For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

December marks the advent of the approval of tirzepatide (Zepbound) for on-label treatment of obesity. In November 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it for the treatment of obesity in adults.

In May 2022, the FDA approved Mounjaro, which is tirzepatide, for type 2 diabetes. Since then, many physicians, including myself, have prescribed it off-label for obesity. As an endocrinologist treating both obesity and diabetes, I am sharing some lessons learned (many from my patients) on how best to prescribe tirzepatide.

The Expertise

Because GLP-1 receptor agonists have been around since 2005, we’ve had over a decade of clinical experience with these medications. Table 2 provides more nuanced information on tirzepatide (as Zepbound, for obesity) based on our experiences with dulaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (as Mounjaro).

The Reality

In today’s increasingly complex healthcare system, the reality of providing high-quality obesity care is challenging. When discussing tirzepatide with patients, I use a 4 Cs schematic — comorbidities, cautions, costs, choices — to cover the most frequently asked questions.

Comorbidities

In trials, tirzepatide reduced A1c by about 2%. In one diabetes trial, tirzepatide reduced liver fat content significantly more than the comparator (insulin), and trials of tirzepatide in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are ongoing. A prespecified meta-analysis of tirzepatide and cardiovascular disease estimated a 20% reduction in the risk for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalized unstable angina. Tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists may be beneficial in alcohol use disorder. Prescribing tirzepatide to patients who have or are at risk of developing such comorbidities is an ideal way to target multiple metabolic diseases with one agent.

Cautions

The first principle of medicine is “do no harm.” Tirzepatide may be a poor option for individuals with a history of pancreatitis, gastroparesis, or severe gastroesophageal reflux disease. Because tirzepatide may interfere with the efficacy of estrogen-containing contraceptives during its uptitration phase, women should speak with their doctors about appropriate birth control options (eg, progestin-only, barrier methods). In clinical trials of tirzepatide, male participants were also advised to use reliable contraception. If patients are family-planning, tirzepatide should be discontinued 2 months (for women) and 4 months (for men) before conception, because its effects on fertility or pregnancy are currently unknown.

Costs

At a retail price of $1279 per month, Zepbound is only slightly more affordable than its main competitor, Wegovy (semaglutide 2.4 mg). Complex pharmacy negotiations may reduce this cost, but even with rebates, coupons, and commercial insurance, these costs still place tirzepatide out of reach for many patients. For patients who cannot access tirzepatide, clinicians should discuss more cost-feasible, evidence-based alternatives: for example, phentermine, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, metformin, bupropion, or topiramate.

Choices

Patient preference drives much of today’s clinical decision-making. Some patients may be switching from semaglutide to tirzepatide, whether by choice or on the basis of physician recommendation. Although no head-to-head obesity trial exists, data from SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN-FORTE can inform therapeutic equivalence:

• Semaglutide 1.0 mg to tirzepatide 2.5 mg will be a step-down; 5 mg will be a step-up
• Semaglutide 2.0 or 2.4 mg to tirzepatide 5 mg is probably equivalent

The decision to switch therapeutics may depend on weight loss goals, side effect tolerability, or insurance coverage. As with all medications, the use of tirzepatide should progress with shared decision-making, thorough discussions of risks vs benefits, and individualized regimens tailored to each patient’s needs.

The newly approved Zepbound is a valuable addition to our toolbox of obesity treatments. Patients and providers alike are excited for its potential as a highly effective antiobesity medication that can cause a degree of weight loss necessary to reverse comorbidities. The medical management of obesity with agents like tirzepatide holds great promise in addressing today’s obesity epidemic.

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties to Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

December marks the advent of the approval of tirzepatide (Zepbound) for on-label treatment of obesity. In November 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it for the treatment of obesity in adults.

In May 2022, the FDA approved Mounjaro, which is tirzepatide, for type 2 diabetes. Since then, many physicians, including myself, have prescribed it off-label for obesity. As an endocrinologist treating both obesity and diabetes, I am sharing some lessons learned (many from my patients) on how best to prescribe tirzepatide.

The Expertise

Because GLP-1 receptor agonists have been around since 2005, we’ve had over a decade of clinical experience with these medications. Table 2 provides more nuanced information on tirzepatide (as Zepbound, for obesity) based on our experiences with dulaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (as Mounjaro).

The Reality

In today’s increasingly complex healthcare system, the reality of providing high-quality obesity care is challenging. When discussing tirzepatide with patients, I use a 4 Cs schematic — comorbidities, cautions, costs, choices — to cover the most frequently asked questions.

Comorbidities

In trials, tirzepatide reduced A1c by about 2%. In one diabetes trial, tirzepatide reduced liver fat content significantly more than the comparator (insulin), and trials of tirzepatide in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are ongoing. A prespecified meta-analysis of tirzepatide and cardiovascular disease estimated a 20% reduction in the risk for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalized unstable angina. Tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists may be beneficial in alcohol use disorder. Prescribing tirzepatide to patients who have or are at risk of developing such comorbidities is an ideal way to target multiple metabolic diseases with one agent.

Cautions

The first principle of medicine is “do no harm.” Tirzepatide may be a poor option for individuals with a history of pancreatitis, gastroparesis, or severe gastroesophageal reflux disease. Because tirzepatide may interfere with the efficacy of estrogen-containing contraceptives during its uptitration phase, women should speak with their doctors about appropriate birth control options (eg, progestin-only, barrier methods). In clinical trials of tirzepatide, male participants were also advised to use reliable contraception. If patients are family-planning, tirzepatide should be discontinued 2 months (for women) and 4 months (for men) before conception, because its effects on fertility or pregnancy are currently unknown.

Costs

At a retail price of $1279 per month, Zepbound is only slightly more affordable than its main competitor, Wegovy (semaglutide 2.4 mg). Complex pharmacy negotiations may reduce this cost, but even with rebates, coupons, and commercial insurance, these costs still place tirzepatide out of reach for many patients. For patients who cannot access tirzepatide, clinicians should discuss more cost-feasible, evidence-based alternatives: for example, phentermine, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, metformin, bupropion, or topiramate.

Choices

Patient preference drives much of today’s clinical decision-making. Some patients may be switching from semaglutide to tirzepatide, whether by choice or on the basis of physician recommendation. Although no head-to-head obesity trial exists, data from SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN-FORTE can inform therapeutic equivalence:

• Semaglutide 1.0 mg to tirzepatide 2.5 mg will be a step-down; 5 mg will be a step-up
• Semaglutide 2.0 or 2.4 mg to tirzepatide 5 mg is probably equivalent

The decision to switch therapeutics may depend on weight loss goals, side effect tolerability, or insurance coverage. As with all medications, the use of tirzepatide should progress with shared decision-making, thorough discussions of risks vs benefits, and individualized regimens tailored to each patient’s needs.

The newly approved Zepbound is a valuable addition to our toolbox of obesity treatments. Patients and providers alike are excited for its potential as a highly effective antiobesity medication that can cause a degree of weight loss necessary to reverse comorbidities. The medical management of obesity with agents like tirzepatide holds great promise in addressing today’s obesity epidemic.

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties to Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

December marks the advent of the approval of tirzepatide (Zepbound) for on-label treatment of obesity. In November 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it for the treatment of obesity in adults.

In May 2022, the FDA approved Mounjaro, which is tirzepatide, for type 2 diabetes. Since then, many physicians, including myself, have prescribed it off-label for obesity. As an endocrinologist treating both obesity and diabetes, I am sharing some lessons learned (many from my patients) on how best to prescribe tirzepatide.

The Expertise

Because GLP-1 receptor agonists have been around since 2005, we’ve had over a decade of clinical experience with these medications. Table 2 provides more nuanced information on tirzepatide (as Zepbound, for obesity) based on our experiences with dulaglutide, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide (as Mounjaro).

The Reality

In today’s increasingly complex healthcare system, the reality of providing high-quality obesity care is challenging. When discussing tirzepatide with patients, I use a 4 Cs schematic — comorbidities, cautions, costs, choices — to cover the most frequently asked questions.

Comorbidities

In trials, tirzepatide reduced A1c by about 2%. In one diabetes trial, tirzepatide reduced liver fat content significantly more than the comparator (insulin), and trials of tirzepatide in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are ongoing. A prespecified meta-analysis of tirzepatide and cardiovascular disease estimated a 20% reduction in the risk for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalized unstable angina. Tirzepatide as well as other GLP-1 agonists may be beneficial in alcohol use disorder. Prescribing tirzepatide to patients who have or are at risk of developing such comorbidities is an ideal way to target multiple metabolic diseases with one agent.

Cautions

The first principle of medicine is “do no harm.” Tirzepatide may be a poor option for individuals with a history of pancreatitis, gastroparesis, or severe gastroesophageal reflux disease. Because tirzepatide may interfere with the efficacy of estrogen-containing contraceptives during its uptitration phase, women should speak with their doctors about appropriate birth control options (eg, progestin-only, barrier methods). In clinical trials of tirzepatide, male participants were also advised to use reliable contraception. If patients are family-planning, tirzepatide should be discontinued 2 months (for women) and 4 months (for men) before conception, because its effects on fertility or pregnancy are currently unknown.

Costs

At a retail price of $1279 per month, Zepbound is only slightly more affordable than its main competitor, Wegovy (semaglutide 2.4 mg). Complex pharmacy negotiations may reduce this cost, but even with rebates, coupons, and commercial insurance, these costs still place tirzepatide out of reach for many patients. For patients who cannot access tirzepatide, clinicians should discuss more cost-feasible, evidence-based alternatives: for example, phentermine, phentermine-topiramate, naltrexone-bupropion, metformin, bupropion, or topiramate.

