (26% of exposures), with other sites including the limbs (23%), the trunk (13%), and hands or feet (12%). Itching (18%), redness (7%), and dryness (4%) were the most commonly reported symptoms.

The researchers noted that 21 patients had skin biopsies taken and “all showed spongiosis or a feature of eczema, with 1 having overlapping features of psoriasis.”

In the majority (92 %) of cases, patients experienced only one eczema event. Of the 20 patients who had more than one event, just over one-fifth of repeat events occurred after receiving the same biologic as for the index event. A quarter of events occurred after a different biologic of the same class had been used, and just over half of events occurred after a different class of biologic had been given.

Strengths and Limitations

The “large sample size and inclusion of multiple lines of exposure per participant” are strengths of the study, said the researchers. “We included data for all currently available biologics, originating from more than 160 dermatology centers in the UK and Ireland.”

They added, however, that the “main limitation is the small numbers of observations within certain subgroups, such as specific biologic exposures or participants in ethnic minority groups, restricting generalizability of our findings and the interpretation of some subgroup analyses.”

Moreover, the small number of paradoxical eczema events seen may have resulted in imprecise effect estimates, they observe, noting that the number of exposures to IL-23 inhibitors was low compared with other classes.

“Future studies with more exposures and paradoxical eczema events would enable a more robust analysis of individual drugs and patient subgroups,” the authors concluded.

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council. BADBIR is coordinated by The University of Manchester, and funded by the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD). The BAD receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, Sandoz Hexal AG, and UCB Pharma for providing pharmacovigilance services. This income finances a separate contract between the BAD and The University of Manchester, which coordinates BADBIR. Mr. Al-Janabi reported receiving grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support from UCB, Almirall, and Janssen; and personal fees from UCB outside the submitted work.

Adults who used thiazide diuretics for hypertension were more likely than were those who used nonthiazide agents to develop hyponatremia within 2 years of starting treatment, a new study of more than 180,000 people has found.

Although thiazide diuretics generally are well-tolerated in the routine treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, severe adverse effects are possible, and their frequency has not been examined, according to Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, of Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues.

“Thiazide diuretics are commonly used drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, and hyponatremia is a known potential side effect to thiazide treatment, but the frequency of this adverse event is inconsistently reported across drug labels,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization.

Product labels for thiazide diuretics list hyponatremia as a potential adverse event that can occur rarely (defined as a range from less than 1 in 10,000 to less than 1 in 100 individuals), but the extent of the burden is unclear given the wide range of symptoms of the condition, the researchers write. 

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Andersson and his colleagues reviewed data from population-based registries in Denmark of adults aged 40 years or older with uncomplicated hypertension, no recent prescriptions for antihypertensives, and no previous history of hyponatremia. They emulated two target trials. One trial compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) vs a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The other emulation compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor vs a RAS inhibitor without HCTZ. 

The primary outcome was hyponatremia, defined as blood sodium < 130 mmol/L, within 2 years of starting treatment. 

The 2-year incidence of hyponatremia for the two thiazide diuretics was 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor. The risk difference in the incidence of hyponatremia was 1.35% for BFZ vs CCB and 1.38% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor, the researchers reported. 

The study population included 37,786 new users of BFZ who were compared with 44,963 new users of CCBs as well as 11,943 new users of HCTZ-RAS inhibitors who were compared with 85,784 new users of RAS inhibitors only. 

Overall, older age and a greater number of comorbidities increased the cumulative hyponatremia in new users of thiazide-based hypertensives. The risk differences among individuals aged 80 years or older were 4.80% in the BFZ vs CCB study and 5.52% in the HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor study. Among participants with three or more comorbidities, the risk differences in the two studies were 5.24% and 2.91%, respectively, Dr. Andersson’s group found.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the potential for confounding on the basis of the assumption that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on new users and a Danish population only, which might limit generalizability, and a lack of data on blood pressure measures.

However, the results suggest a greater risk for hyponatremia with thiazide diuretics than what the drug labels indicate, especially early in treatment, the researchers concluded.

 

Data Reinforce Need for Vigilance in the Clinic

“Our findings highlight the continued need for clinical awareness and monitoring of this adverse drug reaction; particularly during the first months of treatment, in persons who are older or who have comorbidities,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization. “Further mapping of potential subpopulations at risk in terms of specific comorbidities is important to improve the prevention of this adverse event.”

