User login
Confirmed: Intermittent use of benzodiazepines is the safest option
BARCELONA – results of a large-scale study show.
Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.
Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.
Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.
However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Wide range of adverse outcomes
The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.
“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.
Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.
Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.
Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.
“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”
To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.
They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.
Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.
Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.
The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.
As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.
Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.
Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.
After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
Sex differences
In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).
There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).
A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).
Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).
The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”
He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.
“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.
If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.
“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
Confirmatory research
In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.
“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.
Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”
In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”
Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”
“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.
The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – results of a large-scale study show.
Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.
Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.
Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.
However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Wide range of adverse outcomes
The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.
“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.
Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.
Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.
Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.
“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”
To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.
They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.
Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.
Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.
The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.
As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.
Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.
Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.
After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
Sex differences
In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).
There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).
A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).
Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).
The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”
He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.
“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.
If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.
“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
Confirmatory research
In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.
“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.
Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”
In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”
Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”
“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.
The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – results of a large-scale study show.
Investigators matched more than 57,000 chronic benzodiazepine users with nearly 114,000 intermittent users and found that, at 1 year, chronic users had an 8% increased risk for emergency department visits and/or hospitalizations for falls.
Chronic users also had a 25% increased risk for hip fracture, a 4% raised risk for ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason, and a 23% increased risk for death.
Study investigator Simon J.C. Davies, MD, PhD, MSc, Centre for Addiction & Mental Health, Toronto, said that the research shows that, where possible, patients older than 65 years with anxiety or insomnia who are taking benzodiazepines should not stay on these medications continuously.
However, he acknowledged that, “in practical terms, there will be some who can’t change or do not want to change” their treatment.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.
Wide range of adverse outcomes
The authors noted that benzodiazepines are used to treat anxiety and insomnia but are associated with a range of adverse outcomes, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and mortality as well as tolerance and dose escalation.
“These risks are especially relevant in older adults,” they added, noting that some guidelines recommend avoiding the drugs in this population, whereas other suggest short-term benzodiazepine use for a maximum of 4 weeks.
Despite this, “benzodiazepines are widely prescribed in older adults.” One study showed that almost 15% of adults aged 65 years or older received at least one benzodiazepine prescription.
Moreover, chronic use is more common in older versus younger patients.
Benzodiazepine use among older adults “used to be higher,” Dr. Davies said in an interview, at around 20%, but the “numbers have come down,” partly because of the introduction of benzodiazepine-like sleep medications but also because of educational efforts.
“There are certainly campaigns in Ontario to educate physicians,” Dr. Davies said, “but I think more broadly people are aware of the activity of these drugs, and the tolerance and other issues.”
To compare the risk associated with chronic versus intermittent use of benzodiazepines in older adults, the team performed a population-based cohort study using linked health care databases in Ontario.
They focused on adults aged 65 years or older with a first benzodiazepine prescription after at least 1 year without taking the drugs.
Chronic benzodiazepine use was defined as 120 days of prescriptions over the first 180 days after the index prescription. Patients who met these criteria were matched with intermittent users in a 2:1 ratio by age and sex.
Patients were then propensity matched using 24 variables, including health system use in the year prior to the index prescription, clinical diagnoses, prior psychiatric health system use, falls, and income level.
The team identified 57,072 chronic benzodiazepine users and 312,468 intermittent users, of whom, 57,041 and 113,839, respectively, were propensity matched.
As expected, chronic users were prescribed benzodiazepines for more days than were the intermittent users over both the initial 180-day exposure period, at 141 days versus 33 days, and again during a further 180-day follow-up period, at 181 days versus 19 days.
Over the follow-up period, the daily lorazepam dose-equivalents of chronic users four times that of intermittent users.
Hospitalizations and/or ED visits for falls were higher among patients in the chronic benzodiazepine group, at 4.6% versus 3.2% in those who took the drugs intermittently.
After adjusting for benzodiazepine dose, the team found that chronic benzodiazepine use was associated with a significant increase in the risk for falls leading to hospital presentation over the 360-day study period, compared with intermittent use (hazard ratio, 1.08; P = .0124).
Sex differences
In addition, chronic use was linked to a significantly increased risk for hip fracture (HR, 1.25; P = .0095), and long-term care admission (HR, 1.32; P < .0001).
There was also a significant increase in ED visits and/or hospitalizations for any reason with chronic benzodiazepine use versus intermittent use (HR, 1.04; P = .0007), and an increase in the risk for death (HR, 1.23; P < .0001).
A nonsignificant increased risk for wrist fracture was also associated with chronic use of benzodiazepines (HR, 1.02; P = .8683).
Further analysis revealed some sex differences. For instance, men had a marked increase in the risk for hip fracture with chronic use (HR, 1.50; P = .0154), whereas the risk was not significant in women (HR, 1.16; P = .1332). In addition, mortality risk associated with chronic use was higher in men than in women (HR, 1.39; P < .0001 vs. HR, 1.10; P = .2245).
The decision to discontinue chronic benzodiazepine use can be challenging, said Dr. Davies. “If you’re advising people to stop, what happens to the treatment of their anxiety?”
He said that there are many other treatment options for anxiety that don’t come with tolerance or risk for addiction.
“My position would be that intermittent use is perfectly acceptable while you bide your time to explore other treatments. They may be pharmacological; they may, of course, be lifestyle changes, psychotherapies, and so on,” said Dr. Davies.
If, however, patients feel that chronic benzodiazepine use is their only option, this research informs that decision by quantifying the risks.
“We’ve always known that there was a problem, but there haven’t been high-quality epidemiological studies like this that allowed us to say what the numbers are,” said Dr. Davies.
Confirmatory research
In a comment, Christoph U. Correll, MD, professor of psychiatry at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., noted that the risk associated with benzodiazepine use, especially in older people, has been demonstrated repeatedly.
“In that context, it is not surprising that less continuous exposure to an established risk factor attenuates the risk for these adverse outcomes,” he said.
Dr. Correll, who was not involved in the study pointed out there is nevertheless a “risk of residual confounding by indication.”
In other words, “people with intermittent benzodiazepine use may have less severe underlying illness and better healthy lifestyle behaviors than those requiring chronic benzodiazepine administration.”
Also commenting on the research, Christian Vinkers, MD, PhD, psychiatrist and professor of stress and resilience, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, said that it confirms “once again that long-term benzodiazepine use should not be encouraged.”
“The risk of falls, as well as cognitive side effects and impaired driving skills, with the risk of road accidents, make chronic overuse of benzodiazepines a public health issue. Of course, there is a small group of patients who should have access to long-term use, but it is reasonable to assume that this group is currently too large,” he added.
The study was funded through a grant from the University of Toronto Department of Psychiatry Excellence Funds. No relevant financial relationships were declared.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2023
Esketamine bests quetiapine for severe depression in head-to-head trial
BARCELONA – (TRD), results of a large, multicenter, head-to-head phase 3 trial show.
Results from the ESCAPE-TRD study, which included 675 participants with TRD, show that esketamine was associated with significantly increased rates of both depression and functional remission, compared with quetiapine.
More than 675 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two drugs along with ongoing treatment with an SSRI or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI).
Esketamine increased remission rates at 2 and 8 months over quetiapine by 72% and raised functional remission rates at 8 months by 88% while decreasing adverse event rates.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New hope
The results provide “some hope for our patients suffering from TRD, which, given the data, is somewhat of a misnomer,” said study investigator Andreas Reif, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt–Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and president-elect of the ECNP.
“These patients are not resistant, they just have resistance to monoaminergic drugs,” he added. Esketamine, he said, is a “new weapon in our armamentarium.”
Dr. Reif said TRD is a serious condition that affects approximately 20%-30% of those with major depressive disorder and has “substantial impact” on patients’ lives, including quality of life and level of functioning.
“We know that esketamine nasal spray is effective in TRD. However, up to now, there were only placebo-controlled trials in addition to ongoing antidepressant treatment,” Dr. Reif noted. Consequently, he added, a head-to-head comparison with an active agent with proven efficacy was “urgently needed.”
For the trial, patients from 171 sites in 24 countries with TRD, defined as a less than 25% improvement in symptoms with two or more consecutive treatments of adequate dosage and duration, were randomly assigned to receive esketamine nasal spray (n = 336) or quetiapine (n = 340) extended release together with ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy.
Both esketamine and quetiapine were flexibly dosed. The primary endpoint was rates of remission at week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). After week 8, patients entered a maintenance phase that lasted to week 32.
Dr. Reif said the study population was representative of a typical TRD population.
The average duration of the current depression episode was more than 5 years, and the average MADRS score was above 30.
Key findings
Results showed that those who received esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI experienced a significantly higher rate of remission at week 8, compared with those treated with quetiapine (27.1% vs. 17.6%; P = .003). This equated to an adjusted odds ratio for remission of 1.74 (P = .003).
Use of esketamine was also associated with a higher rate of remission at week 8, and patients remained relapse free at week 32 (21.7% vs. 14.1% with quetiapine; odds ratio, 1.72; P = .008).
At every time point through the study, the proportion of patients experiencing remission was significantly greater with esketamine than with quetiapine. The absolute rate of remission at week 32 was 55.0%, versus 37.0% (P < .001).
Dr. Reif noted that the definition of remission used in the study was a MADRS score of less than or equal to 10, but if the “more lenient” definition of less than or equal to 12, which has been used previously, were to be applied, the absolute remission rates would rise to 65.1%, versus 46.7%.
Dr. Reif also presented results on functional remission rates beyond 32 weeks – data that were not included in the study as published in NEJM.
While remission rates increased over time in both study arms, the functional remission rate at week 32 was, again, significantly higher with esketamine than with quetiapine (38.1% vs. 25.0%; OR, 1.88; P < .001).
The safety data revealed no new signals, Dr. Reif said. Use of esketamine was associated with a lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, at 4.2% vs. 11.0% with quetiapine.
Among patients given the ketamine-derived drug, there were lower rates of nervous system disorders, and there were no incidences of weight gain, fatigue, or hangover.
Dr. Reif said the results show that esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine in achieving remission over time and that it “greatly improves patients’ functional impairment” while achieving “generally lower” adverse event rates.
He added that they are currently running a significant number of secondary analyses “to give us a better grasp of which patient benefits most” from esketamine therapy over quetiapine. The results may potentially be used to guide patient selection.
‘Tremendous advance’
Session co-chair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Tel Aviv (Israel) University, said in an interview that the results are “very exciting” and offer “further proof of a tremendous advance in our field.”
Dr. Weiser, who was not involved in the study, added that demonstrating functional improvement with esketamine was key.
“It’s great to improve symptoms,” he said, “but to have patients show an improvement in their functionality is really the bottom line of this. Not only do you feel better, but you function better, and that’s of extreme importance and makes us feel very optimistic about the future.”
Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, MD, PhD, head of psychiatry, Vall Hebron University Hospital and Autonomous University of Barcelona, welcomed the findings.
“The results of this study show the superior response and safety of esketamine nasal spray when compared with quetiapine,” he said in a release. “This gives people with treatment-resistant depression more safe treatment options.”
The study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Dr. Reif has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, COMPASS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova USA, Medice, Saga Therapeutics, and Shire. Other authors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – (TRD), results of a large, multicenter, head-to-head phase 3 trial show.
Results from the ESCAPE-TRD study, which included 675 participants with TRD, show that esketamine was associated with significantly increased rates of both depression and functional remission, compared with quetiapine.
More than 675 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two drugs along with ongoing treatment with an SSRI or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI).
Esketamine increased remission rates at 2 and 8 months over quetiapine by 72% and raised functional remission rates at 8 months by 88% while decreasing adverse event rates.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New hope
The results provide “some hope for our patients suffering from TRD, which, given the data, is somewhat of a misnomer,” said study investigator Andreas Reif, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt–Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and president-elect of the ECNP.
“These patients are not resistant, they just have resistance to monoaminergic drugs,” he added. Esketamine, he said, is a “new weapon in our armamentarium.”
Dr. Reif said TRD is a serious condition that affects approximately 20%-30% of those with major depressive disorder and has “substantial impact” on patients’ lives, including quality of life and level of functioning.
“We know that esketamine nasal spray is effective in TRD. However, up to now, there were only placebo-controlled trials in addition to ongoing antidepressant treatment,” Dr. Reif noted. Consequently, he added, a head-to-head comparison with an active agent with proven efficacy was “urgently needed.”
For the trial, patients from 171 sites in 24 countries with TRD, defined as a less than 25% improvement in symptoms with two or more consecutive treatments of adequate dosage and duration, were randomly assigned to receive esketamine nasal spray (n = 336) or quetiapine (n = 340) extended release together with ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy.
Both esketamine and quetiapine were flexibly dosed. The primary endpoint was rates of remission at week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). After week 8, patients entered a maintenance phase that lasted to week 32.
Dr. Reif said the study population was representative of a typical TRD population.
The average duration of the current depression episode was more than 5 years, and the average MADRS score was above 30.
Key findings
Results showed that those who received esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI experienced a significantly higher rate of remission at week 8, compared with those treated with quetiapine (27.1% vs. 17.6%; P = .003). This equated to an adjusted odds ratio for remission of 1.74 (P = .003).
Use of esketamine was also associated with a higher rate of remission at week 8, and patients remained relapse free at week 32 (21.7% vs. 14.1% with quetiapine; odds ratio, 1.72; P = .008).
At every time point through the study, the proportion of patients experiencing remission was significantly greater with esketamine than with quetiapine. The absolute rate of remission at week 32 was 55.0%, versus 37.0% (P < .001).
Dr. Reif noted that the definition of remission used in the study was a MADRS score of less than or equal to 10, but if the “more lenient” definition of less than or equal to 12, which has been used previously, were to be applied, the absolute remission rates would rise to 65.1%, versus 46.7%.
Dr. Reif also presented results on functional remission rates beyond 32 weeks – data that were not included in the study as published in NEJM.
While remission rates increased over time in both study arms, the functional remission rate at week 32 was, again, significantly higher with esketamine than with quetiapine (38.1% vs. 25.0%; OR, 1.88; P < .001).
The safety data revealed no new signals, Dr. Reif said. Use of esketamine was associated with a lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, at 4.2% vs. 11.0% with quetiapine.
Among patients given the ketamine-derived drug, there were lower rates of nervous system disorders, and there were no incidences of weight gain, fatigue, or hangover.
Dr. Reif said the results show that esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine in achieving remission over time and that it “greatly improves patients’ functional impairment” while achieving “generally lower” adverse event rates.
He added that they are currently running a significant number of secondary analyses “to give us a better grasp of which patient benefits most” from esketamine therapy over quetiapine. The results may potentially be used to guide patient selection.
‘Tremendous advance’
Session co-chair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Tel Aviv (Israel) University, said in an interview that the results are “very exciting” and offer “further proof of a tremendous advance in our field.”
Dr. Weiser, who was not involved in the study, added that demonstrating functional improvement with esketamine was key.
“It’s great to improve symptoms,” he said, “but to have patients show an improvement in their functionality is really the bottom line of this. Not only do you feel better, but you function better, and that’s of extreme importance and makes us feel very optimistic about the future.”
Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, MD, PhD, head of psychiatry, Vall Hebron University Hospital and Autonomous University of Barcelona, welcomed the findings.
“The results of this study show the superior response and safety of esketamine nasal spray when compared with quetiapine,” he said in a release. “This gives people with treatment-resistant depression more safe treatment options.”