Choices

Patient preference drives much of today’s clinical decision-making. Some patients may be switching from semaglutide to tirzepatide, whether by choice or on the basis of physician recommendation. Although no head-to-head obesity trial exists, data from SURPASS-2 and SUSTAIN-FORTE can inform therapeutic equivalence:

• Semaglutide 1.0 mg to tirzepatide 2.5 mg will be a step-down; 5 mg will be a step-up
• Semaglutide 2.0 or 2.4 mg to tirzepatide 5 mg is probably equivalent

The decision to switch therapeutics may depend on weight loss goals, side effect tolerability, or insurance coverage. As with all medications, the use of tirzepatide should progress with shared decision-making, thorough discussions of risks vs benefits, and individualized regimens tailored to each patient’s needs.

The newly approved Zepbound is a valuable addition to our toolbox of obesity treatments. Patients and providers alike are excited for its potential as a highly effective antiobesity medication that can cause a degree of weight loss necessary to reverse comorbidities. The medical management of obesity with agents like tirzepatide holds great promise in addressing today’s obesity epidemic.

Dr. Tchang is Assistant Professor, Clinical Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Weill Cornell Medicine; Physician, Department of Medicine, Iris Cantor Women’s Health Center, Comprehensive Weight Control Center, New York, NY. She disclosed ties to Gelesis and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Given the patient's symptomatology, laboratory studies, and the histopathology and immunophenotyping of the polypoid lesions in the transverse colon, this patient is diagnosed with advanced mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The gastroenterologist shares the findings with the patient, and over the next several days, a multidisciplinary team forms to guide the patient through potential next steps and treatment options. 

MCL is a type of B-cell neoplasm that, with advancements in the understanding of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the past 30 years, has been defined as its own clinicopathologic entity by the Revised European-American Lymphoma and World Health Organization classifications. Up to 10% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas are MCL. Clinical presentation includes advanced disease with B symptoms (eg, night sweats, fever, weight loss), generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal distention associated with hepatosplenomegaly, and fatigue. One of the most frequent areas for extra-nodal MCL presentation is the gastrointestinal tract. Men are more likely to present with MCL than are women by a ratio of 3:1. Median age at presentation is 67 years. 
 
Diagnosing MCL is a multipronged approach. Physical examination may reveal lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly. Lymph node biopsy and aspiration with immunophenotyping in MCL reveals monoclonal B cells expressing surface immunoglobulin (Ig), IgM, or IgD, which are characteristically CD5+ and pan B-cell antigen–positive (eg, CD19, CD20, CD22) but lack expression of CD10 and CD23 and overexpress cyclin D1. Bone marrow aspirate/biopsy are used more for staging than for diagnosis. Blood studies, including anemia and cytopenias secondary to bone marrow infiltration (with up to 40% of cases showing lymphocytosis > 4000/μL), abnormal liver function tests, and a negative Coombs test, also help diagnose MCL. Gastrointestinal involvement of MCL typically presents as lymphoid polyposis on colonoscopy imaging and can appear in the colon, ileum, stomach, and duodenum.

Pathogenesis of MCL involves disordered lymphoproliferation in a subset of naive pregerminal center cells in primary follicles or in the mantle region of secondary follicles. Most cases are linked with translocation of chromosome 14 and 11, which induces overexpression of protein cyclin D1. Viral infection (Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, human T-lymphotropic virus type 1, human herpes virus 6), environmental factors, and primary and secondary immunodeficiency are also associated with the development of NHL.

Patient education should include detailed information about clinical trials, available treatment options and associated adverse events, as well as psychosocial and nutrition counseling. 

Chemoimmunotherapy is standard initial treatment for MCL, but relapse is expected. Chemotherapy-free regimens with biologic targets, when used in second-line treatment, have increasingly become an important first-line treatment given their efficacy in the relapsed/refractory setting. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is also a second-line treatment option. In patients with MCL and a TP53 mutation, clinical trial participation is encouraged because of poor prognosis.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Given the patient's symptomatology, laboratory studies, and the histopathology and immunophenotyping of the polypoid lesions in the transverse colon, this patient is diagnosed with advanced mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The gastroenterologist shares the findings with the patient, and over the next several days, a multidisciplinary team forms to guide the patient through potential next steps and treatment options. 

MCL is a type of B-cell neoplasm that, with advancements in the understanding of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the past 30 years, has been defined as its own clinicopathologic entity by the Revised European-American Lymphoma and World Health Organization classifications. Up to 10% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas are MCL. Clinical presentation includes advanced disease with B symptoms (eg, night sweats, fever, weight loss), generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal distention associated with hepatosplenomegaly, and fatigue. One of the most frequent areas for extra-nodal MCL presentation is the gastrointestinal tract. Men are more likely to present with MCL than are women by a ratio of 3:1. Median age at presentation is 67 years. 
 
Diagnosing MCL is a multipronged approach. Physical examination may reveal lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly. Lymph node biopsy and aspiration with immunophenotyping in MCL reveals monoclonal B cells expressing surface immunoglobulin (Ig), IgM, or IgD, which are characteristically CD5+ and pan B-cell antigen–positive (eg, CD19, CD20, CD22) but lack expression of CD10 and CD23 and overexpress cyclin D1. Bone marrow aspirate/biopsy are used more for staging than for diagnosis. Blood studies, including anemia and cytopenias secondary to bone marrow infiltration (with up to 40% of cases showing lymphocytosis > 4000/μL), abnormal liver function tests, and a negative Coombs test, also help diagnose MCL. Gastrointestinal involvement of MCL typically presents as lymphoid polyposis on colonoscopy imaging and can appear in the colon, ileum, stomach, and duodenum.

Pathogenesis of MCL involves disordered lymphoproliferation in a subset of naive pregerminal center cells in primary follicles or in the mantle region of secondary follicles. Most cases are linked with translocation of chromosome 14 and 11, which induces overexpression of protein cyclin D1. Viral infection (Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, human T-lymphotropic virus type 1, human herpes virus 6), environmental factors, and primary and secondary immunodeficiency are also associated with the development of NHL.

Patient education should include detailed information about clinical trials, available treatment options and associated adverse events, as well as psychosocial and nutrition counseling. 

Chemoimmunotherapy is standard initial treatment for MCL, but relapse is expected. Chemotherapy-free regimens with biologic targets, when used in second-line treatment, have increasingly become an important first-line treatment given their efficacy in the relapsed/refractory setting. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is also a second-line treatment option. In patients with MCL and a TP53 mutation, clinical trial participation is encouraged because of poor prognosis.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

Given the patient's symptomatology, laboratory studies, and the histopathology and immunophenotyping of the polypoid lesions in the transverse colon, this patient is diagnosed with advanced mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). The gastroenterologist shares the findings with the patient, and over the next several days, a multidisciplinary team forms to guide the patient through potential next steps and treatment options. 

MCL is a type of B-cell neoplasm that, with advancements in the understanding of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) in the past 30 years, has been defined as its own clinicopathologic entity by the Revised European-American Lymphoma and World Health Organization classifications. Up to 10% of all non-Hodgkin lymphomas are MCL. Clinical presentation includes advanced disease with B symptoms (eg, night sweats, fever, weight loss), generalized lymphadenopathy, abdominal distention associated with hepatosplenomegaly, and fatigue. One of the most frequent areas for extra-nodal MCL presentation is the gastrointestinal tract. Men are more likely to present with MCL than are women by a ratio of 3:1. Median age at presentation is 67 years. 
 
Diagnosing MCL is a multipronged approach. Physical examination may reveal lymphadenopathy and hepatosplenomegaly. Lymph node biopsy and aspiration with immunophenotyping in MCL reveals monoclonal B cells expressing surface immunoglobulin (Ig), IgM, or IgD, which are characteristically CD5+ and pan B-cell antigen–positive (eg, CD19, CD20, CD22) but lack expression of CD10 and CD23 and overexpress cyclin D1. Bone marrow aspirate/biopsy are used more for staging than for diagnosis. Blood studies, including anemia and cytopenias secondary to bone marrow infiltration (with up to 40% of cases showing lymphocytosis > 4000/μL), abnormal liver function tests, and a negative Coombs test, also help diagnose MCL. Gastrointestinal involvement of MCL typically presents as lymphoid polyposis on colonoscopy imaging and can appear in the colon, ileum, stomach, and duodenum.

Pathogenesis of MCL involves disordered lymphoproliferation in a subset of naive pregerminal center cells in primary follicles or in the mantle region of secondary follicles. Most cases are linked with translocation of chromosome 14 and 11, which induces overexpression of protein cyclin D1. Viral infection (Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, human T-lymphotropic virus type 1, human herpes virus 6), environmental factors, and primary and secondary immunodeficiency are also associated with the development of NHL.

Patient education should include detailed information about clinical trials, available treatment options and associated adverse events, as well as psychosocial and nutrition counseling. 

Chemoimmunotherapy is standard initial treatment for MCL, but relapse is expected. Chemotherapy-free regimens with biologic targets, when used in second-line treatment, have increasingly become an important first-line treatment given their efficacy in the relapsed/refractory setting. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is also a second-line treatment option. In patients with MCL and a TP53 mutation, clinical trial participation is encouraged because of poor prognosis.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston; Medical Director, Department of Oncology and Hematology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Peabody, Massachusetts.

Karl J. D'Silva, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Image Quizzes are fictional or fictionalized clinical scenarios intended to provide evidence-based educational takeaways.

SAN DIEGO — The average age of death for Black U.S. patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) rose from 39 years (females = 40, males = 38) in 1999-2009 to 43 years (females = 44, males = 41) in 2010-2020, reflecting improvements in treatment, a new study finds.

But the news is not all positive. Mortality rates still jumped markedly as patients transitioned from pediatric to adult care, lead author Kristine A. Karkoska, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncologist with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This reflects that young adults are getting lost to care, and then they’re presenting with acute, life-threatening complications,” she said. “We still need more emphasis on comprehensive lifetime sickle-cell care and the transition to adult clinics to improve mortality in young adults.”