“The thiazide diuretics have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension, and it was important to evaluate the potential development of hyponatremia, especially in the older patients given the potentially serious health effects caused by hyponatremia,” said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisconsin. Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study, also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. 

The current study findings were not surprising, Dr. Deep added. “I have seen this occur in my patients, especially in the older female patients,” he said. “The results reinforce my practice of monitoring the electrolytes and renal function in 1-2 weeks after starting a thiazide diuretic, and then at regular intervals.”

In practice, clinicians should be aware of the potential development of hyponatremia and monitor and address the electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Deep said. “While thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are an important component of our treatment options for patients with hypertension and other conditions, we should also ensure that we are cognizant of and address the potential side effects or electrolyte imbalances caused by the medications.” 

The study was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Helsefonden, Dagmar Marshalls Fond, Gangstedfonden, A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation, Brødrene Hartmanns Fond, and Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Adults who used thiazide diuretics for hypertension were more likely than were those who used nonthiazide agents to develop hyponatremia within 2 years of starting treatment, a new study of more than 180,000 people has found.

Although thiazide diuretics generally are well-tolerated in the routine treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, severe adverse effects are possible, and their frequency has not been examined, according to Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, of Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues.

“Thiazide diuretics are commonly used drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, and hyponatremia is a known potential side effect to thiazide treatment, but the frequency of this adverse event is inconsistently reported across drug labels,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization.

Product labels for thiazide diuretics list hyponatremia as a potential adverse event that can occur rarely (defined as a range from less than 1 in 10,000 to less than 1 in 100 individuals), but the extent of the burden is unclear given the wide range of symptoms of the condition, the researchers write. 

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Andersson and his colleagues reviewed data from population-based registries in Denmark of adults aged 40 years or older with uncomplicated hypertension, no recent prescriptions for antihypertensives, and no previous history of hyponatremia. They emulated two target trials. One trial compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) vs a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The other emulation compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor vs a RAS inhibitor without HCTZ. 

The primary outcome was hyponatremia, defined as blood sodium < 130 mmol/L, within 2 years of starting treatment. 

The 2-year incidence of hyponatremia for the two thiazide diuretics was 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor. The risk difference in the incidence of hyponatremia was 1.35% for BFZ vs CCB and 1.38% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor, the researchers reported. 

The study population included 37,786 new users of BFZ who were compared with 44,963 new users of CCBs as well as 11,943 new users of HCTZ-RAS inhibitors who were compared with 85,784 new users of RAS inhibitors only. 

Overall, older age and a greater number of comorbidities increased the cumulative hyponatremia in new users of thiazide-based hypertensives. The risk differences among individuals aged 80 years or older were 4.80% in the BFZ vs CCB study and 5.52% in the HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor study. Among participants with three or more comorbidities, the risk differences in the two studies were 5.24% and 2.91%, respectively, Dr. Andersson’s group found.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the potential for confounding on the basis of the assumption that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on new users and a Danish population only, which might limit generalizability, and a lack of data on blood pressure measures.

However, the results suggest a greater risk for hyponatremia with thiazide diuretics than what the drug labels indicate, especially early in treatment, the researchers concluded.

 

Data Reinforce Need for Vigilance in the Clinic

“Our findings highlight the continued need for clinical awareness and monitoring of this adverse drug reaction; particularly during the first months of treatment, in persons who are older or who have comorbidities,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization. “Further mapping of potential subpopulations at risk in terms of specific comorbidities is important to improve the prevention of this adverse event.”

“The thiazide diuretics have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension, and it was important to evaluate the potential development of hyponatremia, especially in the older patients given the potentially serious health effects caused by hyponatremia,” said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisconsin. Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study, also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. 

The current study findings were not surprising, Dr. Deep added. “I have seen this occur in my patients, especially in the older female patients,” he said. “The results reinforce my practice of monitoring the electrolytes and renal function in 1-2 weeks after starting a thiazide diuretic, and then at regular intervals.”

In practice, clinicians should be aware of the potential development of hyponatremia and monitor and address the electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Deep said. “While thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are an important component of our treatment options for patients with hypertension and other conditions, we should also ensure that we are cognizant of and address the potential side effects or electrolyte imbalances caused by the medications.” 