The study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Dr. Reif has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, COMPASS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova USA, Medice, Saga Therapeutics, and Shire. Other authors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
BARCELONA – (TRD), results of a large, multicenter, head-to-head phase 3 trial show.
Results from the ESCAPE-TRD study, which included 675 participants with TRD, show that esketamine was associated with significantly increased rates of both depression and functional remission, compared with quetiapine.
More than 675 patients were randomly assigned to receive one of the two drugs along with ongoing treatment with an SSRI or a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI).
Esketamine increased remission rates at 2 and 8 months over quetiapine by 72% and raised functional remission rates at 8 months by 88% while decreasing adverse event rates.
The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology and were published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New hope
The results provide “some hope for our patients suffering from TRD, which, given the data, is somewhat of a misnomer,” said study investigator Andreas Reif, MD, professor of psychiatry, psychosomatic medicine, and psychotherapy, University Hospital Frankfurt–Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and president-elect of the ECNP.
“These patients are not resistant, they just have resistance to monoaminergic drugs,” he added. Esketamine, he said, is a “new weapon in our armamentarium.”
Dr. Reif said TRD is a serious condition that affects approximately 20%-30% of those with major depressive disorder and has “substantial impact” on patients’ lives, including quality of life and level of functioning.
“We know that esketamine nasal spray is effective in TRD. However, up to now, there were only placebo-controlled trials in addition to ongoing antidepressant treatment,” Dr. Reif noted. Consequently, he added, a head-to-head comparison with an active agent with proven efficacy was “urgently needed.”
For the trial, patients from 171 sites in 24 countries with TRD, defined as a less than 25% improvement in symptoms with two or more consecutive treatments of adequate dosage and duration, were randomly assigned to receive esketamine nasal spray (n = 336) or quetiapine (n = 340) extended release together with ongoing SSRI or SNRI therapy.
Both esketamine and quetiapine were flexibly dosed. The primary endpoint was rates of remission at week 8 on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). After week 8, patients entered a maintenance phase that lasted to week 32.
Dr. Reif said the study population was representative of a typical TRD population.
The average duration of the current depression episode was more than 5 years, and the average MADRS score was above 30.
Key findings
Results showed that those who received esketamine in combination with an SSRI or SNRI experienced a significantly higher rate of remission at week 8, compared with those treated with quetiapine (27.1% vs. 17.6%; P = .003). This equated to an adjusted odds ratio for remission of 1.74 (P = .003).
Use of esketamine was also associated with a higher rate of remission at week 8, and patients remained relapse free at week 32 (21.7% vs. 14.1% with quetiapine; odds ratio, 1.72; P = .008).
At every time point through the study, the proportion of patients experiencing remission was significantly greater with esketamine than with quetiapine. The absolute rate of remission at week 32 was 55.0%, versus 37.0% (P < .001).
Dr. Reif noted that the definition of remission used in the study was a MADRS score of less than or equal to 10, but if the “more lenient” definition of less than or equal to 12, which has been used previously, were to be applied, the absolute remission rates would rise to 65.1%, versus 46.7%.
Dr. Reif also presented results on functional remission rates beyond 32 weeks – data that were not included in the study as published in NEJM.
While remission rates increased over time in both study arms, the functional remission rate at week 32 was, again, significantly higher with esketamine than with quetiapine (38.1% vs. 25.0%; OR, 1.88; P < .001).
The safety data revealed no new signals, Dr. Reif said. Use of esketamine was associated with a lower rate of treatment-emergent adverse events that led to treatment discontinuation, at 4.2% vs. 11.0% with quetiapine.
Among patients given the ketamine-derived drug, there were lower rates of nervous system disorders, and there were no incidences of weight gain, fatigue, or hangover.
Dr. Reif said the results show that esketamine nasal spray was superior to quetiapine in achieving remission over time and that it “greatly improves patients’ functional impairment” while achieving “generally lower” adverse event rates.
He added that they are currently running a significant number of secondary analyses “to give us a better grasp of which patient benefits most” from esketamine therapy over quetiapine. The results may potentially be used to guide patient selection.
‘Tremendous advance’
Session co-chair Mark Weiser, MD, chairman at the department of psychiatry, Tel Aviv (Israel) University, said in an interview that the results are “very exciting” and offer “further proof of a tremendous advance in our field.”
Dr. Weiser, who was not involved in the study, added that demonstrating functional improvement with esketamine was key.
“It’s great to improve symptoms,” he said, “but to have patients show an improvement in their functionality is really the bottom line of this. Not only do you feel better, but you function better, and that’s of extreme importance and makes us feel very optimistic about the future.”
Josep Antoni Ramos-Quiroga, MD, PhD, head of psychiatry, Vall Hebron University Hospital and Autonomous University of Barcelona, welcomed the findings.
“The results of this study show the superior response and safety of esketamine nasal spray when compared with quetiapine,” he said in a release. “This gives people with treatment-resistant depression more safe treatment options.”
The study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Dr. Reif has relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim, COMPASS, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, LivaNova USA, Medice, Saga Therapeutics, and Shire. Other authors have disclosed numerous relationships with industry.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ECNP 2023
Are they ‘antiobesity medications’ or ‘weight-loss drugs’?
A simple Google search for the terms “weight-loss pens,” “weight-loss drugs,” and “weight-loss medications” displays seven times more results than a search for terms like “antiobesity medications,” “antiobesity drugs,” or “drugs (or medications) to treat obesity.” The same search applied to academic databases yields the opposite results: fewer than 500 results for “weight-loss drugs/agents/medications” and 19,000 results for “antiobesity agents,” for example.
To highlight the importance of the language used to talk about obesity treatment, researchers affiliated with the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (ABESO) released a statement on the subject at the Brazilian Congress of Update in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2023. On the basis of the study by the ABESO and the SBEM, the statement proposes abandoning the use of the term “weight-loss medications” in scientific publications and, most importantly, in the media.
“Put together, we believe that the common use of the term ‘weight-loss medications’ by media and the public, as well as by doctors and the scientific community, contributes to stigma, and certainly that language matters,” study author Paulo Augusto Carvalho Miranda, MD, PhD, chair of SBEM, said in an interview.
“When we refer to these medications as ‘weight-loss drugs,’ we are using derogatory terms to refer to medications that were extensively studied before their launch onto the market and approved by a regulatory authority to treat a disease called obesity,” said study author Márcio Mancini, MD, PhD, deputy chair of the SBEM’s Obesity Department.
Beyond semantics
Another article published by this news organization presents the initiative of a global task force comprising 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, who proposed a new name for the disease. According to the leader of the project, Francesco Rubino, MD, “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, that some might say the only solution is to change the name.” Following this same logic, the authors of the Brazilian study believe that changing how we refer to medications may improve perceptions of health care professionals and patients toward prevention and treatment strategies for obesity.
According to Dr. Miranda, the first step is “remembering that how we refer to people, diseases, and treatments makes all the difference, especially in situations like obesity, a stigmatized disease loaded with misconceptions. It is not merely an issue of semantics, but also an issue of reducing the stigma surrounding the subject.”
According to Dr. Miranda, the primary purpose of the statement is to highlight the uniqueness of the situation and the importance of encouraging the use of the expressions “antiobesity medications” and “medications to treat obesity” to help reduce the stigma and improve adherence and persistence in obesity treatment.
Impact in practice
The statement also emphasizes that obesity pharmacotherapy is widely underused in patients with obesity and that, in the United States, it is prescribed only for approximately 3% of adults with the disease. Weight management programs for this patient population stress implementing lifestyle changes, and only 1.1% of participants are prescribed medications.
According to the statement, the term “weight-loss medications” contributes to the concept that their use has an aesthetic goal and can be consumed by anyone who desires to lose weight.
In addition to ensuring the correct use of language, Dr. Mancini adds that it is essential for doctors to seek and present pharmacologic treatment for obesity as something that will improve patient health. This means stressing that obesity can be controlled with a 10% loss in body weight, just as other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, can be controlled. Moreover, it is important to point out that medications also have a crucial role in optimizing weight maintenance in the long term.
Another issue Dr. Mancini raised is the prejudice that many doctors have against people with obesity. Health professionals should recognize they are also subject to weight bias and that the way they communicate with patients could have a profound effect on health-related outcomes.
“The stigma surrounding obesity can lead to bullying, even in the patient’s home by their relatives; this is very common. Weight stigma is so strong that it hinders patient health and decreases the likelihood of the patient seeking specialized care,” Dr. Mancini warned.
According to the authors, it is of utmost importance to understand that an individual should not be defined by his or disease (as by the use of the terms “obese” or “diabetic”) but rather understood to live with this disease (“individual with obesity” or “with diabetes”). Dr. Mancini suggests the following strategies that health care professionals can adopt while caring for patients with obesity:
- Speak to patients with empathy and respect, avoiding the use of judgmental words.
- Ask if they would like to discuss the “weight issue,” “BMI issue,” terms that are better received by the public, instead of saying “excess fat” or “excess weight.”
- If the patient agrees to talk about the subject, reinforce that this is a chronic health problem that requires longterm treatment and give him or her short, medium, and longterm options.
Lastly, the authors highlighted the importance of differentiating between regulatory agency–approved medications and over-the-counter drugs and supplements that are often sold as “weight-loss agents” and are responsible for an unacceptably high rate of emergency visits.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
A simple Google search for the terms “weight-loss pens,” “weight-loss drugs,” and “weight-loss medications” displays seven times more results than a search for terms like “antiobesity medications,” “antiobesity drugs,” or “drugs (or medications) to treat obesity.” The same search applied to academic databases yields the opposite results: fewer than 500 results for “weight-loss drugs/agents/medications” and 19,000 results for “antiobesity agents,” for example.
To highlight the importance of the language used to talk about obesity treatment, researchers affiliated with the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (ABESO) released a statement on the subject at the Brazilian Congress of Update in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2023. On the basis of the study by the ABESO and the SBEM, the statement proposes abandoning the use of the term “weight-loss medications” in scientific publications and, most importantly, in the media.
“Put together, we believe that the common use of the term ‘weight-loss medications’ by media and the public, as well as by doctors and the scientific community, contributes to stigma, and certainly that language matters,” study author Paulo Augusto Carvalho Miranda, MD, PhD, chair of SBEM, said in an interview.
“When we refer to these medications as ‘weight-loss drugs,’ we are using derogatory terms to refer to medications that were extensively studied before their launch onto the market and approved by a regulatory authority to treat a disease called obesity,” said study author Márcio Mancini, MD, PhD, deputy chair of the SBEM’s Obesity Department.
Beyond semantics
Another article published by this news organization presents the initiative of a global task force comprising 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, who proposed a new name for the disease. According to the leader of the project, Francesco Rubino, MD, “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, that some might say the only solution is to change the name.” Following this same logic, the authors of the Brazilian study believe that changing how we refer to medications may improve perceptions of health care professionals and patients toward prevention and treatment strategies for obesity.
According to Dr. Miranda, the first step is “remembering that how we refer to people, diseases, and treatments makes all the difference, especially in situations like obesity, a stigmatized disease loaded with misconceptions. It is not merely an issue of semantics, but also an issue of reducing the stigma surrounding the subject.”
According to Dr. Miranda, the primary purpose of the statement is to highlight the uniqueness of the situation and the importance of encouraging the use of the expressions “antiobesity medications” and “medications to treat obesity” to help reduce the stigma and improve adherence and persistence in obesity treatment.
Impact in practice
The statement also emphasizes that obesity pharmacotherapy is widely underused in patients with obesity and that, in the United States, it is prescribed only for approximately 3% of adults with the disease. Weight management programs for this patient population stress implementing lifestyle changes, and only 1.1% of participants are prescribed medications.
According to the statement, the term “weight-loss medications” contributes to the concept that their use has an aesthetic goal and can be consumed by anyone who desires to lose weight.
In addition to ensuring the correct use of language, Dr. Mancini adds that it is essential for doctors to seek and present pharmacologic treatment for obesity as something that will improve patient health. This means stressing that obesity can be controlled with a 10% loss in body weight, just as other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, can be controlled. Moreover, it is important to point out that medications also have a crucial role in optimizing weight maintenance in the long term.
Another issue Dr. Mancini raised is the prejudice that many doctors have against people with obesity. Health professionals should recognize they are also subject to weight bias and that the way they communicate with patients could have a profound effect on health-related outcomes.
“The stigma surrounding obesity can lead to bullying, even in the patient’s home by their relatives; this is very common. Weight stigma is so strong that it hinders patient health and decreases the likelihood of the patient seeking specialized care,” Dr. Mancini warned.
According to the authors, it is of utmost importance to understand that an individual should not be defined by his or disease (as by the use of the terms “obese” or “diabetic”) but rather understood to live with this disease (“individual with obesity” or “with diabetes”). Dr. Mancini suggests the following strategies that health care professionals can adopt while caring for patients with obesity:
- Speak to patients with empathy and respect, avoiding the use of judgmental words.
- Ask if they would like to discuss the “weight issue,” “BMI issue,” terms that are better received by the public, instead of saying “excess fat” or “excess weight.”
- If the patient agrees to talk about the subject, reinforce that this is a chronic health problem that requires longterm treatment and give him or her short, medium, and longterm options.
Lastly, the authors highlighted the importance of differentiating between regulatory agency–approved medications and over-the-counter drugs and supplements that are often sold as “weight-loss agents” and are responsible for an unacceptably high rate of emergency visits.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
A simple Google search for the terms “weight-loss pens,” “weight-loss drugs,” and “weight-loss medications” displays seven times more results than a search for terms like “antiobesity medications,” “antiobesity drugs,” or “drugs (or medications) to treat obesity.” The same search applied to academic databases yields the opposite results: fewer than 500 results for “weight-loss drugs/agents/medications” and 19,000 results for “antiobesity agents,” for example.
To highlight the importance of the language used to talk about obesity treatment, researchers affiliated with the Brazilian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism (SBEM) and the Brazilian Association for the Study of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome (ABESO) released a statement on the subject at the Brazilian Congress of Update in Endocrinology and Metabolism 2023. On the basis of the study by the ABESO and the SBEM, the statement proposes abandoning the use of the term “weight-loss medications” in scientific publications and, most importantly, in the media.
“Put together, we believe that the common use of the term ‘weight-loss medications’ by media and the public, as well as by doctors and the scientific community, contributes to stigma, and certainly that language matters,” study author Paulo Augusto Carvalho Miranda, MD, PhD, chair of SBEM, said in an interview.
“When we refer to these medications as ‘weight-loss drugs,’ we are using derogatory terms to refer to medications that were extensively studied before their launch onto the market and approved by a regulatory authority to treat a disease called obesity,” said study author Márcio Mancini, MD, PhD, deputy chair of the SBEM’s Obesity Department.
Beyond semantics
Another article published by this news organization presents the initiative of a global task force comprising 60 leaders in the clinical management of obesity, who proposed a new name for the disease. According to the leader of the project, Francesco Rubino, MD, “The word is so stigmatized, with so much misunderstanding and misperception, that some might say the only solution is to change the name.” Following this same logic, the authors of the Brazilian study believe that changing how we refer to medications may improve perceptions of health care professionals and patients toward prevention and treatment strategies for obesity.