According to Dr. Karkoska, researchers launched the analysis of sickle-cell mortality rates to update previously available data up to the year 2009, which showed improvements as current standard-of-care treatments were introduced. Updated numbers, she said, would reflect the influence of a rise in dedicated SCD clinics and a 2014 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation that all children with SCD be treated with hydroxyurea starting at 9 months.

For the study, Dr. Karkoska and colleagues analyzed mortality statistics from the period of 1979-2020 via a CDC database. They found that 5272 Black patients died of SCD from 2010 to 2020. The crude mortality rate was 1.1 per 100,000 Black people, lower than the 1.2 per 100,000 rate of 1999-2009 (P < .0001).

The researchers also found that from 2010 to 2020, the mortality rate jumped for patients in the 15-19 to 20-24 age group: It rose from 0.9 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000, P < .0001).

The researchers also examined contributors to death other than SCD. In 39% of cases, underlying causes were noted: cardiovascular disease (28%), accidents (7%), cerebrovascular disease (7%), malignancy (6%), septicemia (4.8%), and renal disease (3.8%). The population of people with SCD is “getting older, and they’re developing a combination of both sickle-related chronic organ damage as well as non-sickle-related chronic disease,” Dr. Karkoska said.

She noted that limitations include a reliance on data that can be incomplete or inaccurate. She also mentioned that the study only focuses on Black patients, who make up the vast majority of those with SCD.

How good is the news about improved mortality numbers? One member of the audience at the ASH presentation was disappointed that they hadn’t gotten even better. “I was hoping to come here to be cheered up,” he said, “and I’m not.”

Three physicians who didn’t take part in the research but are familiar with the new study spoke in interviews about the findings.

Michael Bender, MD, PhD, director of the Odessa Brown Comprehensive Sickle Cell Clinic in Seattle, pointed out that mortality rates improve slowly over time, as new treatments enter the picture. When new therapies come along, he said, “it’s tough if someone’s already 40 years old and their body has gone through a lot. They’re not going to have as much benefit as someone who started [on therapy] when they were 5 years old, and they grew up with that improvement.”

Sickle cell specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that the data showing a spike in mortality rates during the pediatric-adult transition are not surprising but still “really hard to digest.”

“It is a testament to the fact that we are not meeting patients where they are,” she said. “We struggle immensely with the transition period. This is something that is difficult across all providers all over the country,” she said. “There are different ways to ensure a successful transition from the pediatric side to the adult side. Here at Mayo Clinic, we use a slow transition, and we rotate appointments with peds and adults until age 30.”

Sophie Miriam Lanzkron, MD, MHS, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said increases in mortality in the post-pediatric period appear to be due in part to “lack of access to high-quality sickle cell care for adults because there aren’t enough hematologists.” Worsening disease due to aging is another factor, she said, and “there might also be some behavioral changes. Young people think they will live forever. Sometimes they choose not to adhere to medical recommendations, which for this population is very risky.”

Dr. Lanzkron said her team is developing a long-term patient registry that should provide more insight.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Karkoska had no disclosures. The other coauthor disclosed research funding and safety advisory board relationships with Novartis. Dr. Ferdjallah, Dr. Lanzkron, and Dr. Bender reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — The average age of death for Black U.S. patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) rose from 39 years (females = 40, males = 38) in 1999-2009 to 43 years (females = 44, males = 41) in 2010-2020, reflecting improvements in treatment, a new study finds.

But the news is not all positive. Mortality rates still jumped markedly as patients transitioned from pediatric to adult care, lead author Kristine A. Karkoska, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncologist with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This reflects that young adults are getting lost to care, and then they’re presenting with acute, life-threatening complications,” she said. “We still need more emphasis on comprehensive lifetime sickle-cell care and the transition to adult clinics to improve mortality in young adults.”

According to Dr. Karkoska, researchers launched the analysis of sickle-cell mortality rates to update previously available data up to the year 2009, which showed improvements as current standard-of-care treatments were introduced. Updated numbers, she said, would reflect the influence of a rise in dedicated SCD clinics and a 2014 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation that all children with SCD be treated with hydroxyurea starting at 9 months.

For the study, Dr. Karkoska and colleagues analyzed mortality statistics from the period of 1979-2020 via a CDC database. They found that 5272 Black patients died of SCD from 2010 to 2020. The crude mortality rate was 1.1 per 100,000 Black people, lower than the 1.2 per 100,000 rate of 1999-2009 (P < .0001).

The researchers also found that from 2010 to 2020, the mortality rate jumped for patients in the 15-19 to 20-24 age group: It rose from 0.9 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000, P < .0001).

The researchers also examined contributors to death other than SCD. In 39% of cases, underlying causes were noted: cardiovascular disease (28%), accidents (7%), cerebrovascular disease (7%), malignancy (6%), septicemia (4.8%), and renal disease (3.8%). The population of people with SCD is “getting older, and they’re developing a combination of both sickle-related chronic organ damage as well as non-sickle-related chronic disease,” Dr. Karkoska said.

She noted that limitations include a reliance on data that can be incomplete or inaccurate. She also mentioned that the study only focuses on Black patients, who make up the vast majority of those with SCD.

How good is the news about improved mortality numbers? One member of the audience at the ASH presentation was disappointed that they hadn’t gotten even better. “I was hoping to come here to be cheered up,” he said, “and I’m not.”

Three physicians who didn’t take part in the research but are familiar with the new study spoke in interviews about the findings.

Michael Bender, MD, PhD, director of the Odessa Brown Comprehensive Sickle Cell Clinic in Seattle, pointed out that mortality rates improve slowly over time, as new treatments enter the picture. When new therapies come along, he said, “it’s tough if someone’s already 40 years old and their body has gone through a lot. They’re not going to have as much benefit as someone who started [on therapy] when they were 5 years old, and they grew up with that improvement.”

Sickle cell specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that the data showing a spike in mortality rates during the pediatric-adult transition are not surprising but still “really hard to digest.”

“It is a testament to the fact that we are not meeting patients where they are,” she said. “We struggle immensely with the transition period. This is something that is difficult across all providers all over the country,” she said. “There are different ways to ensure a successful transition from the pediatric side to the adult side. Here at Mayo Clinic, we use a slow transition, and we rotate appointments with peds and adults until age 30.”

Sophie Miriam Lanzkron, MD, MHS, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said increases in mortality in the post-pediatric period appear to be due in part to “lack of access to high-quality sickle cell care for adults because there aren’t enough hematologists.” Worsening disease due to aging is another factor, she said, and “there might also be some behavioral changes. Young people think they will live forever. Sometimes they choose not to adhere to medical recommendations, which for this population is very risky.”

Dr. Lanzkron said her team is developing a long-term patient registry that should provide more insight.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Karkoska had no disclosures. The other coauthor disclosed research funding and safety advisory board relationships with Novartis. Dr. Ferdjallah, Dr. Lanzkron, and Dr. Bender reported no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — The average age of death for Black U.S. patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) rose from 39 years (females = 40, males = 38) in 1999-2009 to 43 years (females = 44, males = 41) in 2010-2020, reflecting improvements in treatment, a new study finds.

But the news is not all positive. Mortality rates still jumped markedly as patients transitioned from pediatric to adult care, lead author Kristine A. Karkoska, MD, a pediatric hematology/oncologist with the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

“This reflects that young adults are getting lost to care, and then they’re presenting with acute, life-threatening complications,” she said. “We still need more emphasis on comprehensive lifetime sickle-cell care and the transition to adult clinics to improve mortality in young adults.”

According to Dr. Karkoska, researchers launched the analysis of sickle-cell mortality rates to update previously available data up to the year 2009, which showed improvements as current standard-of-care treatments were introduced. Updated numbers, she said, would reflect the influence of a rise in dedicated SCD clinics and a 2014 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute recommendation that all children with SCD be treated with hydroxyurea starting at 9 months.

For the study, Dr. Karkoska and colleagues analyzed mortality statistics from the period of 1979-2020 via a CDC database. They found that 5272 Black patients died of SCD from 2010 to 2020. The crude mortality rate was 1.1 per 100,000 Black people, lower than the 1.2 per 100,000 rate of 1999-2009 (P < .0001).

The researchers also found that from 2010 to 2020, the mortality rate jumped for patients in the 15-19 to 20-24 age group: It rose from 0.9 per 100,000 to 1.4 per 100,000, P < .0001).

The researchers also examined contributors to death other than SCD. In 39% of cases, underlying causes were noted: cardiovascular disease (28%), accidents (7%), cerebrovascular disease (7%), malignancy (6%), septicemia (4.8%), and renal disease (3.8%). The population of people with SCD is “getting older, and they’re developing a combination of both sickle-related chronic organ damage as well as non-sickle-related chronic disease,” Dr. Karkoska said.

She noted that limitations include a reliance on data that can be incomplete or inaccurate. She also mentioned that the study only focuses on Black patients, who make up the vast majority of those with SCD.

How good is the news about improved mortality numbers? One member of the audience at the ASH presentation was disappointed that they hadn’t gotten even better. “I was hoping to come here to be cheered up,” he said, “and I’m not.”

Three physicians who didn’t take part in the research but are familiar with the new study spoke in interviews about the findings.

Michael Bender, MD, PhD, director of the Odessa Brown Comprehensive Sickle Cell Clinic in Seattle, pointed out that mortality rates improve slowly over time, as new treatments enter the picture. When new therapies come along, he said, “it’s tough if someone’s already 40 years old and their body has gone through a lot. They’re not going to have as much benefit as someone who started [on therapy] when they were 5 years old, and they grew up with that improvement.”

Sickle cell specialist Asmaa Ferdjallah, MD, MPH, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, said that the data showing a spike in mortality rates during the pediatric-adult transition are not surprising but still “really hard to digest.”

“It is a testament to the fact that we are not meeting patients where they are,” she said. “We struggle immensely with the transition period. This is something that is difficult across all providers all over the country,” she said. “There are different ways to ensure a successful transition from the pediatric side to the adult side. Here at Mayo Clinic, we use a slow transition, and we rotate appointments with peds and adults until age 30.”