The study was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Helsefonden, Dagmar Marshalls Fond, Gangstedfonden, A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation, Brødrene Hartmanns Fond, and Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Adults who used thiazide diuretics for hypertension were more likely than were those who used nonthiazide agents to develop hyponatremia within 2 years of starting treatment, a new study of more than 180,000 people has found.

Although thiazide diuretics generally are well-tolerated in the routine treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, severe adverse effects are possible, and their frequency has not been examined, according to Niklas Worm Andersson, MD, of Statens Serum Institut, in Copenhagen, Denmark, and his colleagues.

“Thiazide diuretics are commonly used drugs for the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, and hyponatremia is a known potential side effect to thiazide treatment, but the frequency of this adverse event is inconsistently reported across drug labels,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization.

Product labels for thiazide diuretics list hyponatremia as a potential adverse event that can occur rarely (defined as a range from less than 1 in 10,000 to less than 1 in 100 individuals), but the extent of the burden is unclear given the wide range of symptoms of the condition, the researchers write. 

In a study published in Annals of Internal Medicine, Dr. Andersson and his colleagues reviewed data from population-based registries in Denmark of adults aged 40 years or older with uncomplicated hypertension, no recent prescriptions for antihypertensives, and no previous history of hyponatremia. They emulated two target trials. One trial compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of bendroflumethiazide (BFZ) vs a calcium-channel blocker (CCB). The other emulation compared the incidence of hyponatremia in new users of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) plus a renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor vs a RAS inhibitor without HCTZ. 

The primary outcome was hyponatremia, defined as blood sodium < 130 mmol/L, within 2 years of starting treatment. 

The 2-year incidence of hyponatremia for the two thiazide diuretics was 3.83% for BFZ and 3.51% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor. The risk difference in the incidence of hyponatremia was 1.35% for BFZ vs CCB and 1.38% for HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor, the researchers reported. 

The study population included 37,786 new users of BFZ who were compared with 44,963 new users of CCBs as well as 11,943 new users of HCTZ-RAS inhibitors who were compared with 85,784 new users of RAS inhibitors only. 

Overall, older age and a greater number of comorbidities increased the cumulative hyponatremia in new users of thiazide-based hypertensives. The risk differences among individuals aged 80 years or older were 4.80% in the BFZ vs CCB study and 5.52% in the HCTZ-RAS inhibitor vs RAS inhibitor study. Among participants with three or more comorbidities, the risk differences in the two studies were 5.24% and 2.91%, respectively, Dr. Andersson’s group found.

The findings were limited by several factors, mainly the potential for confounding on the basis of the assumption that filled prescriptions equaled drug use, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the focus on new users and a Danish population only, which might limit generalizability, and a lack of data on blood pressure measures.

However, the results suggest a greater risk for hyponatremia with thiazide diuretics than what the drug labels indicate, especially early in treatment, the researchers concluded.

 

Data Reinforce Need for Vigilance in the Clinic

“Our findings highlight the continued need for clinical awareness and monitoring of this adverse drug reaction; particularly during the first months of treatment, in persons who are older or who have comorbidities,” Dr. Andersson told this news organization. “Further mapping of potential subpopulations at risk in terms of specific comorbidities is important to improve the prevention of this adverse event.”

“The thiazide diuretics have been recommended as first-line therapy for hypertension, and it was important to evaluate the potential development of hyponatremia, especially in the older patients given the potentially serious health effects caused by hyponatremia,” said Noel Deep, MD, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisconsin. Dr. Deep, who was not involved in the study, also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo. 

The current study findings were not surprising, Dr. Deep added. “I have seen this occur in my patients, especially in the older female patients,” he said. “The results reinforce my practice of monitoring the electrolytes and renal function in 1-2 weeks after starting a thiazide diuretic, and then at regular intervals.”

In practice, clinicians should be aware of the potential development of hyponatremia and monitor and address the electrolyte abnormalities, Dr. Deep said. “While thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics are an important component of our treatment options for patients with hypertension and other conditions, we should also ensure that we are cognizant of and address the potential side effects or electrolyte imbalances caused by the medications.” 

The study was funded by the Independent Research Fund Denmark, Helsefonden, Dagmar Marshalls Fond, Gangstedfonden, A.P. Møller and Chastine Mc-Kinney Møller Foundation, Brødrene Hartmanns Fond, and Snedkermester Sophus Jacobsen og hustru Astrid Jacobsens Fond.

The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose.