According to Dr. Miranda, the first step is “remembering that how we refer to people, diseases, and treatments makes all the difference, especially in situations like obesity, a stigmatized disease loaded with misconceptions. It is not merely an issue of semantics, but also an issue of reducing the stigma surrounding the subject.”
According to Dr. Miranda, the primary purpose of the statement is to highlight the uniqueness of the situation and the importance of encouraging the use of the expressions “antiobesity medications” and “medications to treat obesity” to help reduce the stigma and improve adherence and persistence in obesity treatment.
Impact in practice
The statement also emphasizes that obesity pharmacotherapy is widely underused in patients with obesity and that, in the United States, it is prescribed only for approximately 3% of adults with the disease. Weight management programs for this patient population stress implementing lifestyle changes, and only 1.1% of participants are prescribed medications.
According to the statement, the term “weight-loss medications” contributes to the concept that their use has an aesthetic goal and can be consumed by anyone who desires to lose weight.
In addition to ensuring the correct use of language, Dr. Mancini adds that it is essential for doctors to seek and present pharmacologic treatment for obesity as something that will improve patient health. This means stressing that obesity can be controlled with a 10% loss in body weight, just as other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, can be controlled. Moreover, it is important to point out that medications also have a crucial role in optimizing weight maintenance in the long term.
Another issue Dr. Mancini raised is the prejudice that many doctors have against people with obesity. Health professionals should recognize they are also subject to weight bias and that the way they communicate with patients could have a profound effect on health-related outcomes.
“The stigma surrounding obesity can lead to bullying, even in the patient’s home by their relatives; this is very common. Weight stigma is so strong that it hinders patient health and decreases the likelihood of the patient seeking specialized care,” Dr. Mancini warned.
According to the authors, it is of utmost importance to understand that an individual should not be defined by his or disease (as by the use of the terms “obese” or “diabetic”) but rather understood to live with this disease (“individual with obesity” or “with diabetes”). Dr. Mancini suggests the following strategies that health care professionals can adopt while caring for patients with obesity:
- Speak to patients with empathy and respect, avoiding the use of judgmental words.
- Ask if they would like to discuss the “weight issue,” “BMI issue,” terms that are better received by the public, instead of saying “excess fat” or “excess weight.”
- If the patient agrees to talk about the subject, reinforce that this is a chronic health problem that requires longterm treatment and give him or her short, medium, and longterm options.
Lastly, the authors highlighted the importance of differentiating between regulatory agency–approved medications and over-the-counter drugs and supplements that are often sold as “weight-loss agents” and are responsible for an unacceptably high rate of emergency visits.
This article was translated from the Medscape Portuguese Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
‘Vaginal dryness’ can be fatal. No, really.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.
GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.
What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.
The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.
Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.
There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.
These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.
We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.
Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.
You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.
Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.
GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.
What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.
The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.
Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.
There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.
These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.
We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.
Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.
You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.
Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
What do you mean, Dr. Rubin? How is vaginal dryness killing women? We minimize the term vaginal dryness. When women come to our offices and complain of a little vaginal dryness – or they don’t even come to our office to complain of it because the doctor can’t be bothered with a little vaginal dryness — what they don’t understand is that this “little vaginal dryness” is really something called genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). They don’t know that because they’ve never heard of it, and you may have never heard of it either. In 2014, we changed the terms vaginal dryness and vulvovaginal atrophy or atrophic vaginitis to GSM to make it short and simple.
GSM – what does it mean? It’s not just a little vaginal dryness. It turns out that all of the genital and urinary symptoms from menopause just get worse over time. The bladder, the urethra, and the vagina have lots of hormone receptors, including estrogen and testosterone. When the body no longer makes those hormones, the system doesn’t work very well, and genital and urinary symptoms occur that just get worse over time without treatment. Unlike hot flashes, which tend to go away, GSM does not.
What are the symptoms of GSM? Some are sexual: a little vaginal dryness, pain with sex, and worsening orgasm. But there are also genital and urinary symptoms that get worse: itching, burning irritation, rawness, an awareness of their genitals that the patient has never had before. And as a urologist, we see frequency, urgency, and leakage.
The thing that kills women is recurrent urinary tract infections (UTIs). Did you know that UTIs account for 7 million visits and hospitalizations annually and 25% of all infections in older people? In fact, apparently one-third of the total Medicare expenditure is around UTIs. Not preventing UTIs is costing our health care system an enormous amount of money and resources.
Did you know we’ve had safe and effective treatment options for GSM since the 1970s? Vaginal hormones have existed since the 1970s, but we’re using them only for pain with sex and not for GSM. In fact, data show that by using vaginal hormones, we can prevent UTIs by more than 50%. We can save lives using safe, effective, local, low-dose vaginal hormone strategies. And they are safe and effective for all of our patients in pre- and post menopause.
There are five different treatment options: vaginal estrogen inserts, vaginal estrogen creams, vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), low-dose vaginal estrogen rings, and an oral pill option called ospemifene (Osphena). All are used to treat GSM and will only work if your patient actually uses them and continues to use them.
These treatments are safe. They are effective. They do not increase the level of systemic hormones in the bloodstream. I have many patients with breast cancer who use these products as well. The only patients you may want to talk to your oncology colleagues about is women on active aromatase inhibitors.
We have to understand that UTIs kill people and having GSM is debilitating, often requiring pain medication because it can hurt to sit or to wear pads and our patients’ quality of life is severely affected. So please consider learning how to treat GSM. It turns out you don’t have to do exams. You don’t have to do follow-up. You can give these therapies, and women can use them for life.
Now, if your patient has vaginal bleeding, of course they need to see their gynecologist. But this is something every primary care doctor can and should do. As a urologist, we prescribe a lot of tamsulosin (Flomax) for our male patients to help with urination. Vaginal estrogen or DHEA is basically like Flomax for women, but it prevents UTIs and actually works like sildenafil (Viagra) because it can help orgasm and reduce pain with sex.
You have access to affordable, safe, effective treatment options to treat GSM. So check them out and hopefully change the world.
Dr. Rubin is an assistant clinical professor in the department of urology at Georgetown University, Washington. She reported conflicts of interest with Sprout, Maternal Medical, Absorption Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Endo.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Allergic contact dermatitis
THE COMPARISON
A An 11-year-old Hispanic boy with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on the abdomen. The geometric nature of the eruption and proximity to the belt buckle were highly suggestive of ACD to nickel; patch testing was not needed.
B A Black woman with ACD on the neck. A punch biopsy demonstrated spongiotic dermatitis that was typical of ACD. The diagnosis was supported by the patient’s history of dermatitis that developed after new products were applied to the hair. The patient declined patch testing.
C A Hispanic man with ACD on hair-bearing areas of the face where hair dye was used. The patient’s history of dermatitis following the application of hair dye was highly suggestive of ACD; patch testing confirmed the allergen was paraphenylenediamine (PPD).
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory condition of the skin caused by an immunologic response to 1 or more identifiable allergens. A delayed-type immune response (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) occurs after the skin is re-exposed to an offending allergen.1 Severe pruritus is the main symptom of ACD in the early stages, accompanied by erythema, vesicles, and scaling in a distinct pattern corresponding to the allergen’s contact with the skin.2 Delayed widespread dermatitis after exposure to an allergen—a phenomenon known as autoeczematization (id reaction)—also may occur.3
The gold-standard diagnostic tool for ACD is patch testing, in which the patient is re-exposed to the suspected contact allergen(s) and observed for the development of dermatitis.4 However, ACD can be diagnosed with a detailed patient history including occupation, hobbies, personal care practices, and possible triggers with subsequent rashes. Thorough clinical examination of the skin is paramount. Indicators of possible ACD include dermatitis that persists despite use of appropriate treatment, an unexplained flare of previously quiescent dermatitis, and a diagnosis of dermatitis without a clear cause.1
Hairdressers, health care workers, and metal workers are at higher risk for ACD.5 Occupational ACD has notable socioeconomic implications, as it can result in frequent sick days, inability to perform tasks at work, and in some cases job loss.6
Patients with atopic dermatitis have impaired barrier function of the skin, permitting the entrance of allergens and subsequent sensitization.7 ACD is a challenge to manage, as complete avoidance of the allergen may not be possible.8
Continue to: The underrepresentation of patients...
The underrepresentation of patients with skin of color (SOC) in educational materials as well as socioeconomic health disparities may contribute to the lower rates of diagnosis, patch testing, and treatment of ACD in this patient population.
Epidemiology
An ACD prevalence of 15.2% was reported in a study of 793 Danish patients who underwent skin prick and patch testing.9 Alinaghi et al10 conducted a meta-analysis of 20,107 patients across 28 studies who were patch tested to determine the prevalence of ACD in the general population. The researchers concluded that 20.1% (95% CI, 16.8%-23.7%) of the general population experienced ACD. They analyzed 22 studies to determine the prevalence of ACD based on specific geographic area, including 18,709 individuals from Europe with a prevalence of 19.5% (95% CI, 15.8%-23.4%), 1639 individuals from North America with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-35.2%), and 2 studies from China (no other studies from Asia found) with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 17.4%-23.9%). Researchers did not find data from studies conducted in Africa or South America.10
The current available epidemiologic data on ACD are not representative of SOC populations. DeLeo et al11 looked at patch test reaction patterns in association with race and ethnicity in a large sample size (N = 19,457); 92.9% of these patients were White and only 7.1% were Black. Large-scale, inclusive studies are needed, which can only be achieved with increased suspicion for ACD and increased access to patch testing.
ACD is more common in women, with nickel being the most frequently identified allergen (FIGURE A).10 Personal care products often are linked to ACD (FIGURE B). An analysis of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group revealed that the top 5 personal care product allergens were methylisothiazolinone (a preservative), fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, quaternium-15 (a preservative), and paraphenylenediamine (PPD; a common component of hair dye) (FIGURE C).12
There is a paucity of epidemiologic data among various ethnic groups; however, a few studies have suggested that there is no difference in the frequency rates of positive patch test results in Black vs White populations.11,13,14 One study of patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio demonstrated a similar allergy frequency of 43.0% and 43.6%, respectively.13 However, there were differences in the types of allergen sensitization. Black patients had higher positive patch test rates for PPD than White patients (10.6% vs 4.5%). Black men had a higher frequency of sensitivity to PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea (a formaldehyde-releasing preservative; 9.1% vs 2.6%) compared to White men.13
Continue to: Ethnicity and cultural practices...
Ethnicity and cultural practices influence epidemiologic patterns of ACD. Darker hair dyes used in Black patients14 and deeply pigmented PPD dye found in henna tattoos used in Indian and Black patients15 may lead to increased sensitization to PPD. ACD due to formaldehyde is more common in White patients, possibly due to more frequent use of formaldehyde-containing moisturizers, shampoos, and creams.15
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones
In patients with SOC, the clinical features of ACD vary, posing a diagnostic challenge. Hyperpigmentation, lichenification, and induration are more likely to be seen than the papules, vesicles, and erythematous dermatitis often described in lighter skin tones or acute ACD. Erythema can be difficult to assess on darker skin and may appear violaceous or very faint pink.16
Worth noting
A high index of suspicion is necessary when interpreting patch tests in patients with SOC, as patch test kits use a reading plate with graduated intensities of erythema, papulation, and vesicular reactions to determine the likelihood of ACD. The potential contact allergens are placed on the skin on Day 1 and covered. Then, on Day 3 the allergens are removed. The skin is clinically evaluated using visual assessment and skin palpation. The reactions are graded as negative, irritant reaction, equivocal, weak positive, strong positive, or extreme reaction at around Days 3 and 5 to capture both early and delayed reactions.17 A patch test may be positive even if obvious signs of erythema are not appreciated as expected.
Adjusting the lighting in the examination room, including side lighting, or using a blue background can be helpful in identifying erythema in darker skin tones.15,16,18 Palpation of the skin also is useful, as even slight texture changes and induration are indicators of a possible skin reaction to the test allergen.15
Health disparity highlight
Clinical photographs of ACD and patch test results in patients with SOC are not commonplace in the literature. Positive patch test results in patients with darker skin tones vary from those of patients with lighter skin tones, and if the clinician reading the patch test result is not familiar with the findings in darker skin tones, the diagnosis may be delayed or missed.15
Continue to: Furthermore, Scott et al...
Furthermore, Scott et al15 highlighted that many dermatology residency training programs have a paucity of SOC education in their curriculum. This lack of representation may contribute to the diagnostic challenges encountered by health care providers.
Timely access to health care and education as well as economic stability are essential for the successful management of patients with ACD. Some individuals with SOC have been disproportionately affected by social determinants of health. Rodriguez-Homs et al19 demonstrated that the distance needed to travel to a clinic and the poverty rate of the county the patient lives in play a role in referral to a clinician specializing in contact dermatitis.
A retrospective registry review of 2310 patients undergoing patch testing at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston revealed that 2.5% were Black, 5.5% were Latinx, 8.3% were Asian, and the remaining 83.7% were White.20 Qian et al21 also looked at patch testing patterns among various sociodemographic groups (N = 1,107,530) and found that 69% of patients were White and 59% were female. Rates of patch testing among patients who were Black, lesser educated, male, lower income, and younger (children ages 0-12 years) were significantly lower than for other groups when ACD was suspected (P < .0001).21 The lower rates of patch testing in patients with SOC may be due to low suspicion of diagnosis, low referral rates due to limited medical insurance, and financial instability, as well as other socioeconomic factors.20
Tamazian et al16 reviewed pediatric populations at 13 US centers and found that Black children received patch testing less frequently than White and Hispanic children. Another review of pediatric patch testing in patients with SOC found that a less comprehensive panel of allergens was used in this population.22
The key to resolution of ACD is removal of the offending antigen, and if patients are not being tested, then they risk having a prolonged and complicated course of ACD with a poor prognosis. Patients with SOC also experience greater negative psychosocial impact due to ACD disease burden.21,23 The lower rates of patch testing in Black patients cannot solely be attributed to difficulty diagnosing ACD in darker skin tones; it is likely due to the impact of social determinants of health. Alleviating health disparities will improve patient outcomes and quality of life.
1. Mowad CM, Anderson B, Scheinman P, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: patient diagnosis and evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:1029-1040. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1139
2. Usatine RP, Riojas M. Diagnosis and management of contact dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82:249-255.