Sophie Miriam Lanzkron, MD, MHS, director of the Sickle Cell Center for Adults at Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, said increases in mortality in the post-pediatric period appear to be due in part to “lack of access to high-quality sickle cell care for adults because there aren’t enough hematologists.” Worsening disease due to aging is another factor, she said, and “there might also be some behavioral changes. Young people think they will live forever. Sometimes they choose not to adhere to medical recommendations, which for this population is very risky.”

Dr. Lanzkron said her team is developing a long-term patient registry that should provide more insight.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Karkoska had no disclosures. The other coauthor disclosed research funding and safety advisory board relationships with Novartis. Dr. Ferdjallah, Dr. Lanzkron, and Dr. Bender reported no disclosures.

ORLANDO — A new review adds to growing evidence that the modified Atkins diet (MAD) significantly reduces seizures in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

The results of the small new review and meta-analysis suggest that “the MAD may be an effective adjuvant therapy for older patients who have failed anti-seizure medications,” study investigator Aiswarya Raj, MBBS, Aster Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Paucity of Adult Data 

The MAD is a less restrictive hybrid of the ketogenic diet that limits carbohydrate intake and encourages fat consumption. It does not restrict fluids, calories, or proteins and does not require fats to be weighed or measured.

The diet includes fewer carbohydrates than the traditional Atkins diet and places more emphasis on fat intake. Dr. Raj said that the research suggests that the MAD “is a promising therapy in pediatric populations, but there’s not a lot of data in adults.”

Dr. Raj noted that this diet type has not been that popular in patients who clinicians believe might be better treated with drug therapy, possibly because of concern about the cardiac impact of consuming high-fat foods.

After conducting a systematic literature review assessing the efficacy of MAD in adults, the researchers included three randomized controlled trials and four observational studies published from January 2000 to May 2023 in the analysis.

The randomized controlled trials in the review assessed the primary outcome, a greater than 50% seizure reduction, at the end of 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months. In the MAD group, 32.5% of participants had more than a 50% seizure reduction vs 3% in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 12.62; 95% CI, 4.05-39.29; P < .0001).

Four participants who followed the diet achieved complete seizure-freedom compared with no participants in the control group (OR, 16.20; 95% CI, 0.82-318.82; P = .07).

The prospective studies examined this outcome at the end of 1 month or 3 months. In these studies, 41.9% of individuals experienced more than a 50% seizure reduction after 1 month of following the MAD, and 34.2% experienced this reduction after 3 months (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52; P = .24), with zero heterogeneity across studies.

It’s difficult to interpret the difference in seizure reduction between 1 and 3 months of therapy, Dr. Raj noted, because “there’s always the issue of compliance when you put a patient on a long-term diet.”

Positive results for MAD in adults were shown in another recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy.

That analysis included six studies with 575 patients who were randomly assigned to MAD or usual diet (UD) plus standard drug therapy. After an average follow-up of 12 weeks, MAD was associated with a higher rate of 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (relative risk [RR], 6.28; 95% CI, 3.52-10.50; P < .001), both in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy (RR, 6.14; 95% CI, 1.15-32.66; P = .033) and children (RR, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.43-11.49; P < .001).

MAD was also associated with a higher seizure freedom rate compared with UD (RR, 5.94; 95% CI, 1.93-18.31; P = .002).
 

Cholesterol Concern

In Dr. Raj’s analysis, there was an increment in blood total cholesterol level after 3 months of MAD (standard mean difference, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.40; P = .0001).

Concern about elevated blood cholesterol affecting coronary artery disease risk may explain why doctors sometimes shy away from recommending the MAD to their adult patients. “Some may not want to take that risk; you don’t want patients to succumb to coronary artery disease,” said Dr. Raj.

She noted that 3 months “is a very short time period,” and studies looking at cholesterol levels at the end of at least 1 year are needed to determine whether levels return to normal.

“We’re seeing a lot of literature now that suggests dietary intake does not really have a link with cholesterol levels,” she said. If this can be proven, “then this is definitely a great therapy.” 

The evidence of cardiovascular safety of the MAD includes a study of 37 patients who showed that although total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increased over the first 3 months of MAD treatment, these values normalized within 1 year of treatment, including in patients treated with MAD for more than 3 years.
 

Primary Diet Recommendation

This news organization asked one of the authors of that study, Mackenzie C. Cervenka, MD, professor of neurology and medical director of the Adult Epilepsy Diet Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, to comment on the new research.

She said that she was “thrilled” to see more evidence showing that this diet therapy can be as effective for adults as for children. “This is a really important message to get out there.”

At her adult epilepsy diet center, the MAD is the “primary” diet recommended for patients who are resistant to seizure medication, not tube fed, and are keen to try diet therapy, said Dr. Cervenka.

In her experience, the likelihood of having a 50% or greater seizure reduction is about 40% among medication-resistant patients, “so very similar to what they reported in that review,” she said.

However, she noted that she emphasizes to patients that “diet therapy is not meant to be monotherapy.”

Dr. Cervenka’s team is examining LDL cholesterol levels as well as LDL particle size in adults who have been on the MAD for 2 years. LDL particle size, she noted, is a better predictor of long-term cardiovascular health. 

No conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — A new review adds to growing evidence that the modified Atkins diet (MAD) significantly reduces seizures in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

The results of the small new review and meta-analysis suggest that “the MAD may be an effective adjuvant therapy for older patients who have failed anti-seizure medications,” study investigator Aiswarya Raj, MBBS, Aster Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Paucity of Adult Data 

The MAD is a less restrictive hybrid of the ketogenic diet that limits carbohydrate intake and encourages fat consumption. It does not restrict fluids, calories, or proteins and does not require fats to be weighed or measured.

The diet includes fewer carbohydrates than the traditional Atkins diet and places more emphasis on fat intake. Dr. Raj said that the research suggests that the MAD “is a promising therapy in pediatric populations, but there’s not a lot of data in adults.”

Dr. Raj noted that this diet type has not been that popular in patients who clinicians believe might be better treated with drug therapy, possibly because of concern about the cardiac impact of consuming high-fat foods.

After conducting a systematic literature review assessing the efficacy of MAD in adults, the researchers included three randomized controlled trials and four observational studies published from January 2000 to May 2023 in the analysis.

The randomized controlled trials in the review assessed the primary outcome, a greater than 50% seizure reduction, at the end of 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months. In the MAD group, 32.5% of participants had more than a 50% seizure reduction vs 3% in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 12.62; 95% CI, 4.05-39.29; P < .0001).

Four participants who followed the diet achieved complete seizure-freedom compared with no participants in the control group (OR, 16.20; 95% CI, 0.82-318.82; P = .07).

The prospective studies examined this outcome at the end of 1 month or 3 months. In these studies, 41.9% of individuals experienced more than a 50% seizure reduction after 1 month of following the MAD, and 34.2% experienced this reduction after 3 months (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52; P = .24), with zero heterogeneity across studies.

It’s difficult to interpret the difference in seizure reduction between 1 and 3 months of therapy, Dr. Raj noted, because “there’s always the issue of compliance when you put a patient on a long-term diet.”

Positive results for MAD in adults were shown in another recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy.

That analysis included six studies with 575 patients who were randomly assigned to MAD or usual diet (UD) plus standard drug therapy. After an average follow-up of 12 weeks, MAD was associated with a higher rate of 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (relative risk [RR], 6.28; 95% CI, 3.52-10.50; P < .001), both in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy (RR, 6.14; 95% CI, 1.15-32.66; P = .033) and children (RR, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.43-11.49; P < .001).

MAD was also associated with a higher seizure freedom rate compared with UD (RR, 5.94; 95% CI, 1.93-18.31; P = .002).
 

Cholesterol Concern

In Dr. Raj’s analysis, there was an increment in blood total cholesterol level after 3 months of MAD (standard mean difference, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.40; P = .0001).

Concern about elevated blood cholesterol affecting coronary artery disease risk may explain why doctors sometimes shy away from recommending the MAD to their adult patients. “Some may not want to take that risk; you don’t want patients to succumb to coronary artery disease,” said Dr. Raj.

She noted that 3 months “is a very short time period,” and studies looking at cholesterol levels at the end of at least 1 year are needed to determine whether levels return to normal.

“We’re seeing a lot of literature now that suggests dietary intake does not really have a link with cholesterol levels,” she said. If this can be proven, “then this is definitely a great therapy.” 

The evidence of cardiovascular safety of the MAD includes a study of 37 patients who showed that although total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increased over the first 3 months of MAD treatment, these values normalized within 1 year of treatment, including in patients treated with MAD for more than 3 years.
 

Primary Diet Recommendation

This news organization asked one of the authors of that study, Mackenzie C. Cervenka, MD, professor of neurology and medical director of the Adult Epilepsy Diet Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, to comment on the new research.

She said that she was “thrilled” to see more evidence showing that this diet therapy can be as effective for adults as for children. “This is a really important message to get out there.”

At her adult epilepsy diet center, the MAD is the “primary” diet recommended for patients who are resistant to seizure medication, not tube fed, and are keen to try diet therapy, said Dr. Cervenka.

In her experience, the likelihood of having a 50% or greater seizure reduction is about 40% among medication-resistant patients, “so very similar to what they reported in that review,” she said.

However, she noted that she emphasizes to patients that “diet therapy is not meant to be monotherapy.”

Dr. Cervenka’s team is examining LDL cholesterol levels as well as LDL particle size in adults who have been on the MAD for 2 years. LDL particle size, she noted, is a better predictor of long-term cardiovascular health. 

No conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — A new review adds to growing evidence that the modified Atkins diet (MAD) significantly reduces seizures in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy.