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

Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) are cancers that arise in a type of white blood cell called the lymphocyte. NHLs are divided into B- and T-cell subtypes, as well as aggressive and indolent forms. Management varies widely depending on the disease type. We will focus on the most common type of NHL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), for which there have been significant treatment advances in recent years. 

DLBCL is curable in about two-thirds of patients using chemoimmunotherapy. The longstanding frontline treatment for this disease has been R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). In 2023, an antibody-drug conjugate against the B-cell surface protein CD79b, polatuzumab vedotin, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in combination with R-CHP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone) for newly diagnosed DLBCL based on an improvement in progression-free survival at 2 years in patients with high-risk disease features enrolled in the POLARIX study.

For patients who do not respond to the initial treatment or in whom the disease recurs, the historical standard of care treatment strategy was high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Unfortunately, this approach is not feasible or not successful in a significant percentage of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. 

A newer strategy for DLBCL is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. In this treatment, T cells are collected from a patient and genetically modified to target a protein on the lymphoma cells called CD19. This type of treatment was initially approved in the third-line setting for DLBCL based on the ZUMA-1 (axi-cel), JULIET (tisa-cel), and TRANSCEND (liso-cel) clinical trials. More recently, in 2022, 2 of these agents received approval in the second-line setting in patients who relapse or are refractory to initial treatment within 1 year; axi-cel was approved based on the ZUMA-7 trial and liso-cel was approved based on the TRANSFORM trial. 

Unfortunately, not all patients are eligible for ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy due to factors including age, comorbidities, and disease characteristics. Some patients prefer alternative therapies based on the potential side effects of CAR T-cell therapy and ASCT. Toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy include an inflammatory response called cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events. 

For patients who are not eligible for or who relapse after ASCT or CAR T-cell therapy, several alternative treatment options are FDA approved. Novel strategies include polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and rituximab and tafasitamab plus lenalidomide. Tafasitamab is a monoclonal antibody against CD19 and lenalidomide is an oral anticancer agent originally approved for use in multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide is also effective and commonly used in other NHL subtypes. 

In 2023, a new category of treatment called bispecific antibodies was approved in patients with DLBCL in whom the disease recurs after 2 lines of therapy. These drugs (epcoritamab and glofitamab) are a form of immunotherapy that connects B cells with T cells to enable a person’s own immune system to better fight the lymphoma. While these drugs can have similar toxicities as CAR T-cell therapy, the severity and incidence are much lower. In contrast to CAR T-cell therapy, which requires only 1 infusion, these drugs are given regularly in either subcutaneous or intravenous form for several months. 

Two other FDA-approved treatment options for relapsed and refractory DLBCL are loncastuximab tesirine, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD19 with approval based on the results of the LOTIS-2 trial, and the oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export called selinexor, based on the results from the SADAL trial. Selinexor is a fully synthetic small-molecule compound, developed by means of a structure-based drug design process known as induced-fit docking. It binds to a cysteine residue in the nuclear export signal groove of exportin 1. Selinexor is approved for use in adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received at least 2 types of systemic therapy. Trials investigating these agents in combination with other novel treatments are ongoing. 

The treatment landscape for DLBCL has changed markedly over the past several years. Therapies can be tailored for individual patients based on their disease status and characteristics, comorbidities, and treatment preferences. Research with novel strategies continues with the goal of a cure for all patients diagnosed with DLBCL.  

Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) are cancers that arise in a type of white blood cell called the lymphocyte. NHLs are divided into B- and T-cell subtypes, as well as aggressive and indolent forms. Management varies widely depending on the disease type. We will focus on the most common type of NHL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), for which there have been significant treatment advances in recent years. 

DLBCL is curable in about two-thirds of patients using chemoimmunotherapy. The longstanding frontline treatment for this disease has been R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). In 2023, an antibody-drug conjugate against the B-cell surface protein CD79b, polatuzumab vedotin, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in combination with R-CHP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone) for newly diagnosed DLBCL based on an improvement in progression-free survival at 2 years in patients with high-risk disease features enrolled in the POLARIX study.

For patients who do not respond to the initial treatment or in whom the disease recurs, the historical standard of care treatment strategy was high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Unfortunately, this approach is not feasible or not successful in a significant percentage of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. 