3. Bertoli MJ, Schwartz RA, Janniger CK. Autoeczematization: a strange id reaction of the skin. Cutis. 2021;108:163-166. doi: 10.12788/cutis.0342
4. Johansen JD, Bonefeld CM, Schwensen JFB, et al. Novel insights into contact dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149:1162-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.02.002
5. Karagounis TK, Cohen DE. Occupational hand dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2023;23:201-212. doi: 10.1007/s11882-023- 01070-5
6. Cvetkovski RS, Rothman KJ, Olsen J, et al. Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:93-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06415.x
7. Owen JL, Vakharia PP, Silverberg JI. The role and diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:293-302. doi: 10.1007/s40257-017-0340-7
8. Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi: 10.1016/ j.phrs.2020.105282
9. Nielsen NH, Menne T. The relationship between IgE‐mediatedand cell‐mediated hypersensitivities in an unselected Danish population: the Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:669-672. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1996.tb06967.x
10. Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi: 10.1111/cod.13119
11. DeLeo VA, Alexis A, Warshaw EM, et al. The association of race/ ethnicity and patch test results: North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998-2006. Dermatitis. 2016;27:288-292. doi: 10.1097/ DER.0000000000000220
12. Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Silverberg JI, et al. Contact dermatitis to personal care products is increasing (but different!) in males and females: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:1446-1455. doi: 10.1016/j jaad.2020.10.003
13. Dickel H, Taylor JS, Evey P, et al. Comparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am J Contact Dermatol. 2001;12:77-82. doi: 10.1053/ajcd.2001.20110
14. DeLeo VA, Taylor SC, Belsito DV, et al. The effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46(2 suppl):S107-S112. doi: 10.1067/mjd.2002.120792
15. Scott I, Atwater AR, Reeder M. Update on contact dermatitis and patch testing in patients with skin of color. Cutis. 2021;108:10-12. doi: 10.12788/cutis.0292
16. Tamazian S, Oboite M, Treat JR. Patch testing in skin of color: a brief report. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021;38:952-953. doi: 10.1111/ pde.14578
17. Litchman G, Nair PA, Atwater AR, et al. Contact dermatitis. Stat- Pearls [Internet]. Updated February 9, 2023. Accessed September 25, 2023. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459230/
18. Alexis AF, Callender VD, Baldwin HE, et al. Global epidemiology and clinical spectrum of rosacea, highlighting skin of color: review and clinical practice experience. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1722-1729. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.049
19. Rodriguez-Homs LG, Liu B, Green CL, et al. Duration of dermatitis before patch test appointment is associated with distance to clinic and county poverty rate. Dermatitis. 2020;31:259-264. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000581
20. Foschi CM, Tam I, Schalock PC, et al. Patch testing results in skin of color: a retrospective review from the Massachusetts General Hospital contact dermatitis clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:452-454. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.09.022
21. Qian MF, Li S, Honari G, et al. Sociodemographic disparities in patch testing for commercially insured patients with dermatitis: a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:1411-1413. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.08.041
22. Young K, Collis RW, Sheinbein D, et al. Retrospective review of pediatric patch testing results in skin of color. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:953-954. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.11.031
23. Kadyk DL, Hall S, Belsito DV. Quality of life of patients with allergic contact dermatitis: an exploratory analysis by gender, ethnicity, age, and occupation. Dermatitis. 2004;15:117-124.
THE COMPARISON
A An 11-year-old Hispanic boy with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on the abdomen. The geometric nature of the eruption and proximity to the belt buckle were highly suggestive of ACD to nickel; patch testing was not needed.
B A Black woman with ACD on the neck. A punch biopsy demonstrated spongiotic dermatitis that was typical of ACD. The diagnosis was supported by the patient’s history of dermatitis that developed after new products were applied to the hair. The patient declined patch testing.
C A Hispanic man with ACD on hair-bearing areas of the face where hair dye was used. The patient’s history of dermatitis following the application of hair dye was highly suggestive of ACD; patch testing confirmed the allergen was paraphenylenediamine (PPD).
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory condition of the skin caused by an immunologic response to 1 or more identifiable allergens. A delayed-type immune response (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) occurs after the skin is re-exposed to an offending allergen.1 Severe pruritus is the main symptom of ACD in the early stages, accompanied by erythema, vesicles, and scaling in a distinct pattern corresponding to the allergen’s contact with the skin.2 Delayed widespread dermatitis after exposure to an allergen—a phenomenon known as autoeczematization (id reaction)—also may occur.3
The gold-standard diagnostic tool for ACD is patch testing, in which the patient is re-exposed to the suspected contact allergen(s) and observed for the development of dermatitis.4 However, ACD can be diagnosed with a detailed patient history including occupation, hobbies, personal care practices, and possible triggers with subsequent rashes. Thorough clinical examination of the skin is paramount. Indicators of possible ACD include dermatitis that persists despite use of appropriate treatment, an unexplained flare of previously quiescent dermatitis, and a diagnosis of dermatitis without a clear cause.1
Hairdressers, health care workers, and metal workers are at higher risk for ACD.5 Occupational ACD has notable socioeconomic implications, as it can result in frequent sick days, inability to perform tasks at work, and in some cases job loss.6
Patients with atopic dermatitis have impaired barrier function of the skin, permitting the entrance of allergens and subsequent sensitization.7 ACD is a challenge to manage, as complete avoidance of the allergen may not be possible.8
Continue to: The underrepresentation of patients...
The underrepresentation of patients with skin of color (SOC) in educational materials as well as socioeconomic health disparities may contribute to the lower rates of diagnosis, patch testing, and treatment of ACD in this patient population.
Epidemiology
An ACD prevalence of 15.2% was reported in a study of 793 Danish patients who underwent skin prick and patch testing.9 Alinaghi et al10 conducted a meta-analysis of 20,107 patients across 28 studies who were patch tested to determine the prevalence of ACD in the general population. The researchers concluded that 20.1% (95% CI, 16.8%-23.7%) of the general population experienced ACD. They analyzed 22 studies to determine the prevalence of ACD based on specific geographic area, including 18,709 individuals from Europe with a prevalence of 19.5% (95% CI, 15.8%-23.4%), 1639 individuals from North America with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-35.2%), and 2 studies from China (no other studies from Asia found) with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 17.4%-23.9%). Researchers did not find data from studies conducted in Africa or South America.10
The current available epidemiologic data on ACD are not representative of SOC populations. DeLeo et al11 looked at patch test reaction patterns in association with race and ethnicity in a large sample size (N = 19,457); 92.9% of these patients were White and only 7.1% were Black. Large-scale, inclusive studies are needed, which can only be achieved with increased suspicion for ACD and increased access to patch testing.
ACD is more common in women, with nickel being the most frequently identified allergen (FIGURE A).10 Personal care products often are linked to ACD (FIGURE B). An analysis of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group revealed that the top 5 personal care product allergens were methylisothiazolinone (a preservative), fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, quaternium-15 (a preservative), and paraphenylenediamine (PPD; a common component of hair dye) (FIGURE C).12
There is a paucity of epidemiologic data among various ethnic groups; however, a few studies have suggested that there is no difference in the frequency rates of positive patch test results in Black vs White populations.11,13,14 One study of patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio demonstrated a similar allergy frequency of 43.0% and 43.6%, respectively.13 However, there were differences in the types of allergen sensitization. Black patients had higher positive patch test rates for PPD than White patients (10.6% vs 4.5%). Black men had a higher frequency of sensitivity to PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea (a formaldehyde-releasing preservative; 9.1% vs 2.6%) compared to White men.13
Continue to: Ethnicity and cultural practices...
Ethnicity and cultural practices influence epidemiologic patterns of ACD. Darker hair dyes used in Black patients14 and deeply pigmented PPD dye found in henna tattoos used in Indian and Black patients15 may lead to increased sensitization to PPD. ACD due to formaldehyde is more common in White patients, possibly due to more frequent use of formaldehyde-containing moisturizers, shampoos, and creams.15
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones
In patients with SOC, the clinical features of ACD vary, posing a diagnostic challenge. Hyperpigmentation, lichenification, and induration are more likely to be seen than the papules, vesicles, and erythematous dermatitis often described in lighter skin tones or acute ACD. Erythema can be difficult to assess on darker skin and may appear violaceous or very faint pink.16
Worth noting
A high index of suspicion is necessary when interpreting patch tests in patients with SOC, as patch test kits use a reading plate with graduated intensities of erythema, papulation, and vesicular reactions to determine the likelihood of ACD. The potential contact allergens are placed on the skin on Day 1 and covered. Then, on Day 3 the allergens are removed. The skin is clinically evaluated using visual assessment and skin palpation. The reactions are graded as negative, irritant reaction, equivocal, weak positive, strong positive, or extreme reaction at around Days 3 and 5 to capture both early and delayed reactions.17 A patch test may be positive even if obvious signs of erythema are not appreciated as expected.
Adjusting the lighting in the examination room, including side lighting, or using a blue background can be helpful in identifying erythema in darker skin tones.15,16,18 Palpation of the skin also is useful, as even slight texture changes and induration are indicators of a possible skin reaction to the test allergen.15
Health disparity highlight
Clinical photographs of ACD and patch test results in patients with SOC are not commonplace in the literature. Positive patch test results in patients with darker skin tones vary from those of patients with lighter skin tones, and if the clinician reading the patch test result is not familiar with the findings in darker skin tones, the diagnosis may be delayed or missed.15
Continue to: Furthermore, Scott et al...
Furthermore, Scott et al15 highlighted that many dermatology residency training programs have a paucity of SOC education in their curriculum. This lack of representation may contribute to the diagnostic challenges encountered by health care providers.
Timely access to health care and education as well as economic stability are essential for the successful management of patients with ACD. Some individuals with SOC have been disproportionately affected by social determinants of health. Rodriguez-Homs et al19 demonstrated that the distance needed to travel to a clinic and the poverty rate of the county the patient lives in play a role in referral to a clinician specializing in contact dermatitis.
A retrospective registry review of 2310 patients undergoing patch testing at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston revealed that 2.5% were Black, 5.5% were Latinx, 8.3% were Asian, and the remaining 83.7% were White.20 Qian et al21 also looked at patch testing patterns among various sociodemographic groups (N = 1,107,530) and found that 69% of patients were White and 59% were female. Rates of patch testing among patients who were Black, lesser educated, male, lower income, and younger (children ages 0-12 years) were significantly lower than for other groups when ACD was suspected (P < .0001).21 The lower rates of patch testing in patients with SOC may be due to low suspicion of diagnosis, low referral rates due to limited medical insurance, and financial instability, as well as other socioeconomic factors.20
Tamazian et al16 reviewed pediatric populations at 13 US centers and found that Black children received patch testing less frequently than White and Hispanic children. Another review of pediatric patch testing in patients with SOC found that a less comprehensive panel of allergens was used in this population.22
The key to resolution of ACD is removal of the offending antigen, and if patients are not being tested, then they risk having a prolonged and complicated course of ACD with a poor prognosis. Patients with SOC also experience greater negative psychosocial impact due to ACD disease burden.21,23 The lower rates of patch testing in Black patients cannot solely be attributed to difficulty diagnosing ACD in darker skin tones; it is likely due to the impact of social determinants of health. Alleviating health disparities will improve patient outcomes and quality of life.
THE COMPARISON
A An 11-year-old Hispanic boy with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on the abdomen. The geometric nature of the eruption and proximity to the belt buckle were highly suggestive of ACD to nickel; patch testing was not needed.
B A Black woman with ACD on the neck. A punch biopsy demonstrated spongiotic dermatitis that was typical of ACD. The diagnosis was supported by the patient’s history of dermatitis that developed after new products were applied to the hair. The patient declined patch testing.
C A Hispanic man with ACD on hair-bearing areas of the face where hair dye was used. The patient’s history of dermatitis following the application of hair dye was highly suggestive of ACD; patch testing confirmed the allergen was paraphenylenediamine (PPD).
Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory condition of the skin caused by an immunologic response to 1 or more identifiable allergens. A delayed-type immune response (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) occurs after the skin is re-exposed to an offending allergen.1 Severe pruritus is the main symptom of ACD in the early stages, accompanied by erythema, vesicles, and scaling in a distinct pattern corresponding to the allergen’s contact with the skin.2 Delayed widespread dermatitis after exposure to an allergen—a phenomenon known as autoeczematization (id reaction)—also may occur.3
The gold-standard diagnostic tool for ACD is patch testing, in which the patient is re-exposed to the suspected contact allergen(s) and observed for the development of dermatitis.4 However, ACD can be diagnosed with a detailed patient history including occupation, hobbies, personal care practices, and possible triggers with subsequent rashes. Thorough clinical examination of the skin is paramount. Indicators of possible ACD include dermatitis that persists despite use of appropriate treatment, an unexplained flare of previously quiescent dermatitis, and a diagnosis of dermatitis without a clear cause.1
Hairdressers, health care workers, and metal workers are at higher risk for ACD.5 Occupational ACD has notable socioeconomic implications, as it can result in frequent sick days, inability to perform tasks at work, and in some cases job loss.6
Patients with atopic dermatitis have impaired barrier function of the skin, permitting the entrance of allergens and subsequent sensitization.7 ACD is a challenge to manage, as complete avoidance of the allergen may not be possible.8
Continue to: The underrepresentation of patients...
The underrepresentation of patients with skin of color (SOC) in educational materials as well as socioeconomic health disparities may contribute to the lower rates of diagnosis, patch testing, and treatment of ACD in this patient population.
Epidemiology
An ACD prevalence of 15.2% was reported in a study of 793 Danish patients who underwent skin prick and patch testing.9 Alinaghi et al10 conducted a meta-analysis of 20,107 patients across 28 studies who were patch tested to determine the prevalence of ACD in the general population. The researchers concluded that 20.1% (95% CI, 16.8%-23.7%) of the general population experienced ACD. They analyzed 22 studies to determine the prevalence of ACD based on specific geographic area, including 18,709 individuals from Europe with a prevalence of 19.5% (95% CI, 15.8%-23.4%), 1639 individuals from North America with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-35.2%), and 2 studies from China (no other studies from Asia found) with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 17.4%-23.9%). Researchers did not find data from studies conducted in Africa or South America.10
The current available epidemiologic data on ACD are not representative of SOC populations. DeLeo et al11 looked at patch test reaction patterns in association with race and ethnicity in a large sample size (N = 19,457); 92.9% of these patients were White and only 7.1% were Black. Large-scale, inclusive studies are needed, which can only be achieved with increased suspicion for ACD and increased access to patch testing.
ACD is more common in women, with nickel being the most frequently identified allergen (FIGURE A).10 Personal care products often are linked to ACD (FIGURE B). An analysis of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group revealed that the top 5 personal care product allergens were methylisothiazolinone (a preservative), fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, quaternium-15 (a preservative), and paraphenylenediamine (PPD; a common component of hair dye) (FIGURE C).12
There is a paucity of epidemiologic data among various ethnic groups; however, a few studies have suggested that there is no difference in the frequency rates of positive patch test results in Black vs White populations.11,13,14 One study of patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio demonstrated a similar allergy frequency of 43.0% and 43.6%, respectively.13 However, there were differences in the types of allergen sensitization. Black patients had higher positive patch test rates for PPD than White patients (10.6% vs 4.5%). Black men had a higher frequency of sensitivity to PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea (a formaldehyde-releasing preservative; 9.1% vs 2.6%) compared to White men.13
Continue to: Ethnicity and cultural practices...
Ethnicity and cultural practices influence epidemiologic patterns of ACD. Darker hair dyes used in Black patients14 and deeply pigmented PPD dye found in henna tattoos used in Indian and Black patients15 may lead to increased sensitization to PPD. ACD due to formaldehyde is more common in White patients, possibly due to more frequent use of formaldehyde-containing moisturizers, shampoos, and creams.15
Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones
In patients with SOC, the clinical features of ACD vary, posing a diagnostic challenge. Hyperpigmentation, lichenification, and induration are more likely to be seen than the papules, vesicles, and erythematous dermatitis often described in lighter skin tones or acute ACD. Erythema can be difficult to assess on darker skin and may appear violaceous or very faint pink.16
Worth noting
A high index of suspicion is necessary when interpreting patch tests in patients with SOC, as patch test kits use a reading plate with graduated intensities of erythema, papulation, and vesicular reactions to determine the likelihood of ACD. The potential contact allergens are placed on the skin on Day 1 and covered. Then, on Day 3 the allergens are removed. The skin is clinically evaluated using visual assessment and skin palpation. The reactions are graded as negative, irritant reaction, equivocal, weak positive, strong positive, or extreme reaction at around Days 3 and 5 to capture both early and delayed reactions.17 A patch test may be positive even if obvious signs of erythema are not appreciated as expected.