The results of the small new review and meta-analysis suggest that “the MAD may be an effective adjuvant therapy for older patients who have failed anti-seizure medications,” study investigator Aiswarya Raj, MBBS, Aster Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India, said in an interview.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
 

Paucity of Adult Data 

The MAD is a less restrictive hybrid of the ketogenic diet that limits carbohydrate intake and encourages fat consumption. It does not restrict fluids, calories, or proteins and does not require fats to be weighed or measured.

The diet includes fewer carbohydrates than the traditional Atkins diet and places more emphasis on fat intake. Dr. Raj said that the research suggests that the MAD “is a promising therapy in pediatric populations, but there’s not a lot of data in adults.”

Dr. Raj noted that this diet type has not been that popular in patients who clinicians believe might be better treated with drug therapy, possibly because of concern about the cardiac impact of consuming high-fat foods.

After conducting a systematic literature review assessing the efficacy of MAD in adults, the researchers included three randomized controlled trials and four observational studies published from January 2000 to May 2023 in the analysis.

The randomized controlled trials in the review assessed the primary outcome, a greater than 50% seizure reduction, at the end of 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months. In the MAD group, 32.5% of participants had more than a 50% seizure reduction vs 3% in the control group (odds ratio [OR], 12.62; 95% CI, 4.05-39.29; P < .0001).

Four participants who followed the diet achieved complete seizure-freedom compared with no participants in the control group (OR, 16.20; 95% CI, 0.82-318.82; P = .07).

The prospective studies examined this outcome at the end of 1 month or 3 months. In these studies, 41.9% of individuals experienced more than a 50% seizure reduction after 1 month of following the MAD, and 34.2% experienced this reduction after 3 months (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.79-2.52; P = .24), with zero heterogeneity across studies.

It’s difficult to interpret the difference in seizure reduction between 1 and 3 months of therapy, Dr. Raj noted, because “there’s always the issue of compliance when you put a patient on a long-term diet.”

Positive results for MAD in adults were shown in another recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy.

That analysis included six studies with 575 patients who were randomly assigned to MAD or usual diet (UD) plus standard drug therapy. After an average follow-up of 12 weeks, MAD was associated with a higher rate of 50% or greater reduction in seizure frequency (relative risk [RR], 6.28; 95% CI, 3.52-10.50; P < .001), both in adults with drug-resistant epilepsy (RR, 6.14; 95% CI, 1.15-32.66; P = .033) and children (RR, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.43-11.49; P < .001).

MAD was also associated with a higher seizure freedom rate compared with UD (RR, 5.94; 95% CI, 1.93-18.31; P = .002).
 

Cholesterol Concern

In Dr. Raj’s analysis, there was an increment in blood total cholesterol level after 3 months of MAD (standard mean difference, -0.82; 95% CI, -1.23 to -0.40; P = .0001).

Concern about elevated blood cholesterol affecting coronary artery disease risk may explain why doctors sometimes shy away from recommending the MAD to their adult patients. “Some may not want to take that risk; you don’t want patients to succumb to coronary artery disease,” said Dr. Raj.

She noted that 3 months “is a very short time period,” and studies looking at cholesterol levels at the end of at least 1 year are needed to determine whether levels return to normal.

“We’re seeing a lot of literature now that suggests dietary intake does not really have a link with cholesterol levels,” she said. If this can be proven, “then this is definitely a great therapy.” 

The evidence of cardiovascular safety of the MAD includes a study of 37 patients who showed that although total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increased over the first 3 months of MAD treatment, these values normalized within 1 year of treatment, including in patients treated with MAD for more than 3 years.
 

Primary Diet Recommendation

This news organization asked one of the authors of that study, Mackenzie C. Cervenka, MD, professor of neurology and medical director of the Adult Epilepsy Diet Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, to comment on the new research.

She said that she was “thrilled” to see more evidence showing that this diet therapy can be as effective for adults as for children. “This is a really important message to get out there.”

At her adult epilepsy diet center, the MAD is the “primary” diet recommended for patients who are resistant to seizure medication, not tube fed, and are keen to try diet therapy, said Dr. Cervenka.

In her experience, the likelihood of having a 50% or greater seizure reduction is about 40% among medication-resistant patients, “so very similar to what they reported in that review,” she said.

However, she noted that she emphasizes to patients that “diet therapy is not meant to be monotherapy.”

Dr. Cervenka’s team is examining LDL cholesterol levels as well as LDL particle size in adults who have been on the MAD for 2 years. LDL particle size, she noted, is a better predictor of long-term cardiovascular health. 

No conflicts of interest were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Infertility affects approximately one in six couples worldwide. More than half the time, it is the man’s low sperm quality that is to blame. Over the last three decades, sperm quality seems to have declined for no clearly identifiable reason. Theories are running rampant without anyone having the proof to back them up. 
 

Potential Causes 

The environment, lifestyle, excess weight or obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and psychological stress have all been alternately offered up as potential causes, following low-quality epidemiological studies. Cellphones are not exempt from this list, due to their emission of high-frequency (800-2200 MHz) electromagnetic waves that can be absorbed by the body. 

Clinical trials conducted in rats or mice suggest that these waves can affect sperm quality and lead to histological changes to the testicles, bearing in mind that the conditions met in these trials are very far from our day-to-day exposure to electromagnetic waves, mostly via our cellphones. 

The same observation can be made about experiments conducted on human sperm in vitro, but changes to the latter caused by electromagnetic waves leave doubts. Observational studies are rare, carried out in small cohorts, and marred by largely conflicting results. Publication bias plays a major role, just as much as the abundance of potential confounding factors does. 
 

Swiss Observational Study 

An observational study carried out in Switzerland had the benefit of involving a large cohort of 2886 young men who were representative of the general population. The participants completed an online questionnaire describing their relationship with their cellphone in detail and in qualitative and quantitative terms. 

The study was launched in 2005, before cellphone use became so widespread, and this timeline was considered when looking for a link between cellphone exposure and sperm quality. In addition, multiple adjustments were made in the multivariate analyses to account for as many potential confounding factors as possible. 

The participants, aged between 18 and 22 years, were recruited during a 3-day period to assess their suitability for military service. Each year, this cohort makes up 97% of the male population in Switzerland in this age range, with the remaining 3% being excluded from the selection process due to disability or chronic illness. 

Regardless of the review board’s decision, subjects wishing to take part in the study were given a detailed description of what it involved, a consent form, and two questionnaires. The first focused on the individual directly, asking questions about his health and lifestyle. The second, intended for his parents, dealt with the period before conception. 

This recruitment, which took place between September 2005 and November 2018, involved the researchers contacting 106,924 men. Ultimately, only 5.3% of subjects contacted returned the completed documentation. In the end, the study involved 2886 participants (3.1%) who provided all the necessary information, especially the laboratory testing (including a sperm analysis) needed to meet the study objectives. The number of hours spent on a smartphone and how it was used were routinely considered, as was sperm quality (volume, concentration, and total sperm count, as well as sperm mobility and morphology). 
 

Significant Associations 

A data analysis using an adjusted linear model revealed a significant association between frequent phone use (> 20 times per day) and lower sperm concentration (in mL) (adjusted β: -0.152, 95% CI -0.316 to 0.011). The same was found for their total concentration in ejaculate (adjusted β: -0.271, 95% CI -0.515 to -0.027). 

An adjusted logistic regression analysis estimated that the risk for subnormal male fertility levels, as determined by the World Health Organization (WHO), was increased by at most 30%, when referring to the concentration of sperm per mL (21% in terms of total concentration). This inverse link was shown to be more pronounced during the first phase of the study (2005-2007), compared with the other two phases (2008-2011 and 2012-2018). Yet no links involving sperm mobility or morphology were found, and carrying a cellphone in a trouser pocket had no impact on the results. 

This study certainly involves a large cohort of nearly 3000 young men. It is, nonetheless, retrospective, and its methodology, despite being better than that of previous studies, is still open to criticism. Its results can only fuel hypotheses, nothing more. Only prospective cohort studies will allow conclusions to be drawn and, in the meantime, no causal link can be found between exposure to the high-frequency electromagnetic waves emitted by cellphones and the risk of infertility. 
 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Infertility affects approximately one in six couples worldwide. More than half the time, it is the man’s low sperm quality that is to blame. Over the last three decades, sperm quality seems to have declined for no clearly identifiable reason. Theories are running rampant without anyone having the proof to back them up. 
 

Potential Causes 

The environment, lifestyle, excess weight or obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and psychological stress have all been alternately offered up as potential causes, following low-quality epidemiological studies. Cellphones are not exempt from this list, due to their emission of high-frequency (800-2200 MHz) electromagnetic waves that can be absorbed by the body. 

Clinical trials conducted in rats or mice suggest that these waves can affect sperm quality and lead to histological changes to the testicles, bearing in mind that the conditions met in these trials are very far from our day-to-day exposure to electromagnetic waves, mostly via our cellphones. 

The same observation can be made about experiments conducted on human sperm in vitro, but changes to the latter caused by electromagnetic waves leave doubts. Observational studies are rare, carried out in small cohorts, and marred by largely conflicting results. Publication bias plays a major role, just as much as the abundance of potential confounding factors does. 
 

Swiss Observational Study 

An observational study carried out in Switzerland had the benefit of involving a large cohort of 2886 young men who were representative of the general population. The participants completed an online questionnaire describing their relationship with their cellphone in detail and in qualitative and quantitative terms. 

The study was launched in 2005, before cellphone use became so widespread, and this timeline was considered when looking for a link between cellphone exposure and sperm quality. In addition, multiple adjustments were made in the multivariate analyses to account for as many potential confounding factors as possible. 

The participants, aged between 18 and 22 years, were recruited during a 3-day period to assess their suitability for military service. Each year, this cohort makes up 97% of the male population in Switzerland in this age range, with the remaining 3% being excluded from the selection process due to disability or chronic illness. 

Regardless of the review board’s decision, subjects wishing to take part in the study were given a detailed description of what it involved, a consent form, and two questionnaires. The first focused on the individual directly, asking questions about his health and lifestyle. The second, intended for his parents, dealt with the period before conception. 