A newer strategy for DLBCL is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. In this treatment, T cells are collected from a patient and genetically modified to target a protein on the lymphoma cells called CD19. This type of treatment was initially approved in the third-line setting for DLBCL based on the ZUMA-1 (axi-cel), JULIET (tisa-cel), and TRANSCEND (liso-cel) clinical trials. More recently, in 2022, 2 of these agents received approval in the second-line setting in patients who relapse or are refractory to initial treatment within 1 year; axi-cel was approved based on the ZUMA-7 trial and liso-cel was approved based on the TRANSFORM trial. 

Unfortunately, not all patients are eligible for ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy due to factors including age, comorbidities, and disease characteristics. Some patients prefer alternative therapies based on the potential side effects of CAR T-cell therapy and ASCT. Toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy include an inflammatory response called cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events. 

For patients who are not eligible for or who relapse after ASCT or CAR T-cell therapy, several alternative treatment options are FDA approved. Novel strategies include polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and rituximab and tafasitamab plus lenalidomide. Tafasitamab is a monoclonal antibody against CD19 and lenalidomide is an oral anticancer agent originally approved for use in multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide is also effective and commonly used in other NHL subtypes. 

In 2023, a new category of treatment called bispecific antibodies was approved in patients with DLBCL in whom the disease recurs after 2 lines of therapy. These drugs (epcoritamab and glofitamab) are a form of immunotherapy that connects B cells with T cells to enable a person’s own immune system to better fight the lymphoma. While these drugs can have similar toxicities as CAR T-cell therapy, the severity and incidence are much lower. In contrast to CAR T-cell therapy, which requires only 1 infusion, these drugs are given regularly in either subcutaneous or intravenous form for several months. 

Two other FDA-approved treatment options for relapsed and refractory DLBCL are loncastuximab tesirine, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD19 with approval based on the results of the LOTIS-2 trial, and the oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export called selinexor, based on the results from the SADAL trial. Selinexor is a fully synthetic small-molecule compound, developed by means of a structure-based drug design process known as induced-fit docking. It binds to a cysteine residue in the nuclear export signal groove of exportin 1. Selinexor is approved for use in adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received at least 2 types of systemic therapy. Trials investigating these agents in combination with other novel treatments are ongoing. 

The treatment landscape for DLBCL has changed markedly over the past several years. Therapies can be tailored for individual patients based on their disease status and characteristics, comorbidities, and treatment preferences. Research with novel strategies continues with the goal of a cure for all patients diagnosed with DLBCL.  

Non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHLs) are cancers that arise in a type of white blood cell called the lymphocyte. NHLs are divided into B- and T-cell subtypes, as well as aggressive and indolent forms. Management varies widely depending on the disease type. We will focus on the most common type of NHL, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), for which there have been significant treatment advances in recent years. 

DLBCL is curable in about two-thirds of patients using chemoimmunotherapy. The longstanding frontline treatment for this disease has been R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). In 2023, an antibody-drug conjugate against the B-cell surface protein CD79b, polatuzumab vedotin, was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in combination with R-CHP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, prednisone) for newly diagnosed DLBCL based on an improvement in progression-free survival at 2 years in patients with high-risk disease features enrolled in the POLARIX study.

For patients who do not respond to the initial treatment or in whom the disease recurs, the historical standard of care treatment strategy was high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Unfortunately, this approach is not feasible or not successful in a significant percentage of patients with relapsed or refractory DLBCL. 

A newer strategy for DLBCL is chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. In this treatment, T cells are collected from a patient and genetically modified to target a protein on the lymphoma cells called CD19. This type of treatment was initially approved in the third-line setting for DLBCL based on the ZUMA-1 (axi-cel), JULIET (tisa-cel), and TRANSCEND (liso-cel) clinical trials. More recently, in 2022, 2 of these agents received approval in the second-line setting in patients who relapse or are refractory to initial treatment within 1 year; axi-cel was approved based on the ZUMA-7 trial and liso-cel was approved based on the TRANSFORM trial. 

Unfortunately, not all patients are eligible for ASCT and CAR T-cell therapy due to factors including age, comorbidities, and disease characteristics. Some patients prefer alternative therapies based on the potential side effects of CAR T-cell therapy and ASCT. Toxicities associated with CAR T-cell therapy include an inflammatory response called cytokine release syndrome and neurologic events. 

For patients who are not eligible for or who relapse after ASCT or CAR T-cell therapy, several alternative treatment options are FDA approved. Novel strategies include polatuzumab vedotin with bendamustine and rituximab and tafasitamab plus lenalidomide. Tafasitamab is a monoclonal antibody against CD19 and lenalidomide is an oral anticancer agent originally approved for use in multiple myeloma. Lenalidomide is also effective and commonly used in other NHL subtypes. 