Adjusting the lighting in the examination room, including side lighting, or using a blue background can be helpful in identifying erythema in darker skin tones.15,16,18 Palpation of the skin also is useful, as even slight texture changes and induration are indicators of a possible skin reaction to the test allergen.15
Health disparity highlight
Clinical photographs of ACD and patch test results in patients with SOC are not commonplace in the literature. Positive patch test results in patients with darker skin tones vary from those of patients with lighter skin tones, and if the clinician reading the patch test result is not familiar with the findings in darker skin tones, the diagnosis may be delayed or missed.15
Continue to: Furthermore, Scott et al...
Furthermore, Scott et al15 highlighted that many dermatology residency training programs have a paucity of SOC education in their curriculum. This lack of representation may contribute to the diagnostic challenges encountered by health care providers.
Timely access to health care and education as well as economic stability are essential for the successful management of patients with ACD. Some individuals with SOC have been disproportionately affected by social determinants of health. Rodriguez-Homs et al19 demonstrated that the distance needed to travel to a clinic and the poverty rate of the county the patient lives in play a role in referral to a clinician specializing in contact dermatitis.
A retrospective registry review of 2310 patients undergoing patch testing at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston revealed that 2.5% were Black, 5.5% were Latinx, 8.3% were Asian, and the remaining 83.7% were White.20 Qian et al21 also looked at patch testing patterns among various sociodemographic groups (N = 1,107,530) and found that 69% of patients were White and 59% were female. Rates of patch testing among patients who were Black, lesser educated, male, lower income, and younger (children ages 0-12 years) were significantly lower than for other groups when ACD was suspected (P < .0001).21 The lower rates of patch testing in patients with SOC may be due to low suspicion of diagnosis, low referral rates due to limited medical insurance, and financial instability, as well as other socioeconomic factors.20
Tamazian et al16 reviewed pediatric populations at 13 US centers and found that Black children received patch testing less frequently than White and Hispanic children. Another review of pediatric patch testing in patients with SOC found that a less comprehensive panel of allergens was used in this population.22
The key to resolution of ACD is removal of the offending antigen, and if patients are not being tested, then they risk having a prolonged and complicated course of ACD with a poor prognosis. Patients with SOC also experience greater negative psychosocial impact due to ACD disease burden.21,23 The lower rates of patch testing in Black patients cannot solely be attributed to difficulty diagnosing ACD in darker skin tones; it is likely due to the impact of social determinants of health. Alleviating health disparities will improve patient outcomes and quality of life.
1. Mowad CM, Anderson B, Scheinman P, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: patient diagnosis and evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:1029-1040. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1139
2. Usatine RP, Riojas M. Diagnosis and management of contact dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82:249-255.
3. Bertoli MJ, Schwartz RA, Janniger CK. Autoeczematization: a strange id reaction of the skin. Cutis. 2021;108:163-166. doi: 10.12788/cutis.0342
4. Johansen JD, Bonefeld CM, Schwensen JFB, et al. Novel insights into contact dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149:1162-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.02.002
5. Karagounis TK, Cohen DE. Occupational hand dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2023;23:201-212. doi: 10.1007/s11882-023- 01070-5
6. Cvetkovski RS, Rothman KJ, Olsen J, et al. Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:93-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06415.x
7. Owen JL, Vakharia PP, Silverberg JI. The role and diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:293-302. doi: 10.1007/s40257-017-0340-7
8. Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi: 10.1016/ j.phrs.2020.105282
9. Nielsen NH, Menne T. The relationship between IgE‐mediatedand cell‐mediated hypersensitivities in an unselected Danish population: the Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:669-672. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1996.tb06967.x
10. Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi: 10.1111/cod.13119
11. DeLeo VA, Alexis A, Warshaw EM, et al. The association of race/ ethnicity and patch test results: North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998-2006. Dermatitis. 2016;27:288-292. doi: 10.1097/ DER.0000000000000220
12. Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Silverberg JI, et al. Contact dermatitis to personal care products is increasing (but different!) in males and females: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:1446-1455. doi: 10.1016/j jaad.2020.10.003
13. Dickel H, Taylor JS, Evey P, et al. Comparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am J Contact Dermatol. 2001;12:77-82. doi: 10.1053/ajcd.2001.20110
14. DeLeo VA, Taylor SC, Belsito DV, et al. The effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46(2 suppl):S107-S112. doi: 10.1067/mjd.2002.120792
15. Scott I, Atwater AR, Reeder M. Update on contact dermatitis and patch testing in patients with skin of color. Cutis. 2021;108:10-12. doi: 10.12788/cutis.0292
16. Tamazian S, Oboite M, Treat JR. Patch testing in skin of color: a brief report. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021;38:952-953. doi: 10.1111/ pde.14578
17. Litchman G, Nair PA, Atwater AR, et al. Contact dermatitis. Stat- Pearls [Internet]. Updated February 9, 2023. Accessed September 25, 2023. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459230/
18. Alexis AF, Callender VD, Baldwin HE, et al. Global epidemiology and clinical spectrum of rosacea, highlighting skin of color: review and clinical practice experience. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1722-1729. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.049
19. Rodriguez-Homs LG, Liu B, Green CL, et al. Duration of dermatitis before patch test appointment is associated with distance to clinic and county poverty rate. Dermatitis. 2020;31:259-264. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000581
20. Foschi CM, Tam I, Schalock PC, et al. Patch testing results in skin of color: a retrospective review from the Massachusetts General Hospital contact dermatitis clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:452-454. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.09.022
21. Qian MF, Li S, Honari G, et al. Sociodemographic disparities in patch testing for commercially insured patients with dermatitis: a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:1411-1413. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.08.041
22. Young K, Collis RW, Sheinbein D, et al. Retrospective review of pediatric patch testing results in skin of color. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:953-954. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.11.031
23. Kadyk DL, Hall S, Belsito DV. Quality of life of patients with allergic contact dermatitis: an exploratory analysis by gender, ethnicity, age, and occupation. Dermatitis. 2004;15:117-124.
1. Mowad CM, Anderson B, Scheinman P, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: patient diagnosis and evaluation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016;74:1029-1040. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.02.1139
2. Usatine RP, Riojas M. Diagnosis and management of contact dermatitis. Am Fam Physician. 2010;82:249-255.
3. Bertoli MJ, Schwartz RA, Janniger CK. Autoeczematization: a strange id reaction of the skin. Cutis. 2021;108:163-166. doi: 10.12788/cutis.0342
4. Johansen JD, Bonefeld CM, Schwensen JFB, et al. Novel insights into contact dermatitis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2022;149:1162-1171. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.02.002
5. Karagounis TK, Cohen DE. Occupational hand dermatitis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2023;23:201-212. doi: 10.1007/s11882-023- 01070-5
6. Cvetkovski RS, Rothman KJ, Olsen J, et al. Relation between diagnoses on severity, sick leave and loss of job among patients with occupational hand eczema. Br J Dermatol. 2005;152:93-98. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06415.x
7. Owen JL, Vakharia PP, Silverberg JI. The role and diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis in patients with atopic dermatitis. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018;19:293-302. doi: 10.1007/s40257-017-0340-7
8. Brites GS, Ferreira I, Sebastião AI, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis: from pathophysiology to development of new preventive strategies. Pharmacol Res. 2020;162:105282. doi: 10.1016/ j.phrs.2020.105282
9. Nielsen NH, Menne T. The relationship between IgE‐mediatedand cell‐mediated hypersensitivities in an unselected Danish population: the Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:669-672. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1996.tb06967.x
10. Alinaghi F, Bennike NH, Egeberg A, et al. Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:77-85. doi: 10.1111/cod.13119
11. DeLeo VA, Alexis A, Warshaw EM, et al. The association of race/ ethnicity and patch test results: North American Contact Dermatitis Group, 1998-2006. Dermatitis. 2016;27:288-292. doi: 10.1097/ DER.0000000000000220
12. Warshaw EM, Schlarbaum JP, Silverberg JI, et al. Contact dermatitis to personal care products is increasing (but different!) in males and females: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 1996-2016. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;85:1446-1455. doi: 10.1016/j jaad.2020.10.003
13. Dickel H, Taylor JS, Evey P, et al. Comparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am J Contact Dermatol. 2001;12:77-82. doi: 10.1053/ajcd.2001.20110
14. DeLeo VA, Taylor SC, Belsito DV, et al. The effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002;46(2 suppl):S107-S112. doi: 10.1067/mjd.2002.120792
15. Scott I, Atwater AR, Reeder M. Update on contact dermatitis and patch testing in patients with skin of color. Cutis. 2021;108:10-12. doi: 10.12788/cutis.0292
16. Tamazian S, Oboite M, Treat JR. Patch testing in skin of color: a brief report. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021;38:952-953. doi: 10.1111/ pde.14578
17. Litchman G, Nair PA, Atwater AR, et al. Contact dermatitis. Stat- Pearls [Internet]. Updated February 9, 2023. Accessed September 25, 2023. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459230/
18. Alexis AF, Callender VD, Baldwin HE, et al. Global epidemiology and clinical spectrum of rosacea, highlighting skin of color: review and clinical practice experience. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1722-1729. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.08.049
19. Rodriguez-Homs LG, Liu B, Green CL, et al. Duration of dermatitis before patch test appointment is associated with distance to clinic and county poverty rate. Dermatitis. 2020;31:259-264. doi: 10.1097/DER.0000000000000581
20. Foschi CM, Tam I, Schalock PC, et al. Patch testing results in skin of color: a retrospective review from the Massachusetts General Hospital contact dermatitis clinic. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:452-454. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2021.09.022
21. Qian MF, Li S, Honari G, et al. Sociodemographic disparities in patch testing for commercially insured patients with dermatitis: a retrospective analysis of administrative claims data. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;87:1411-1413. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.08.041
22. Young K, Collis RW, Sheinbein D, et al. Retrospective review of pediatric patch testing results in skin of color. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;88:953-954. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.11.031
23. Kadyk DL, Hall S, Belsito DV. Quality of life of patients with allergic contact dermatitis: an exploratory analysis by gender, ethnicity, age, and occupation. Dermatitis. 2004;15:117-124.
New AGA podcast series explores the latest in C. difficile
AGA’s new on-demand program, “C. difficile: Preparing the Field for Change,” is a six-part podcast series that outlines effective approaches to patient-centered care that will transform your practice.
Each 30-minute episode delves into a different topic – from microbiome therapy and FMT to documenting patient history – that will help you improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications.
Tune in and subscribe to our channel Inside Scope wherever you listen to podcasts (Apple or Google). To claim CME credit for listening, visit AGA University (agau.gastro.org).
Episode breakdown
Risk factors
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna cover risk factors for initial and recurrent C. difficile infection.
Microbiota changes
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna describe the shifts in the microbiota with C. difficile infection.
Reconciling guideline differences for testing and treatment
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Colleen Kelly to discuss how to reconcile guideline differences for testing and treatment of C. difficile.
Case management and transitions of care
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Rebecca Perez and Cheri Lattimer to discuss case management and transitions of care in C. difficile infection.
Impact of rCDI on patients and their lives
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Dr. Kevin Garey and a patient to discuss the impact of recurrent CDI on patients and their lives.
FMT and new microbiome therapies
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Jessica Allegretti to discuss FMT and new microbiome therapies.
This series is supported by educational grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, Seres Therapeutics, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
AGA’s new on-demand program, “C. difficile: Preparing the Field for Change,” is a six-part podcast series that outlines effective approaches to patient-centered care that will transform your practice.
Each 30-minute episode delves into a different topic – from microbiome therapy and FMT to documenting patient history – that will help you improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications.
Tune in and subscribe to our channel Inside Scope wherever you listen to podcasts (Apple or Google). To claim CME credit for listening, visit AGA University (agau.gastro.org).
Episode breakdown
Risk factors
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna cover risk factors for initial and recurrent C. difficile infection.
Microbiota changes
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna describe the shifts in the microbiota with C. difficile infection.
Reconciling guideline differences for testing and treatment
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Colleen Kelly to discuss how to reconcile guideline differences for testing and treatment of C. difficile.
Case management and transitions of care
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Rebecca Perez and Cheri Lattimer to discuss case management and transitions of care in C. difficile infection.
Impact of rCDI on patients and their lives
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Dr. Kevin Garey and a patient to discuss the impact of recurrent CDI on patients and their lives.
FMT and new microbiome therapies
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Jessica Allegretti to discuss FMT and new microbiome therapies.
This series is supported by educational grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, Seres Therapeutics, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
AGA’s new on-demand program, “C. difficile: Preparing the Field for Change,” is a six-part podcast series that outlines effective approaches to patient-centered care that will transform your practice.
Each 30-minute episode delves into a different topic – from microbiome therapy and FMT to documenting patient history – that will help you improve patient outcomes and reduce the risk of complications.
Tune in and subscribe to our channel Inside Scope wherever you listen to podcasts (Apple or Google). To claim CME credit for listening, visit AGA University (agau.gastro.org).
Episode breakdown
Risk factors
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna cover risk factors for initial and recurrent C. difficile infection.
Microbiota changes
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna describe the shifts in the microbiota with C. difficile infection.
Reconciling guideline differences for testing and treatment
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Colleen Kelly to discuss how to reconcile guideline differences for testing and treatment of C. difficile.
Case management and transitions of care
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Rebecca Perez and Cheri Lattimer to discuss case management and transitions of care in C. difficile infection.
Impact of rCDI on patients and their lives
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guests Dr. Kevin Garey and a patient to discuss the impact of recurrent CDI on patients and their lives.
FMT and new microbiome therapies
Dr. Paul Feuerstadt and Dr. Sahil Khanna are joined by guest Dr. Jessica Allegretti to discuss FMT and new microbiome therapies.
This series is supported by educational grants from Aimmune Therapeutics, Seres Therapeutics, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
How Medical Education Is Evolving in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?
Answer: Medical knowledge.
In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside.
This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option?
Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner.
The Backdrop
Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly.
Pre-pandemic efforts
In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week.
Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall.
Barriers to widespread implementation
Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training.
Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error.
Proposed solutions
Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary.
Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020.
The Trigger
With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate.
Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.
Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.
Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies
Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.
Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions
Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.
Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations
Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training).
Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction
Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation.
Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation
The Evidence
Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME.
Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.
A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms.
In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online.
Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.
In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well.
In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred.
CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.
Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned.
However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred.
Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.
The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.
Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?
Answer: Medical knowledge.
In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside.
This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option?
Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner.
The Backdrop
Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly.
Pre-pandemic efforts
In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week.
Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall.
Barriers to widespread implementation
Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training.
Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error.
Proposed solutions
Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary.
Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020.
The Trigger
With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate.
Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.
Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.
Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies
Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.
Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions
Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.
Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations
Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training).
Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction
Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation.
Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation
The Evidence
Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME.
Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.
A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms.
In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online.
Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.
In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well.
In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred.
CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.
Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned.
However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred.
Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.
The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.
Question: What doubles every 2 months and takes more than a decade and a half to reach its ultimate destination?