This recruitment, which took place between September 2005 and November 2018, involved the researchers contacting 106,924 men. Ultimately, only 5.3% of subjects contacted returned the completed documentation. In the end, the study involved 2886 participants (3.1%) who provided all the necessary information, especially the laboratory testing (including a sperm analysis) needed to meet the study objectives. The number of hours spent on a smartphone and how it was used were routinely considered, as was sperm quality (volume, concentration, and total sperm count, as well as sperm mobility and morphology). 
 

Significant Associations 

A data analysis using an adjusted linear model revealed a significant association between frequent phone use (> 20 times per day) and lower sperm concentration (in mL) (adjusted β: -0.152, 95% CI -0.316 to 0.011). The same was found for their total concentration in ejaculate (adjusted β: -0.271, 95% CI -0.515 to -0.027). 

An adjusted logistic regression analysis estimated that the risk for subnormal male fertility levels, as determined by the World Health Organization (WHO), was increased by at most 30%, when referring to the concentration of sperm per mL (21% in terms of total concentration). This inverse link was shown to be more pronounced during the first phase of the study (2005-2007), compared with the other two phases (2008-2011 and 2012-2018). Yet no links involving sperm mobility or morphology were found, and carrying a cellphone in a trouser pocket had no impact on the results. 

This study certainly involves a large cohort of nearly 3000 young men. It is, nonetheless, retrospective, and its methodology, despite being better than that of previous studies, is still open to criticism. Its results can only fuel hypotheses, nothing more. Only prospective cohort studies will allow conclusions to be drawn and, in the meantime, no causal link can be found between exposure to the high-frequency electromagnetic waves emitted by cellphones and the risk of infertility. 
 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Infertility affects approximately one in six couples worldwide. More than half the time, it is the man’s low sperm quality that is to blame. Over the last three decades, sperm quality seems to have declined for no clearly identifiable reason. Theories are running rampant without anyone having the proof to back them up. 
 

Potential Causes 

The environment, lifestyle, excess weight or obesity, smoking, alcohol consumption, and psychological stress have all been alternately offered up as potential causes, following low-quality epidemiological studies. Cellphones are not exempt from this list, due to their emission of high-frequency (800-2200 MHz) electromagnetic waves that can be absorbed by the body. 

Clinical trials conducted in rats or mice suggest that these waves can affect sperm quality and lead to histological changes to the testicles, bearing in mind that the conditions met in these trials are very far from our day-to-day exposure to electromagnetic waves, mostly via our cellphones. 

The same observation can be made about experiments conducted on human sperm in vitro, but changes to the latter caused by electromagnetic waves leave doubts. Observational studies are rare, carried out in small cohorts, and marred by largely conflicting results. Publication bias plays a major role, just as much as the abundance of potential confounding factors does. 
 

Swiss Observational Study 

An observational study carried out in Switzerland had the benefit of involving a large cohort of 2886 young men who were representative of the general population. The participants completed an online questionnaire describing their relationship with their cellphone in detail and in qualitative and quantitative terms. 

The study was launched in 2005, before cellphone use became so widespread, and this timeline was considered when looking for a link between cellphone exposure and sperm quality. In addition, multiple adjustments were made in the multivariate analyses to account for as many potential confounding factors as possible. 

The participants, aged between 18 and 22 years, were recruited during a 3-day period to assess their suitability for military service. Each year, this cohort makes up 97% of the male population in Switzerland in this age range, with the remaining 3% being excluded from the selection process due to disability or chronic illness. 

Regardless of the review board’s decision, subjects wishing to take part in the study were given a detailed description of what it involved, a consent form, and two questionnaires. The first focused on the individual directly, asking questions about his health and lifestyle. The second, intended for his parents, dealt with the period before conception. 

This recruitment, which took place between September 2005 and November 2018, involved the researchers contacting 106,924 men. Ultimately, only 5.3% of subjects contacted returned the completed documentation. In the end, the study involved 2886 participants (3.1%) who provided all the necessary information, especially the laboratory testing (including a sperm analysis) needed to meet the study objectives. The number of hours spent on a smartphone and how it was used were routinely considered, as was sperm quality (volume, concentration, and total sperm count, as well as sperm mobility and morphology). 
 

Significant Associations 

A data analysis using an adjusted linear model revealed a significant association between frequent phone use (> 20 times per day) and lower sperm concentration (in mL) (adjusted β: -0.152, 95% CI -0.316 to 0.011). The same was found for their total concentration in ejaculate (adjusted β: -0.271, 95% CI -0.515 to -0.027). 

An adjusted logistic regression analysis estimated that the risk for subnormal male fertility levels, as determined by the World Health Organization (WHO), was increased by at most 30%, when referring to the concentration of sperm per mL (21% in terms of total concentration). This inverse link was shown to be more pronounced during the first phase of the study (2005-2007), compared with the other two phases (2008-2011 and 2012-2018). Yet no links involving sperm mobility or morphology were found, and carrying a cellphone in a trouser pocket had no impact on the results. 

This study certainly involves a large cohort of nearly 3000 young men. It is, nonetheless, retrospective, and its methodology, despite being better than that of previous studies, is still open to criticism. Its results can only fuel hypotheses, nothing more. Only prospective cohort studies will allow conclusions to be drawn and, in the meantime, no causal link can be found between exposure to the high-frequency electromagnetic waves emitted by cellphones and the risk of infertility. 
 

This article was translated from JIM, which is part of the Medscape professional network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

More than one in three women worldwide (at least 40 million women) annually experience lasting health problems in the months or years following childbirth, according to a new study published in The Lancet Global Health.

Those problems include pain during sexual intercourse (35%), low back pain (32%), urinary incontinence (8% to 31%), anxiety (9% to 24%), anal incontinence (19%), depression (11% to 17%), fear of childbirth (6% to 15%), perineal pain (11%), and secondary infertility (11%).

Other problems included pelvic organ prolapse, posttraumatic stress disorder, thyroid dysfunction, mastitis, HIV seroconversion (when the body begins to produce detectable levels of HIV antibodies), nerve injury, and psychosis. 

The study says most women see a doctor 6  to 12 weeks after birth and then rarely talk to doctors about these nagging health problems. Many of the problems don’t show up until 6 or more weeks after birth.

“To comprehensively address these conditions, broader and more comprehensive health service opportunities are needed, which should extend beyond 6 weeks postpartum and embrace multidisciplinary models of care,” the study says. “This approach can ensure that these conditions are promptly identified and given the attention that they deserve.”

The study is part of a series organized by the United Nation’s Special Program on Human Reproduction, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The authors said most of the data came from high-income nations. There was little data from low-income and middle-income countries except for postpartum depression, anxiety, and psychosis.

“Many postpartum conditions cause considerable suffering in women’s daily life long after birth, both emotionally and physically, and yet they are largely underappreciated, underrecognized, and underreported,” Pascale Allotey, MD, director of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research at WHO, said in a statement.

“Throughout their lives, and beyond motherhood, women need access to a range of services from health-care providers who listen to their concerns and meet their needs — so they not only survive childbirth but can enjoy good health and quality of life.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

SAN DIEGO — Allogeneic stem cell transplant is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are in their first complete remission and have measurable residual disease (MRD) after two courses of induction therapy, according to an analysis of UK National Cancer Research Institute study data.

This survival benefit did not extend to patients who were MRD-negative after their second induction therapy, Jad Othman, MBBS, reported at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The findings confirm the value of assessing MRD after induction chemotherapy to help identify patients with NPM1-mutated AML in first complete remission who are more likely to benefit from allogeneic transplant, said Dr. Othman, of King’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and the University of Sydney, Australia.

Recently, updated European LeukemiaNet recommendations, which stratify patients with AML by favorable, intermediate, and adverse prognoses, now include a revised genetic-risk classification. This classification generally considers NPM1-mutated AML favorable risk. However, having a co-mutation with FLT3-ITD raises the risk to intermediate.

Despite this increased granularity in risk stratification, “it’s still not really clear who should have transplant in first remission with NPM1-mutated AML,” Dr. Othman said. “And there is still significant variation in practice, not just worldwide but even center to center.” 

Although accumulating evidence suggests that MRD-negative patients with intermediate-risk AML are unlikely to benefit from allogeneic transplant in first complete remission, the presence of a FLT3-ITD mutation is often considered an indication for transplant, Othman explained. However, most studies supporting this view occurred before the development of sensitive molecular MRD measurement techniques.

The latest findings, from two sequential prospective randomized trials of intensive chemotherapy in adults aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed AML may help clarify who will probably benefit from transplant and who won’t based on MRD status and relevant molecular features. 

The first study (AML17), conducted from 2009 to 2014, selected patients for transplant in first complete remission using a validated risk score that incorporated features including age, sex, and response after therapy. The other (AML19), conducted from 2015 to 2020, selected patients with NPM1-mutated AML for transplant only if they tested positive for MRD in peripheral blood after their second course of treatment, regardless of FLT3-ITD status or other baseline risk factors. 

Overall, the current analysis included the 737 patients with NPM1-mutated AML, 348 from AML17 and 389 from AML19, who were in complete remission after two courses of treatment and had an MRD sample at that point. 

In AML17, 27% of MRD-positive patients (16 of 60) and 18% of MRD-negative patients (52 of 288) underwent transplant in first complete remission compared with 60% (50 of 83) and 16% (49 of 306), respectively, in AML19. 

Among all 737 patients, Dr. Othman and colleagues did not observe an overall survival benefit among those who underwent transplant vs those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01) or among patients who were MRD-negative (HR, 0.82).

However, patients who were MRD-positive did have a significant survival advantage after transplant (HR, 0.39). In these patients, 3-year overall survival was 61% among those who underwent transplant vs 24% among those who did not. 