In 2023, a new category of treatment called bispecific antibodies was approved in patients with DLBCL in whom the disease recurs after 2 lines of therapy. These drugs (epcoritamab and glofitamab) are a form of immunotherapy that connects B cells with T cells to enable a person’s own immune system to better fight the lymphoma. While these drugs can have similar toxicities as CAR T-cell therapy, the severity and incidence are much lower. In contrast to CAR T-cell therapy, which requires only 1 infusion, these drugs are given regularly in either subcutaneous or intravenous form for several months. 

Two other FDA-approved treatment options for relapsed and refractory DLBCL are loncastuximab tesirine, an antibody-drug conjugate targeting CD19 with approval based on the results of the LOTIS-2 trial, and the oral selective inhibitor of nuclear export called selinexor, based on the results from the SADAL trial. Selinexor is a fully synthetic small-molecule compound, developed by means of a structure-based drug design process known as induced-fit docking. It binds to a cysteine residue in the nuclear export signal groove of exportin 1. Selinexor is approved for use in adults with relapsed or refractory DLBCL who have received at least 2 types of systemic therapy. Trials investigating these agents in combination with other novel treatments are ongoing. 

The treatment landscape for DLBCL has changed markedly over the past several years. Therapies can be tailored for individual patients based on their disease status and characteristics, comorbidities, and treatment preferences. Research with novel strategies continues with the goal of a cure for all patients diagnosed with DLBCL.  

Key clinical point: People from a tertiary care center database were at a significantly increased risk of getting eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when they lived close (<1 mile) to a commercial swine farm or in an area with a high density of swine farm operations.

Major finding: Odds of EoE were ~2.5 times higher in participants who had undergone upper endoscopy and lived in an area with <1 mile proximity to a permitted swine facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.56; 95% CI 1.33-4.95) or where the density of swine farms was >10 farms per census tract (aOR 2.76; 95% CI 1.30-5.84).

Study details: This case-control study including 401 patients with EoE and 1852 control individuals who had undergone endoscopy but did not show any esophageal pathology from a tertiary care center and 904 patients with EoE and 4074 endoscopy-based control participants from a pathology database.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cotton CC et al. Proximity to swine farming operations as a risk factor for eosinophilic esophagitis. JPGN Rep. 2023;4(4):e391 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1097/PG9.0000000000000391

Key clinical point: People from a tertiary care center database were at a significantly increased risk of getting eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when they lived close (<1 mile) to a commercial swine farm or in an area with a high density of swine farm operations.

Major finding: Odds of EoE were ~2.5 times higher in participants who had undergone upper endoscopy and lived in an area with <1 mile proximity to a permitted swine facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.56; 95% CI 1.33-4.95) or where the density of swine farms was >10 farms per census tract (aOR 2.76; 95% CI 1.30-5.84).

Study details: This case-control study including 401 patients with EoE and 1852 control individuals who had undergone endoscopy but did not show any esophageal pathology from a tertiary care center and 904 patients with EoE and 4074 endoscopy-based control participants from a pathology database.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cotton CC et al. Proximity to swine farming operations as a risk factor for eosinophilic esophagitis. JPGN Rep. 2023;4(4):e391 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1097/PG9.0000000000000391

Key clinical point: People from a tertiary care center database were at a significantly increased risk of getting eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) when they lived close (<1 mile) to a commercial swine farm or in an area with a high density of swine farm operations.

Major finding: Odds of EoE were ~2.5 times higher in participants who had undergone upper endoscopy and lived in an area with <1 mile proximity to a permitted swine facility (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.56; 95% CI 1.33-4.95) or where the density of swine farms was >10 farms per census tract (aOR 2.76; 95% CI 1.30-5.84).

Study details: This case-control study including 401 patients with EoE and 1852 control individuals who had undergone endoscopy but did not show any esophageal pathology from a tertiary care center and 904 patients with EoE and 4074 endoscopy-based control participants from a pathology database.

Disclosures: This study was partly funded by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cotton CC et al. Proximity to swine farming operations as a risk factor for eosinophilic esophagitis. JPGN Rep. 2023;4(4):e391 (Nov 8). doi: 10.1097/PG9.0000000000000391