Answer: Medical knowledge.
In 2011, researchers projected that by 2020, medical knowledge would double every 73 days. Also in 2011, investigators estimated that clinical research takes 17 years to translate from bench to bedside.
This “fast-slow” paradox became more relevant than ever in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic brought the world to a near standstill. Stakeholders in undergraduate, postgraduate, and continuing medical education (CME) were suddenly faced with choices that had been discussed theoretically but not yet applied on a wide scale: How do we deliver education if in-person instruction is not an option?
Organized medicine and the clinical community made choices based on groundwork that had been laid prior to the pandemic. The medical community acted quickly out of necessity, implementing novel learning methods that are now being utilized and that need to be assessed in an ongoing manner.
The Backdrop
Medical education has long been dominated by an in-person, didactic model anchored in teacher-centered, classroom-based learning. This design has been firmly entrenched for more than 100 years, since the publication of the Flexner report in 1910, which established the standard of 4 years of medical education. Prior to 2020, many experts acknowledged that alternative practices and emerging technologies should play a role in medical education, but indecision abounded, perhaps because there was no real-world catalyst for reform. Thus, despite various attempts, the adoption of alternative forms of teaching moved slowly.
Pre-pandemic efforts
In 2017, the American Medication Association issued a report calling for “one of the most complete curricular reforms since the Flexner Report.” It urged leaders to “rethink nearly every facet of physician training,” including “greater emphasis on new technology.” The report also suggested a 14-month pre-rotation program focused on the core medical knowledge necessary to practice in a hospital setting, along with work in a primary care setting once every other week.
Before the pandemic, “blended learning” (digital and live) and “flipped classroom” approaches were assessed. A meta-analysis comparing a blended learning format to traditional classroom model programs found that blended learning resulted in better knowledge outcomes. In the flipped classroom approach, non-classroom individual or group activities replace in-class instruction after pre-class self-preparation with provided resources. A meta-analysis of 28 comparative studies showed that the flipped classroom approach resulted in improved learning compared to traditional methods. Additionally, bite-sized learning approaches have been implemented and evaluated, showing improvement in immediate knowledge recall.
Barriers to widespread implementation
Despite the need to increase medical knowledge dissemination and implement approaches proven to do so effectively, barriers to adoption are well documented. Obstacles include time limitations, inadequate technical skills, insufficient infrastructure, and a wide variety in and range of expertise of both learners and institutional strategies. There are also differences in effective techniques for teaching various topics based on the content. Some topics require knowledge-based training, whereas others fall more easily into skills-based training.
Additionally, when it comes to new evidence that needs to be translated to clinical evaluation and delivery, there is ongoing debate about the established peer-review process, which is rigorous but time-consuming vs the open-access publication process, which can disseminate information more quickly but is prone to error.
Proposed solutions
Proposed solutions to these barriers include improving educator skills, offering incentives for innovative content development, cultivating better institutional strategies, and achieving buy-in from all stakeholders. Also important is thoughtful adaptation of content to various electronic formats, such as audiovisual presentation of educational material, social media content, and gamification of content, as well as ongoing assessment of both education delivery and consumption—followed by rapid pivoting when necessary.
Despite these clearly identified challenges and thoughtful solutions, change was relatively slow until March 2020.
The Trigger
With medical knowledge expanding so rapidly, imagine if medical education moved slowly or came to a complete halt when a worldwide pandemic was declared, the effects would have been catastrophic. COVID pushed organized medicine and the healthcare community to accelerate the adoption of novel technological approaches to keep the medical knowledge pipeline flowing at a relatively reasonable— if not ideal—rate.
Challenges the pandemic produced, along with potential mitigation strategies, are outlined below.
Economic consequences: The pandemic resulted in lost income for training programs and decreased funding for graduate medical education.
Possible solution: Creating budget allowances to adopt new technologies
Impact on diversity, equity, and inclusion: COVID-19 amplified existing implicit and explicit biases in society, particularly in the field of medicine. Women trainees and individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately impacted.
Possible solution: Creating programs that increase awareness of the subtle nature of implicit bias and the outsized impact it can have on certain segments of the population, and offering resources to mitigate stressors such as childcare and access to technology solutions
Impact on mental health and wellness: Working through the pandemic was challenging professionally, and the pandemic also exposed individuals to stigma, loneliness, and behavioral health issues (eg, mood and sleeping disorders), which created challenges in personal lives as well. These challenges lasted well over 2 years and have a clear ongoing impact.
Possible solution: Providing accessible behavioral health resources, regularly assessing and addressing burnout, and regularly cycling trainees off of high-intensity rotations
Education delivery challenges: The sudden cancellation of in-person classes and training, from medical school lectures to rotations, created uncertainty. In-person rounds and bedside learning were significantly restricted. Moreover, as the need to perform clinical duties during the pandemic increased, time for teaching decreased. Some areas were more heavily impacted than others (eg, instruction around elective surgeries, outpatient medicine, and non-critical care training).
Possible solution: Digitizing education delivery and developing other innovative methods to compensate for a lack of face-to-face instruction
Sudden need for rapid information dissemination: The limits of traditional peer review were tested during the pandemic. Managing individuals infected with the novel coronavirus created a situation where the clinical community needed scientific information quickly, increasing the risk of misinformation.
Possible solution: Disseminating information as quickly as possible by leveraging public-private partnerships and government investment in high-quality science while maintaining peer review integrity to ensure rigorous evaluation
The Evidence
Early evidence is emerging about efforts undertaken during the pandemic to maintain adequate levels of preclinical learning, clinical training, and CME.
Preclinical learning: Virtual formats are generally accepted, and interactive discussion is preferred. But be aware of potential stressors.
A cross-sectional study involving 173 histology and pathology students at European University Cyprus found that preclinical medical education is possible via virtual learning. The pandemic forced respondents to adapt immediately to emergency remote teaching. Survey results found the concept was generally well accepted, though some stressors (eg, poor internet connection) impacted perception. Most histology and pathology students (58% and 68%, respectively) said they would prefer blended learning in the future, compared with all-live (39% and 28%, respectively), or all-virtual (4% and 5%, respectively) classrooms.
In a systematic review of 13 studies that compared digital learning with live classroom education for medical and nursing students, investigators from China found that standalone digital models are as effective as conventional modalities for improving knowledge and practice. Moreover, students preferred interactive discussion to a straight lecture format when participating online.
Clinical training: Virtual clerkships work, but a blended approach seems preferable.
In a study involving 16 third-year medical students in the general surgery clerkship at Cleveland Clinic, respondents reported their experience before and after participating in a case-based virtual surgery clerkship program. Students were significantly more confident that they could independently assess a surgical consult after taking the course. Average scores of curriculum-based surgical knowledge increased as well.
In an assessment of alternative approaches to clinical clerkships involving 42 students, investigators from China evaluated the impact of using simulated electronic health records (EHRs) for inpatient training and electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviews for outpatient training. Students using simulated EHRs felt it improved their ability to write in and summarize the record. Those who participated in electronic problem-based learning and virtual interviewing said their interviewing and counseling skills improved. However, students also noted traditional clinical clerkships are better for certain types of learning, suggesting that a blended approach is preferred.
CME: Virtual CME is accepted and improves performance, but barriers remain, including a preference for face-to-face networking.
Researchers reviewed 2,007 post-activity responses from clinicians who participated in online CME at a South Korean hospital. Of the 1332 participants who reported their satisfaction level, 85% reported being satisfied with the format and content. Among all respondents, nearly 9 in 10 said that the content would influence the way they practice. Of the 611 participants who responded to a follow-up survey 3 months later, 78% said they made changes in their clinical practice based on what they learned.
However, many clinicians prefer in-person CME. A Canadian-based memory clinic held 5 interprofessional education sessions and reported on participant experience; 3 of the sessions occurred live before March 2020 and 2 were held via videoconference once the pandemic was declared. Ratings of satisfaction, relevance, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge application were similar in both groups, but the virtual sessions were rated as less enjoyable and lacking in networking opportunities. In-person learning was preferred.
Primary care clinicians in Portugal evaluated a CME digital platform and reported several barriers, including time constraints, perceived excessive work, lack of digital competence, lack of motivation, and emotional factors.
The Future
Although challenges remain, changes due to the pandemic have been implemented in medical training and have shown preliminary success in certain domains. Medical education is rapidly evolving, and as we move further from the pandemic, diligent ongoing evaluation is needed to assess the best use of technology and various innovative teaching modalities. Keeping medical education learner-centered and instituting timely course correction if certain modalities of knowledge/skill delivery are found to be ineffective will be key to ensuring the robustness of training for future generations.
Nonhormonal medication treatment of VMS
VMS, also known as hot flashes, night sweats, or cold sweats, occur for the majority of perimenopausal and menopausal women.1 In one study, the mean duration of clinically significant VMS was 5 years, and one-third of participants continued to have bothersome hot flashes 10 or more years after the onset of menopause.2 VMS may contribute to disrupted sleep patterns and depressed mood.3
All obstetrician-gynecologists know that estradiol and other estrogens are highly effective in the treatment of bothersome VMS. A meta-analysis reported that the frequency of VMS was reduced by 60% to 80% with oral estradiol (1 mg/day), transdermal estradiol(0.05 mg/day), and conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg).4 Breast tenderness and irregular uterine bleeding are common side effects of estrogen treatment of VMS. Estrogen treatment is contraindicated in patients with estrogen-responsive cancers, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and some cases of inherited thrombophilia. For these patients, an important option is the nonhormonal treatment of VMS, and several nonhormonal medications have been demonstrated to be effective therapy (TABLE 1). In this editorial I will review the medication treatment of VMS with escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant.
Escitalopram and paroxetine
Escitalopram and paroxetine have been shown to reduce VMS more than placebo in multiple clinical trials.5-10 In addition, escitalopram and paroxetine, at the doses tested, may be more effective for the treatment of VMS than sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.11 In one trial assessing the efficacy of escitalopram to treat VMS, 205 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo or escitalopram.5 The initial escitalopram dose was 10 mg daily. At week 4:
- if VMS frequency was reduced by ≥ 50%, the patient remained on the 10-mg dose
- if VMS frequency was reduced by < 50%, the escitalopram dose was increased to 20 mg daily.
Following 8 weeks of treatment, the frequency of VMS decreased for patients in the placebo and escitalopram groups by 33% and 47%, respectively. Similar results have been reported in other studies.6
Paroxetine at a dose of 7.5 mg/day administered at bedtime is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of VMS. In a pivotal study, 1,112 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or paroxetine 7.5 mg at bedtime.9 In the 12-week study the reported decrease in mean weekly frequency of VMS for patients in the placebo and paroxetine groups were -37 and -44, respectively.9 Paroxetine 7.5 mg also reduced awakenings per night attributed to VMS and increased nighttime sleep duration.10
Depressed mood is prevalent among perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients.12 Prescribing escitalopram or paroxetine for VMS also may improve mood. Venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are effective for the treatment of VMS;13,14 however, I seldom prescribe these medications for VMS because in my experience they are associated with more bothersome side effects, including dry mouth, decreased appetite, nausea, and insomnia than escitalopram or low-dose paroxetine.
Gabapentin
Numerous randomized clinical trials have reported that gabapentin is superior to placebo for the treatment of VMS.15 In one trial, 420 patients with breast cancer and VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, gabapentin 300 mg/day (G300), or gabapentin 900 mg/day (G900) in 3 divided doses.16 Following 8 weeks of treatment, reduction in hot-flash severity score among patients receiving placebo, G300, or G900 was 15%, 31%, and 46%, respectively. Fatigue and somnolence were reported more frequently among patients taking gabapentin 900 mg/day. In a small trial, 60 patients with VMS were randomized to receive placebo, conjugated estrogen (0.2625 mg/day),or gabapentin (target dose of 2,400 mg/day in 3 divided doses).17 Following 12 weeks of treatment, the patient-reported decrease in VMS for those taking placebo, estrogen, or gabapentin was 54%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.
High-dose gabapentin treatment was associated with side effects of headache and dizziness more often than placebo or estrogen. Although gabapentin is not a treatment for insomnia, in my practice if a menopausal patient has prominent and bothersome symptoms of sleep disturbance and mild VMS symptoms, I will consider a trial of low-dose gabapentin. Some experts recommend initiating gabapentin at a dose of 100 mgdaily before bedtime to assess the effectiveness of a low dose that seldom causes significant side effects.
Fezolinetant
In a study of genetic variation associated with VMS, investigators discovered that nucleic acid variation in the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor was strongly associated with the prevalence of VMS, suggesting that this receptor is in the causal pathway to menopausal VMS.18 Additional research demonstrated that the kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons, which are involved in the control of hypothalamic thermoregulation, are stimulated by neurokinin B, acting through the NK3 receptor, and suppressed by estradiol. A reduction in hypothalamic estrogen results in unopposed neurokinin B activity, which stimulates KNDy neurons, destabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, causing vasodilation, which is perceived as hot flashes and sweating followed by chills.19
Fezolinetant is a high-affinity NK3 receptor antagonist that blocks the activity of neurokinin B, stabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, thereby suppressing hot flashes. It is approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS due to menopause using a fixed dose of 45 mg daily.20 In one clinical trial, 500 menopausal patients with bothersome VMS were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg/day, or fezolinetant 45 mg/day. Following 12 weeks of treatment, the reported frequency rates of VMS among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 43%, 61%, and 64%, respectively.21 In addition, following 12 weeks of treatment, the severity of VMS rates among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 20%, 26%, and 32%, respectively.
Fezolinetant improved the quality of sleep and was associated with an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. Following 12 weeks of treatment, sleep quality among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups was reported to be “much or moderately better” in 34%, 45%, and 54% of the patients, respectively.21 Similar results were reported in a companion study.22
Fezolinetant is contraindicated for patients with liver cirrhosis or severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Before initiating treatment, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (total and direct). Fezolinetant should not be prescribed if any of these tests are greater than twice the upper limit of normal. These tests should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months, and if the patient reports symptoms or signs of liver injury (nausea, vomiting, jaundice). Fezolinetant is metabolized by CYP1A2 and should not be prescribed to patients taking strong CYP1A2 inhibitors. The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant treatment are abdominal pain (4.3%), diarrhea (3.9%), insomnia (3.9%), back pain (3.0%), and hepatic transaminase elevation (2.3%). Fezolinetant has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients older than age 65. Following an oral dose of the medication, the median maximum concentration is reached in 1.5 hours, and the half-life is estimated to be 10 hours.20 Of all the medications discussed in this editorial, fezolinetant is the most expensive.
Effective VMS treatment improves overall health
Estrogen therapy is the gold standard treatment of VMS. However, many menopausal patients with bothersome VMS prefer not to take estrogen, and some have a medical condition that is a contraindication to estrogen treatment. The nonhormonal medication options for the treatment of VMS include escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant. Patients value the ability to choose the treatment they prefer, among all available hormonal and nonhormonal medication options. For mid-life women, effectively treating bothersome VMS is only one of many interventions that improves health. Optimal health is best achieved with23:
- high-quality diet
- daily physical activity
- appropriate body mass index
- nicotine avoidance
- a healthy sleep schedule
- normal blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels.