In MRD-negative patients, transplant in first complete remission did not improve overall survival despite improved relapse-free survival (HR, 0.50). This outcome, Othman explained, probably occurred because most patients who did not undergo transplant and who relapsed were salvaged, with about two thirds undergoing a transplant during their second complete response.

Results in patients with NPM1 FLT3-ITD co-mutation mirrored those in the overall population: MRD-positive patients in first complete remission who underwent transplant demonstrated improved overall survival compared with those without transplant (HR, 0.52), but the overall survival benefit did not extend to MRD-negative patients (HR, 0.80).

The findings show that molecular MRD after induction chemotherapy can identify patients with NPM1-mutated AML who are more likely to benefit from transplant in first remission, Dr. Othman concluded. However, he noted, because only 16% of patients overall were older than 60 years, the results may not be generalizable to older patients.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Allogeneic stem cell transplant is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are in their first complete remission and have measurable residual disease (MRD) after two courses of induction therapy, according to an analysis of UK National Cancer Research Institute study data.

This survival benefit did not extend to patients who were MRD-negative after their second induction therapy, Jad Othman, MBBS, reported at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The findings confirm the value of assessing MRD after induction chemotherapy to help identify patients with NPM1-mutated AML in first complete remission who are more likely to benefit from allogeneic transplant, said Dr. Othman, of King’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and the University of Sydney, Australia.

Recently, updated European LeukemiaNet recommendations, which stratify patients with AML by favorable, intermediate, and adverse prognoses, now include a revised genetic-risk classification. This classification generally considers NPM1-mutated AML favorable risk. However, having a co-mutation with FLT3-ITD raises the risk to intermediate.

Despite this increased granularity in risk stratification, “it’s still not really clear who should have transplant in first remission with NPM1-mutated AML,” Dr. Othman said. “And there is still significant variation in practice, not just worldwide but even center to center.” 

Although accumulating evidence suggests that MRD-negative patients with intermediate-risk AML are unlikely to benefit from allogeneic transplant in first complete remission, the presence of a FLT3-ITD mutation is often considered an indication for transplant, Othman explained. However, most studies supporting this view occurred before the development of sensitive molecular MRD measurement techniques.

The latest findings, from two sequential prospective randomized trials of intensive chemotherapy in adults aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed AML may help clarify who will probably benefit from transplant and who won’t based on MRD status and relevant molecular features. 

The first study (AML17), conducted from 2009 to 2014, selected patients for transplant in first complete remission using a validated risk score that incorporated features including age, sex, and response after therapy. The other (AML19), conducted from 2015 to 2020, selected patients with NPM1-mutated AML for transplant only if they tested positive for MRD in peripheral blood after their second course of treatment, regardless of FLT3-ITD status or other baseline risk factors. 

Overall, the current analysis included the 737 patients with NPM1-mutated AML, 348 from AML17 and 389 from AML19, who were in complete remission after two courses of treatment and had an MRD sample at that point. 

In AML17, 27% of MRD-positive patients (16 of 60) and 18% of MRD-negative patients (52 of 288) underwent transplant in first complete remission compared with 60% (50 of 83) and 16% (49 of 306), respectively, in AML19. 

Among all 737 patients, Dr. Othman and colleagues did not observe an overall survival benefit among those who underwent transplant vs those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01) or among patients who were MRD-negative (HR, 0.82).

However, patients who were MRD-positive did have a significant survival advantage after transplant (HR, 0.39). In these patients, 3-year overall survival was 61% among those who underwent transplant vs 24% among those who did not. 

In MRD-negative patients, transplant in first complete remission did not improve overall survival despite improved relapse-free survival (HR, 0.50). This outcome, Othman explained, probably occurred because most patients who did not undergo transplant and who relapsed were salvaged, with about two thirds undergoing a transplant during their second complete response.

Results in patients with NPM1 FLT3-ITD co-mutation mirrored those in the overall population: MRD-positive patients in first complete remission who underwent transplant demonstrated improved overall survival compared with those without transplant (HR, 0.52), but the overall survival benefit did not extend to MRD-negative patients (HR, 0.80).

The findings show that molecular MRD after induction chemotherapy can identify patients with NPM1-mutated AML who are more likely to benefit from transplant in first remission, Dr. Othman concluded. However, he noted, because only 16% of patients overall were older than 60 years, the results may not be generalizable to older patients.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Allogeneic stem cell transplant is associated with a significant survival benefit in patients with NPM1-mutated acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are in their first complete remission and have measurable residual disease (MRD) after two courses of induction therapy, according to an analysis of UK National Cancer Research Institute study data.

This survival benefit did not extend to patients who were MRD-negative after their second induction therapy, Jad Othman, MBBS, reported at the American Society of Hematology annual meeting.

The findings confirm the value of assessing MRD after induction chemotherapy to help identify patients with NPM1-mutated AML in first complete remission who are more likely to benefit from allogeneic transplant, said Dr. Othman, of King’s College London and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, and the University of Sydney, Australia.

Recently, updated European LeukemiaNet recommendations, which stratify patients with AML by favorable, intermediate, and adverse prognoses, now include a revised genetic-risk classification. This classification generally considers NPM1-mutated AML favorable risk. However, having a co-mutation with FLT3-ITD raises the risk to intermediate.

Despite this increased granularity in risk stratification, “it’s still not really clear who should have transplant in first remission with NPM1-mutated AML,” Dr. Othman said. “And there is still significant variation in practice, not just worldwide but even center to center.” 

Although accumulating evidence suggests that MRD-negative patients with intermediate-risk AML are unlikely to benefit from allogeneic transplant in first complete remission, the presence of a FLT3-ITD mutation is often considered an indication for transplant, Othman explained. However, most studies supporting this view occurred before the development of sensitive molecular MRD measurement techniques.

The latest findings, from two sequential prospective randomized trials of intensive chemotherapy in adults aged 18-60 years with newly diagnosed AML may help clarify who will probably benefit from transplant and who won’t based on MRD status and relevant molecular features. 

The first study (AML17), conducted from 2009 to 2014, selected patients for transplant in first complete remission using a validated risk score that incorporated features including age, sex, and response after therapy. The other (AML19), conducted from 2015 to 2020, selected patients with NPM1-mutated AML for transplant only if they tested positive for MRD in peripheral blood after their second course of treatment, regardless of FLT3-ITD status or other baseline risk factors. 

Overall, the current analysis included the 737 patients with NPM1-mutated AML, 348 from AML17 and 389 from AML19, who were in complete remission after two courses of treatment and had an MRD sample at that point. 

In AML17, 27% of MRD-positive patients (16 of 60) and 18% of MRD-negative patients (52 of 288) underwent transplant in first complete remission compared with 60% (50 of 83) and 16% (49 of 306), respectively, in AML19. 

Among all 737 patients, Dr. Othman and colleagues did not observe an overall survival benefit among those who underwent transplant vs those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01) or among patients who were MRD-negative (HR, 0.82).

However, patients who were MRD-positive did have a significant survival advantage after transplant (HR, 0.39). In these patients, 3-year overall survival was 61% among those who underwent transplant vs 24% among those who did not. 

In MRD-negative patients, transplant in first complete remission did not improve overall survival despite improved relapse-free survival (HR, 0.50). This outcome, Othman explained, probably occurred because most patients who did not undergo transplant and who relapsed were salvaged, with about two thirds undergoing a transplant during their second complete response.

Results in patients with NPM1 FLT3-ITD co-mutation mirrored those in the overall population: MRD-positive patients in first complete remission who underwent transplant demonstrated improved overall survival compared with those without transplant (HR, 0.52), but the overall survival benefit did not extend to MRD-negative patients (HR, 0.80).

The findings show that molecular MRD after induction chemotherapy can identify patients with NPM1-mutated AML who are more likely to benefit from transplant in first remission, Dr. Othman concluded. However, he noted, because only 16% of patients overall were older than 60 years, the results may not be generalizable to older patients.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. government has expanded a program offering free COVID-19 and flu tests and treatment.

The Home Test to Treat program is virtual and offers at-home rapid tests, telehealth sessions, and at-home treatments to people nationwide. The program is a collaboration among the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the CDC. It began as a pilot program in some locations this year.

“With its expansion, the Home Test to Treat program will now offer free testing, telehealth and treatment for both COVID-19 and for influenza (flu) A and B,” the NIH said in a press release. “It is the first public health program that includes home testing technology at such a scale for both COVID-19 and flu.”

The news release says that anyone 18 or over with a current positive test for COVID-19 or flu can get free telehealth care and medicine delivered to their home.

Adults who don’t have COVID-19 or the flu can get free tests if they are uninsured or are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health care system, or Indian Health Services. If they test positive later, they can get free telehealth care and, if prescribed, treatment.

“I think that these [telehealth] delivery mechanisms are going to be absolutely crucial to unburden the in-person offices and the lines that we have and wait times,” said Michael Mina, MD, chief science officer at eMed, the company that helped implement the new Home Test to Treat program, to ABC News.

ABC notes that COVID tests can also be ordered at covidtests.gov – four tests per household or eight for those who have yet to order any this fall.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The U.S. government has expanded a program offering free COVID-19 and flu tests and treatment.

The Home Test to Treat program is virtual and offers at-home rapid tests, telehealth sessions, and at-home treatments to people nationwide. The program is a collaboration among the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the CDC. It began as a pilot program in some locations this year.

“With its expansion, the Home Test to Treat program will now offer free testing, telehealth and treatment for both COVID-19 and for influenza (flu) A and B,” the NIH said in a press release. “It is the first public health program that includes home testing technology at such a scale for both COVID-19 and flu.”

The news release says that anyone 18 or over with a current positive test for COVID-19 or flu can get free telehealth care and medicine delivered to their home.

Adults who don’t have COVID-19 or the flu can get free tests if they are uninsured or are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health care system, or Indian Health Services. If they test positive later, they can get free telehealth care and, if prescribed, treatment.