Women who have a high-quality diet; daily physical activity; an appropriate body mass index; and normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels are estimated to live 9 disease-free years longer than other women.24 ●
- Gold EB, Colvin A, Avis N, et al. Longitudinal analysis of the association between vasomotor symptoms and race/ethnicity across the menopause transition: study of women’s health across the nation. Am J Pub Health. 2006;1226-1235.
- Freeman EW, Sammel MD, Sanders RJ. Risk of long-term hot flashes after natural menopause: evidence from the Penn Ovarian Aging Study cohort. Menopause. 2014;21:924-932.
- Hatcher KM, Smith RL, Chiang C, et al. Nocturnal hot flashes, but not serum hormone concentrations as a predictor of insomnia in menopausal women: results from the Midlife Women’s Health Study. J Women’s Health. 2023;32:94-101.
- Nelson HD. Commonly used types of postmenopausal estrogen for treatment of hot flashes: scientific review. JAMA. 2004;291:1610.
- Freeman EW, Guthrie KA, Caan B, et al. Efficacy of escitalopram for hot flashes in healthy menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305:267-227.
- Carpenter JS, Guthrie KA, Larson JC, et al. Effect of escitalopram on hot flash interference: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1399-1404.e1.
- Slaton RM, Champion MN, Palmore KB. A review of paroxetine for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms. J Pharm Pract. 2015;28:266-274.
- Stearns V, Slack R, Greep N, et al. Paroxetine is an effective treatment for hot flashes: results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6919-6930.
- Simon JA, Portman DJ, Kaunitz AM, et al. Lowdose paroxetine 7.5 mg for menopausal vasomotor symptoms: two randomized controlled trials. Menopause. 2013;20:1027-1035.
- Pinkerton JV, Joffe H, Kazempour K, et al. Lowdose paroxetine (7.5 mg) improves sleep in women with vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause. Menopause. 2015;22:50-58.
- Shams T, Firwana B, Habib F, et al. SSRIs for hot flashes: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:204-213.
- Freeman EW. Depression in the menopause transition: risks in the changing hormone milieu as observed in the general population. Womens Midlife Health. 2015;1:2.
- Loprinzi CL, Kugler JW, Sloan JA, et al. Venlafaxine in management of hot flashes in survivors of breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:2059-2063.
- Sun Z, Hao Y, Zhang M. Efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine treatment for hot flashes associated with menopause: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;75:255-262.
- Toulis KA, Tzellos T, Kouvelas D, et al. Gabapentin for the treatment of hot flashes in women with natural or tamoxifen-induced menopause: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2009;31:221-235.
- Pandya KJ, Morrow GR, Roscoe JA, et al. Gabapentin for hot flashes in 420 women with breast cancer: a randomized double-blind placebocontrolled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:818-824.
- Reddy SY, Warner H, Guttuso T Jr, et al. Gabapentin, estrogen, and placebo for treating hot flushes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:41-48.
- Crandall CJ, Manson JE, Hohensee C, et al. Association of genetic variation in the tachykinin receptor 3 locus with hot flashes and night sweats in the Women’s Health Initiative Study. Menopause. 2017;24:252.
- Rance NE, Dacks PA, Mittelman-Smith MA, et al. Modulation of body temperature and LH secretion by hypothalamic KNDy (kisspeptin, neurokinin B and dynorphin) neurons: a novel hypothesis on the mechanism of hot flushes. Front Neurendocrinol. 2013;34:211-227.
- Veozah (package insert). Astellas Pharma; Northbrook, Illinois. May 2023.
- Johnson KA, Martin N, Nappi RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant in moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a Phase 3 RCT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108:1981-1997.
- Lederman S, Ottery FD, Cano A, et al. Fezolinetant for treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (SKYLIGHT 1): a phase 3 randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2023;401:1091-1102.
- Lloyd-Jones DM, Allen NB, Anderson CAM, et al. Life’s essential 8: updating and enhancing the American Heart Association’s construct of cardiovascular health: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;146:e18-43.
- Wang X, Ma H, Li X, et al. Association of cardiovascular health with life expectancy free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in U.K. adults. JAMA Int Med. 2023;183:340-349.
Robert L. Barbieri, MD
Editor in Chief, OBG Management
Chair Emeritus, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Kate Macy Ladd Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Robert L. Barbieri, MD
Editor in Chief, OBG Management
Chair Emeritus, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Kate Macy Ladd Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
Robert L. Barbieri, MD
Editor in Chief, OBG Management
Chair Emeritus, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Brigham and Women’s Hospital
Kate Macy Ladd Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Harvard Medical School
Boston, Massachusetts
The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article.
VMS, also known as hot flashes, night sweats, or cold sweats, occur for the majority of perimenopausal and menopausal women.1 In one study, the mean duration of clinically significant VMS was 5 years, and one-third of participants continued to have bothersome hot flashes 10 or more years after the onset of menopause.2 VMS may contribute to disrupted sleep patterns and depressed mood.3
All obstetrician-gynecologists know that estradiol and other estrogens are highly effective in the treatment of bothersome VMS. A meta-analysis reported that the frequency of VMS was reduced by 60% to 80% with oral estradiol (1 mg/day), transdermal estradiol(0.05 mg/day), and conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg).4 Breast tenderness and irregular uterine bleeding are common side effects of estrogen treatment of VMS. Estrogen treatment is contraindicated in patients with estrogen-responsive cancers, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and some cases of inherited thrombophilia. For these patients, an important option is the nonhormonal treatment of VMS, and several nonhormonal medications have been demonstrated to be effective therapy (TABLE 1). In this editorial I will review the medication treatment of VMS with escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant.
Escitalopram and paroxetine
Escitalopram and paroxetine have been shown to reduce VMS more than placebo in multiple clinical trials.5-10 In addition, escitalopram and paroxetine, at the doses tested, may be more effective for the treatment of VMS than sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.11 In one trial assessing the efficacy of escitalopram to treat VMS, 205 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo or escitalopram.5 The initial escitalopram dose was 10 mg daily. At week 4:
- if VMS frequency was reduced by ≥ 50%, the patient remained on the 10-mg dose
- if VMS frequency was reduced by < 50%, the escitalopram dose was increased to 20 mg daily.
Following 8 weeks of treatment, the frequency of VMS decreased for patients in the placebo and escitalopram groups by 33% and 47%, respectively. Similar results have been reported in other studies.6
Paroxetine at a dose of 7.5 mg/day administered at bedtime is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of VMS. In a pivotal study, 1,112 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or paroxetine 7.5 mg at bedtime.9 In the 12-week study the reported decrease in mean weekly frequency of VMS for patients in the placebo and paroxetine groups were -37 and -44, respectively.9 Paroxetine 7.5 mg also reduced awakenings per night attributed to VMS and increased nighttime sleep duration.10
Depressed mood is prevalent among perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients.12 Prescribing escitalopram or paroxetine for VMS also may improve mood. Venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are effective for the treatment of VMS;13,14 however, I seldom prescribe these medications for VMS because in my experience they are associated with more bothersome side effects, including dry mouth, decreased appetite, nausea, and insomnia than escitalopram or low-dose paroxetine.
Gabapentin
Numerous randomized clinical trials have reported that gabapentin is superior to placebo for the treatment of VMS.15 In one trial, 420 patients with breast cancer and VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, gabapentin 300 mg/day (G300), or gabapentin 900 mg/day (G900) in 3 divided doses.16 Following 8 weeks of treatment, reduction in hot-flash severity score among patients receiving placebo, G300, or G900 was 15%, 31%, and 46%, respectively. Fatigue and somnolence were reported more frequently among patients taking gabapentin 900 mg/day. In a small trial, 60 patients with VMS were randomized to receive placebo, conjugated estrogen (0.2625 mg/day),or gabapentin (target dose of 2,400 mg/day in 3 divided doses).17 Following 12 weeks of treatment, the patient-reported decrease in VMS for those taking placebo, estrogen, or gabapentin was 54%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.
High-dose gabapentin treatment was associated with side effects of headache and dizziness more often than placebo or estrogen. Although gabapentin is not a treatment for insomnia, in my practice if a menopausal patient has prominent and bothersome symptoms of sleep disturbance and mild VMS symptoms, I will consider a trial of low-dose gabapentin. Some experts recommend initiating gabapentin at a dose of 100 mgdaily before bedtime to assess the effectiveness of a low dose that seldom causes significant side effects.
Fezolinetant
In a study of genetic variation associated with VMS, investigators discovered that nucleic acid variation in the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor was strongly associated with the prevalence of VMS, suggesting that this receptor is in the causal pathway to menopausal VMS.18 Additional research demonstrated that the kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons, which are involved in the control of hypothalamic thermoregulation, are stimulated by neurokinin B, acting through the NK3 receptor, and suppressed by estradiol. A reduction in hypothalamic estrogen results in unopposed neurokinin B activity, which stimulates KNDy neurons, destabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, causing vasodilation, which is perceived as hot flashes and sweating followed by chills.19
Fezolinetant is a high-affinity NK3 receptor antagonist that blocks the activity of neurokinin B, stabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, thereby suppressing hot flashes. It is approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS due to menopause using a fixed dose of 45 mg daily.20 In one clinical trial, 500 menopausal patients with bothersome VMS were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg/day, or fezolinetant 45 mg/day. Following 12 weeks of treatment, the reported frequency rates of VMS among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 43%, 61%, and 64%, respectively.21 In addition, following 12 weeks of treatment, the severity of VMS rates among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 20%, 26%, and 32%, respectively.
Fezolinetant improved the quality of sleep and was associated with an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. Following 12 weeks of treatment, sleep quality among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups was reported to be “much or moderately better” in 34%, 45%, and 54% of the patients, respectively.21 Similar results were reported in a companion study.22
Fezolinetant is contraindicated for patients with liver cirrhosis or severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Before initiating treatment, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (total and direct). Fezolinetant should not be prescribed if any of these tests are greater than twice the upper limit of normal. These tests should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months, and if the patient reports symptoms or signs of liver injury (nausea, vomiting, jaundice). Fezolinetant is metabolized by CYP1A2 and should not be prescribed to patients taking strong CYP1A2 inhibitors. The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant treatment are abdominal pain (4.3%), diarrhea (3.9%), insomnia (3.9%), back pain (3.0%), and hepatic transaminase elevation (2.3%). Fezolinetant has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients older than age 65. Following an oral dose of the medication, the median maximum concentration is reached in 1.5 hours, and the half-life is estimated to be 10 hours.20 Of all the medications discussed in this editorial, fezolinetant is the most expensive.
Effective VMS treatment improves overall health
Estrogen therapy is the gold standard treatment of VMS. However, many menopausal patients with bothersome VMS prefer not to take estrogen, and some have a medical condition that is a contraindication to estrogen treatment. The nonhormonal medication options for the treatment of VMS include escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant. Patients value the ability to choose the treatment they prefer, among all available hormonal and nonhormonal medication options. For mid-life women, effectively treating bothersome VMS is only one of many interventions that improves health. Optimal health is best achieved with23:
- high-quality diet
- daily physical activity
- appropriate body mass index
- nicotine avoidance
- a healthy sleep schedule
- normal blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels.
Women who have a high-quality diet; daily physical activity; an appropriate body mass index; and normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels are estimated to live 9 disease-free years longer than other women.24 ●
VMS, also known as hot flashes, night sweats, or cold sweats, occur for the majority of perimenopausal and menopausal women.1 In one study, the mean duration of clinically significant VMS was 5 years, and one-third of participants continued to have bothersome hot flashes 10 or more years after the onset of menopause.2 VMS may contribute to disrupted sleep patterns and depressed mood.3
All obstetrician-gynecologists know that estradiol and other estrogens are highly effective in the treatment of bothersome VMS. A meta-analysis reported that the frequency of VMS was reduced by 60% to 80% with oral estradiol (1 mg/day), transdermal estradiol(0.05 mg/day), and conjugated estrogen (0.625 mg).4 Breast tenderness and irregular uterine bleeding are common side effects of estrogen treatment of VMS. Estrogen treatment is contraindicated in patients with estrogen-responsive cancers, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, and some cases of inherited thrombophilia. For these patients, an important option is the nonhormonal treatment of VMS, and several nonhormonal medications have been demonstrated to be effective therapy (TABLE 1). In this editorial I will review the medication treatment of VMS with escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant.
Escitalopram and paroxetine
Escitalopram and paroxetine have been shown to reduce VMS more than placebo in multiple clinical trials.5-10 In addition, escitalopram and paroxetine, at the doses tested, may be more effective for the treatment of VMS than sertraline, citalopram, or fluoxetine.11 In one trial assessing the efficacy of escitalopram to treat VMS, 205 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo or escitalopram.5 The initial escitalopram dose was 10 mg daily. At week 4:
- if VMS frequency was reduced by ≥ 50%, the patient remained on the 10-mg dose
- if VMS frequency was reduced by < 50%, the escitalopram dose was increased to 20 mg daily.
Following 8 weeks of treatment, the frequency of VMS decreased for patients in the placebo and escitalopram groups by 33% and 47%, respectively. Similar results have been reported in other studies.6
Paroxetine at a dose of 7.5 mg/day administered at bedtime is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of VMS. In a pivotal study, 1,112 patients with VMS were randomly assigned to receive a placebo or paroxetine 7.5 mg at bedtime.9 In the 12-week study the reported decrease in mean weekly frequency of VMS for patients in the placebo and paroxetine groups were -37 and -44, respectively.9 Paroxetine 7.5 mg also reduced awakenings per night attributed to VMS and increased nighttime sleep duration.10
Depressed mood is prevalent among perimenopausal and postmenopausal patients.12 Prescribing escitalopram or paroxetine for VMS also may improve mood. Venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine are effective for the treatment of VMS;13,14 however, I seldom prescribe these medications for VMS because in my experience they are associated with more bothersome side effects, including dry mouth, decreased appetite, nausea, and insomnia than escitalopram or low-dose paroxetine.
Gabapentin
Numerous randomized clinical trials have reported that gabapentin is superior to placebo for the treatment of VMS.15 In one trial, 420 patients with breast cancer and VMS were randomly assigned to 8 weeks of treatment with placebo, gabapentin 300 mg/day (G300), or gabapentin 900 mg/day (G900) in 3 divided doses.16 Following 8 weeks of treatment, reduction in hot-flash severity score among patients receiving placebo, G300, or G900 was 15%, 31%, and 46%, respectively. Fatigue and somnolence were reported more frequently among patients taking gabapentin 900 mg/day. In a small trial, 60 patients with VMS were randomized to receive placebo, conjugated estrogen (0.2625 mg/day),or gabapentin (target dose of 2,400 mg/day in 3 divided doses).17 Following 12 weeks of treatment, the patient-reported decrease in VMS for those taking placebo, estrogen, or gabapentin was 54%, 72%, and 71%, respectively.
High-dose gabapentin treatment was associated with side effects of headache and dizziness more often than placebo or estrogen. Although gabapentin is not a treatment for insomnia, in my practice if a menopausal patient has prominent and bothersome symptoms of sleep disturbance and mild VMS symptoms, I will consider a trial of low-dose gabapentin. Some experts recommend initiating gabapentin at a dose of 100 mgdaily before bedtime to assess the effectiveness of a low dose that seldom causes significant side effects.