“I think that these [telehealth] delivery mechanisms are going to be absolutely crucial to unburden the in-person offices and the lines that we have and wait times,” said Michael Mina, MD, chief science officer at eMed, the company that helped implement the new Home Test to Treat program, to ABC News.

ABC notes that COVID tests can also be ordered at covidtests.gov – four tests per household or eight for those who have yet to order any this fall.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The U.S. government has expanded a program offering free COVID-19 and flu tests and treatment.

The Home Test to Treat program is virtual and offers at-home rapid tests, telehealth sessions, and at-home treatments to people nationwide. The program is a collaboration among the National Institutes of Health, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, and the CDC. It began as a pilot program in some locations this year.

“With its expansion, the Home Test to Treat program will now offer free testing, telehealth and treatment for both COVID-19 and for influenza (flu) A and B,” the NIH said in a press release. “It is the first public health program that includes home testing technology at such a scale for both COVID-19 and flu.”

The news release says that anyone 18 or over with a current positive test for COVID-19 or flu can get free telehealth care and medicine delivered to their home.

Adults who don’t have COVID-19 or the flu can get free tests if they are uninsured or are enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, the Veterans Affairs health care system, or Indian Health Services. If they test positive later, they can get free telehealth care and, if prescribed, treatment.

“I think that these [telehealth] delivery mechanisms are going to be absolutely crucial to unburden the in-person offices and the lines that we have and wait times,” said Michael Mina, MD, chief science officer at eMed, the company that helped implement the new Home Test to Treat program, to ABC News.

ABC notes that COVID tests can also be ordered at covidtests.gov – four tests per household or eight for those who have yet to order any this fall.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

TOPLINE

Being overweight or obese in adolescence significantly increases the risk of developing early chronic kidney disease (CKD) in young adulthood, with the association, though weaker, still significant among those who do not develop type 2 diabetes or hypertension, in a large cohort study.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included data on 593,660 adolescents aged 16-20, born after January 1, 1975, who had medical assessments as part of mandatory military service in Israel.
• The mean age at study entry was 17.2 and 54.5% were male.
• Early CKD was defined as stage 1 to 2 CKD with moderately or severely increased albuminuria, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or higher.
• The study excluded those with kidney pathology, albuminuria, hypertension, dysglycemia, or missing blood pressure or BMI data.
• Participants were followed up until early CKD onset, death, the last day insured, or August 23, 2020.

TAKEAWAY

• With a mean follow-up of 13.4 years, 1963 adolescents (0.3%) overall developed early chronic kidney disease. Among males, an increased risk of developing CKD was observed with a high-normal BMI in adolescence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8); with overweight BMI (HR, 4.0); with mild obesity (HR, 6.7); and severe obesity (HR, 9.4).
• Among females, the increased risk was also observed with high-normal BMI (HR 1.4); overweight (HR, 2.3); mild obesity (HR, 2.7); and severe obesity (HR, 4.3).
• In excluding those who developed diabetes or hypertension, the overall rate of early CKD in the cohort was 0.2%.
• For males without diabetes or hypertension, the adjusted HR for early CKD with high-normal weight was 1.2; for overweight, HR 1.6; for mild obesity, HR 2.2; and for severe obesity, HR 2.7.
• For females without diabetes or hypertension, the corresponding increased risk for early CKD was HR 1.2 for high-normal BMI; HR 1.8 for overweight; 1.5 for mild obesity and 2.3 for severe obesity.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that adolescent obesity is a major risk factor for early CKD in young adulthood; this underscores the importance of mitigating adolescent obesity rates and managing risk factors for kidney disease in adolescents with high BMI,” the authors report. 

“The association was evident even in persons with high-normal BMI in adolescence, was more pronounced in men, and appeared before the age of 30 years,” they say.

“Given the increasing obesity rates among adolescents, our findings are a harbinger of the potentially preventable increasing burden of CKD and subsequent cardiovascular disease.”

SOURCE

The study was conducted by first author Avishai M. Tsur, MD, of the Israel Defense Forces, Medical Corps, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel and Department of Military Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel, and colleagues. The study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS

The study lacked longitudinal data on clinical and lifestyle factors, including stress, diet and physical activity. While adolescents were screened using urine dipstick, a lack of serum creatinine measurements could have missed some adolescents with reduced eGFR at the study entry. The generalizability of the results is limited by the lack of people from West Africa and East Asia in the study population.

DISCLOSURES

Coauthor Josef Coresh, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

Being overweight or obese in adolescence significantly increases the risk of developing early chronic kidney disease (CKD) in young adulthood, with the association, though weaker, still significant among those who do not develop type 2 diabetes or hypertension, in a large cohort study.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included data on 593,660 adolescents aged 16-20, born after January 1, 1975, who had medical assessments as part of mandatory military service in Israel.
• The mean age at study entry was 17.2 and 54.5% were male.
• Early CKD was defined as stage 1 to 2 CKD with moderately or severely increased albuminuria, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or higher.
• The study excluded those with kidney pathology, albuminuria, hypertension, dysglycemia, or missing blood pressure or BMI data.
• Participants were followed up until early CKD onset, death, the last day insured, or August 23, 2020.

TAKEAWAY

• With a mean follow-up of 13.4 years, 1963 adolescents (0.3%) overall developed early chronic kidney disease. Among males, an increased risk of developing CKD was observed with a high-normal BMI in adolescence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8); with overweight BMI (HR, 4.0); with mild obesity (HR, 6.7); and severe obesity (HR, 9.4).
• Among females, the increased risk was also observed with high-normal BMI (HR 1.4); overweight (HR, 2.3); mild obesity (HR, 2.7); and severe obesity (HR, 4.3).
• In excluding those who developed diabetes or hypertension, the overall rate of early CKD in the cohort was 0.2%.
• For males without diabetes or hypertension, the adjusted HR for early CKD with high-normal weight was 1.2; for overweight, HR 1.6; for mild obesity, HR 2.2; and for severe obesity, HR 2.7.
• For females without diabetes or hypertension, the corresponding increased risk for early CKD was HR 1.2 for high-normal BMI; HR 1.8 for overweight; 1.5 for mild obesity and 2.3 for severe obesity.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that adolescent obesity is a major risk factor for early CKD in young adulthood; this underscores the importance of mitigating adolescent obesity rates and managing risk factors for kidney disease in adolescents with high BMI,” the authors report. 

“The association was evident even in persons with high-normal BMI in adolescence, was more pronounced in men, and appeared before the age of 30 years,” they say.

“Given the increasing obesity rates among adolescents, our findings are a harbinger of the potentially preventable increasing burden of CKD and subsequent cardiovascular disease.”

SOURCE

The study was conducted by first author Avishai M. Tsur, MD, of the Israel Defense Forces, Medical Corps, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel and Department of Military Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel, and colleagues. The study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS

The study lacked longitudinal data on clinical and lifestyle factors, including stress, diet and physical activity. While adolescents were screened using urine dipstick, a lack of serum creatinine measurements could have missed some adolescents with reduced eGFR at the study entry. The generalizability of the results is limited by the lack of people from West Africa and East Asia in the study population.

DISCLOSURES

Coauthor Josef Coresh, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE

Being overweight or obese in adolescence significantly increases the risk of developing early chronic kidney disease (CKD) in young adulthood, with the association, though weaker, still significant among those who do not develop type 2 diabetes or hypertension, in a large cohort study.

METHODOLOGY

• The study included data on 593,660 adolescents aged 16-20, born after January 1, 1975, who had medical assessments as part of mandatory military service in Israel.
• The mean age at study entry was 17.2 and 54.5% were male.
• Early CKD was defined as stage 1 to 2 CKD with moderately or severely increased albuminuria, with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 60 mL/min/1.73 m² or higher.
• The study excluded those with kidney pathology, albuminuria, hypertension, dysglycemia, or missing blood pressure or BMI data.
• Participants were followed up until early CKD onset, death, the last day insured, or August 23, 2020.

TAKEAWAY

• With a mean follow-up of 13.4 years, 1963 adolescents (0.3%) overall developed early chronic kidney disease. Among males, an increased risk of developing CKD was observed with a high-normal BMI in adolescence (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8); with overweight BMI (HR, 4.0); with mild obesity (HR, 6.7); and severe obesity (HR, 9.4).
• Among females, the increased risk was also observed with high-normal BMI (HR 1.4); overweight (HR, 2.3); mild obesity (HR, 2.7); and severe obesity (HR, 4.3).
• In excluding those who developed diabetes or hypertension, the overall rate of early CKD in the cohort was 0.2%.
• For males without diabetes or hypertension, the adjusted HR for early CKD with high-normal weight was 1.2; for overweight, HR 1.6; for mild obesity, HR 2.2; and for severe obesity, HR 2.7.
• For females without diabetes or hypertension, the corresponding increased risk for early CKD was HR 1.2 for high-normal BMI; HR 1.8 for overweight; 1.5 for mild obesity and 2.3 for severe obesity.

IN PRACTICE

“These findings suggest that adolescent obesity is a major risk factor for early CKD in young adulthood; this underscores the importance of mitigating adolescent obesity rates and managing risk factors for kidney disease in adolescents with high BMI,” the authors report. 

“The association was evident even in persons with high-normal BMI in adolescence, was more pronounced in men, and appeared before the age of 30 years,” they say.

“Given the increasing obesity rates among adolescents, our findings are a harbinger of the potentially preventable increasing burden of CKD and subsequent cardiovascular disease.”

SOURCE

The study was conducted by first author Avishai M. Tsur, MD, of the Israel Defense Forces, Medical Corps, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Israel and Department of Military Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel, and colleagues. The study was published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS

The study lacked longitudinal data on clinical and lifestyle factors, including stress, diet and physical activity. While adolescents were screened using urine dipstick, a lack of serum creatinine measurements could have missed some adolescents with reduced eGFR at the study entry. The generalizability of the results is limited by the lack of people from West Africa and East Asia in the study population.

DISCLOSURES

Coauthor Josef Coresh, MD, reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.