Fezolinetant
In a study of genetic variation associated with VMS, investigators discovered that nucleic acid variation in the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor was strongly associated with the prevalence of VMS, suggesting that this receptor is in the causal pathway to menopausal VMS.18 Additional research demonstrated that the kisspeptin/neurokinin B/dynorphin (KNDy) neurons, which are involved in the control of hypothalamic thermoregulation, are stimulated by neurokinin B, acting through the NK3 receptor, and suppressed by estradiol. A reduction in hypothalamic estrogen results in unopposed neurokinin B activity, which stimulates KNDy neurons, destabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, causing vasodilation, which is perceived as hot flashes and sweating followed by chills.19
Fezolinetant is a high-affinity NK3 receptor antagonist that blocks the activity of neurokinin B, stabilizing the hypothalamic thermoregulatory center, thereby suppressing hot flashes. It is approved by the FDA for the treatment of moderate to severe VMS due to menopause using a fixed dose of 45 mg daily.20 In one clinical trial, 500 menopausal patients with bothersome VMS were randomly assigned to 12 weeks of treatment with placebo, fezolinetant 30 mg/day, or fezolinetant 45 mg/day. Following 12 weeks of treatment, the reported frequency rates of VMS among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 43%, 61%, and 64%, respectively.21 In addition, following 12 weeks of treatment, the severity of VMS rates among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups were reduced by 20%, 26%, and 32%, respectively.
Fezolinetant improved the quality of sleep and was associated with an improvement in patient-reported quality of life. Following 12 weeks of treatment, sleep quality among patients in the placebo, F30, and F45 groups was reported to be “much or moderately better” in 34%, 45%, and 54% of the patients, respectively.21 Similar results were reported in a companion study.22
Fezolinetant is contraindicated for patients with liver cirrhosis or severe renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate of < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2). Before initiating treatment, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and bilirubin (total and direct). Fezolinetant should not be prescribed if any of these tests are greater than twice the upper limit of normal. These tests should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months, and if the patient reports symptoms or signs of liver injury (nausea, vomiting, jaundice). Fezolinetant is metabolized by CYP1A2 and should not be prescribed to patients taking strong CYP1A2 inhibitors. The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant treatment are abdominal pain (4.3%), diarrhea (3.9%), insomnia (3.9%), back pain (3.0%), and hepatic transaminase elevation (2.3%). Fezolinetant has not been thoroughly evaluated in patients older than age 65. Following an oral dose of the medication, the median maximum concentration is reached in 1.5 hours, and the half-life is estimated to be 10 hours.20 Of all the medications discussed in this editorial, fezolinetant is the most expensive.
Effective VMS treatment improves overall health
Estrogen therapy is the gold standard treatment of VMS. However, many menopausal patients with bothersome VMS prefer not to take estrogen, and some have a medical condition that is a contraindication to estrogen treatment. The nonhormonal medication options for the treatment of VMS include escitalopram, paroxetine, gabapentin, and fezolinetant. Patients value the ability to choose the treatment they prefer, among all available hormonal and nonhormonal medication options. For mid-life women, effectively treating bothersome VMS is only one of many interventions that improves health. Optimal health is best achieved with23:
- high-quality diet
- daily physical activity
- appropriate body mass index
- nicotine avoidance
- a healthy sleep schedule
- normal blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels.
Women who have a high-quality diet; daily physical activity; an appropriate body mass index; and normal blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels are estimated to live 9 disease-free years longer than other women.24 ●
- Gold EB, Colvin A, Avis N, et al. Longitudinal analysis of the association between vasomotor symptoms and race/ethnicity across the menopause transition: study of women’s health across the nation. Am J Pub Health. 2006;1226-1235.
- Freeman EW, Sammel MD, Sanders RJ. Risk of long-term hot flashes after natural menopause: evidence from the Penn Ovarian Aging Study cohort. Menopause. 2014;21:924-932.
- Hatcher KM, Smith RL, Chiang C, et al. Nocturnal hot flashes, but not serum hormone concentrations as a predictor of insomnia in menopausal women: results from the Midlife Women’s Health Study. J Women’s Health. 2023;32:94-101.
- Nelson HD. Commonly used types of postmenopausal estrogen for treatment of hot flashes: scientific review. JAMA. 2004;291:1610.
- Freeman EW, Guthrie KA, Caan B, et al. Efficacy of escitalopram for hot flashes in healthy menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305:267-227.
- Carpenter JS, Guthrie KA, Larson JC, et al. Effect of escitalopram on hot flash interference: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1399-1404.e1.
- Slaton RM, Champion MN, Palmore KB. A review of paroxetine for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms. J Pharm Pract. 2015;28:266-274.
- Stearns V, Slack R, Greep N, et al. Paroxetine is an effective treatment for hot flashes: results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6919-6930.
- Simon JA, Portman DJ, Kaunitz AM, et al. Lowdose paroxetine 7.5 mg for menopausal vasomotor symptoms: two randomized controlled trials. Menopause. 2013;20:1027-1035.
- Pinkerton JV, Joffe H, Kazempour K, et al. Lowdose paroxetine (7.5 mg) improves sleep in women with vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause. Menopause. 2015;22:50-58.
- Shams T, Firwana B, Habib F, et al. SSRIs for hot flashes: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:204-213.
- Freeman EW. Depression in the menopause transition: risks in the changing hormone milieu as observed in the general population. Womens Midlife Health. 2015;1:2.
- Loprinzi CL, Kugler JW, Sloan JA, et al. Venlafaxine in management of hot flashes in survivors of breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:2059-2063.
- Sun Z, Hao Y, Zhang M. Efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine treatment for hot flashes associated with menopause: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;75:255-262.
- Toulis KA, Tzellos T, Kouvelas D, et al. Gabapentin for the treatment of hot flashes in women with natural or tamoxifen-induced menopause: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2009;31:221-235.
- Pandya KJ, Morrow GR, Roscoe JA, et al. Gabapentin for hot flashes in 420 women with breast cancer: a randomized double-blind placebocontrolled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:818-824.
- Reddy SY, Warner H, Guttuso T Jr, et al. Gabapentin, estrogen, and placebo for treating hot flushes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:41-48.
- Crandall CJ, Manson JE, Hohensee C, et al. Association of genetic variation in the tachykinin receptor 3 locus with hot flashes and night sweats in the Women’s Health Initiative Study. Menopause. 2017;24:252.
- Rance NE, Dacks PA, Mittelman-Smith MA, et al. Modulation of body temperature and LH secretion by hypothalamic KNDy (kisspeptin, neurokinin B and dynorphin) neurons: a novel hypothesis on the mechanism of hot flushes. Front Neurendocrinol. 2013;34:211-227.
- Veozah (package insert). Astellas Pharma; Northbrook, Illinois. May 2023.
- Johnson KA, Martin N, Nappi RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant in moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a Phase 3 RCT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108:1981-1997.
- Lederman S, Ottery FD, Cano A, et al. Fezolinetant for treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (SKYLIGHT 1): a phase 3 randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2023;401:1091-1102.
- Lloyd-Jones DM, Allen NB, Anderson CAM, et al. Life’s essential 8: updating and enhancing the American Heart Association’s construct of cardiovascular health: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;146:e18-43.
- Wang X, Ma H, Li X, et al. Association of cardiovascular health with life expectancy free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in U.K. adults. JAMA Int Med. 2023;183:340-349.
- Gold EB, Colvin A, Avis N, et al. Longitudinal analysis of the association between vasomotor symptoms and race/ethnicity across the menopause transition: study of women’s health across the nation. Am J Pub Health. 2006;1226-1235.
- Freeman EW, Sammel MD, Sanders RJ. Risk of long-term hot flashes after natural menopause: evidence from the Penn Ovarian Aging Study cohort. Menopause. 2014;21:924-932.
- Hatcher KM, Smith RL, Chiang C, et al. Nocturnal hot flashes, but not serum hormone concentrations as a predictor of insomnia in menopausal women: results from the Midlife Women’s Health Study. J Women’s Health. 2023;32:94-101.
- Nelson HD. Commonly used types of postmenopausal estrogen for treatment of hot flashes: scientific review. JAMA. 2004;291:1610.
- Freeman EW, Guthrie KA, Caan B, et al. Efficacy of escitalopram for hot flashes in healthy menopausal women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2011;305:267-227.
- Carpenter JS, Guthrie KA, Larson JC, et al. Effect of escitalopram on hot flash interference: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1399-1404.e1.
- Slaton RM, Champion MN, Palmore KB. A review of paroxetine for the treatment of vasomotor symptoms. J Pharm Pract. 2015;28:266-274.
- Stearns V, Slack R, Greep N, et al. Paroxetine is an effective treatment for hot flashes: results from a prospective randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6919-6930.
- Simon JA, Portman DJ, Kaunitz AM, et al. Lowdose paroxetine 7.5 mg for menopausal vasomotor symptoms: two randomized controlled trials. Menopause. 2013;20:1027-1035.
- Pinkerton JV, Joffe H, Kazempour K, et al. Lowdose paroxetine (7.5 mg) improves sleep in women with vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause. Menopause. 2015;22:50-58.
- Shams T, Firwana B, Habib F, et al. SSRIs for hot flashes: a systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized trials. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:204-213.
- Freeman EW. Depression in the menopause transition: risks in the changing hormone milieu as observed in the general population. Womens Midlife Health. 2015;1:2.
- Loprinzi CL, Kugler JW, Sloan JA, et al. Venlafaxine in management of hot flashes in survivors of breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2000;356:2059-2063.
- Sun Z, Hao Y, Zhang M. Efficacy and safety of desvenlafaxine treatment for hot flashes associated with menopause: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2013;75:255-262.
- Toulis KA, Tzellos T, Kouvelas D, et al. Gabapentin for the treatment of hot flashes in women with natural or tamoxifen-induced menopause: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Ther. 2009;31:221-235.
- Pandya KJ, Morrow GR, Roscoe JA, et al. Gabapentin for hot flashes in 420 women with breast cancer: a randomized double-blind placebocontrolled trial. Lancet. 2005;366:818-824.
- Reddy SY, Warner H, Guttuso T Jr, et al. Gabapentin, estrogen, and placebo for treating hot flushes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:41-48.
- Crandall CJ, Manson JE, Hohensee C, et al. Association of genetic variation in the tachykinin receptor 3 locus with hot flashes and night sweats in the Women’s Health Initiative Study. Menopause. 2017;24:252.
- Rance NE, Dacks PA, Mittelman-Smith MA, et al. Modulation of body temperature and LH secretion by hypothalamic KNDy (kisspeptin, neurokinin B and dynorphin) neurons: a novel hypothesis on the mechanism of hot flushes. Front Neurendocrinol. 2013;34:211-227.
- Veozah (package insert). Astellas Pharma; Northbrook, Illinois. May 2023.
- Johnson KA, Martin N, Nappi RE, et al. Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant in moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause: a Phase 3 RCT. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2023;108:1981-1997.
- Lederman S, Ottery FD, Cano A, et al. Fezolinetant for treatment of moderate-to-severe vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause (SKYLIGHT 1): a phase 3 randomised controlled study. Lancet. 2023;401:1091-1102.
- Lloyd-Jones DM, Allen NB, Anderson CAM, et al. Life’s essential 8: updating and enhancing the American Heart Association’s construct of cardiovascular health: a presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2022;146:e18-43.
- Wang X, Ma H, Li X, et al. Association of cardiovascular health with life expectancy free of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and dementia in U.K. adults. JAMA Int Med. 2023;183:340-349.
Can a novel, rapid-acting oral treatment effectively manage PPD?
Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Postpartum depression affects approximately 17.2% of patients in the peripartum period.1 Typical pharmacologic treatment of PPD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may take up to 12 weeks to take effect. Postpartum depression is thought to be secondary to maladaptation to hormonal fluctuations in the peripartum period, including allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA (γ-aminobutyric acid type A)receptors and a metabolite of progesterone, levels of which increase in pregnancy and abruptly decrease following delivery.1 In 2019, the GABAA receptor modulator brexanalone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat PPD through continuous intravenous infusion over 60 hours in the hospital setting.
Zuranolone, an allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, also has been studied as an investigational medication for rapid treatment of PPD. Prior studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral zuranolone 30 mg daily for the treatment of PPD2 and 50 mg for the treatment of major depression in nonpregnant patients.3 Deligiannidis and colleagues conducted a trial to investigate the 50-mg dose of zuranolone for the treatment of PPD. (Notably, in August 2023, the FDA approved oral zuranolone once daily for 14 days for the treatment of PPD.) Following the FDA approval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory recommending consideration of zuranolone for PPD that takes into account balancing the benefits and risks, including known sedative effects, potential need for decreasing the dose due to adverse effects, lack of safety data in lactation, and unknown long-term efficacy.4
Details of the study
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 196 patients with an episode of major depression, characterized as a baseline score of 26 or greater on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) beginning in the third trimester or within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg daily or placebo, with stratification by stable concurrent antidepressant use. Treatment duration was for 14 days, with follow-up through day 45.
The study’s primary outcome was a change in the baseline HAM-D score at day 15. Changes in HAM-D score also were recorded at days 3, 28, and 45.
The 2 study groups were well balanced by demographic and baseline characteristics. In both groups, the majority of patients experienced the onset of their major depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Completion rates of the 14-day treatment course and 45-day follow-up were high and similar in both groups; 170 patients completed the study. The rate of concurrent psychiatric medications taken, most of which were SSRIs, was similar between the 2 groups at approximately 15% of patients.
Results. A statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome (the change in HAM-D score) at day 15 occurred in patients who received zuranolone versus placebo (P = .001). Additionally, there were statistically significant improvements in the secondary outcomes HAM-D scores at days 3, 28, and 45. Initial response, as measured by changes in HAM-D scores, occurred at a median duration of 9 days in the zuranolone group and 43 days in the placebo group. More patients in the zuranolone group achieved a reduction in HAM-D score at 15 days (57.0% vs 38.9%; P = .02). Zuranolone was associated with a higher rate of HAM-D remission at day 45 (44.0% vs 29.4%; P = .02).
With regard to safety, 16.3% of patients (17) in the zuranolone group (vs 1% in the placebo group) experienced an adverse event, most commonly somnolence, dizziness, and sedation, which led to a dose reduction. However, 15 of these 17 patients still completed the study, and there were no serious adverse events.
Study strengths and limitations
This study’s strengths include the double-blinded design that was continued throughout the duration of the follow-up. Additionally, the study population was heterogeneous andreflective of patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Lastly, only minor and moderate adverse events were reported and, despite this, nearly all patients who experienced adverse events completed the study.
Limitations of the study include the lack of generalizability, as patients with bipolar disorder and mild or moderate PPD were excluded. Additionally, the majority of patients had depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum, thereby excluding patients with depressive episodes at other time points in the peripartum period. Further, as breastfeeding was prohibited, safety in lactating patients using zuranolone is unknown. Lastly, the study follow-up period was 45 days; therefore, the long-term efficacy of zuranolone treatment is unclear. ●
Zuranolone, a GABAA allosteric modulator, shows promise as an alternative to existing pharmacologic treatments for severe PPD that is orally administered and rapidly acting. While it is reasonable to consider its use in the specific patient population that benefited in this study, further studies are needed to determine its efficacy in other populations, the lowest effective dose for clinical improvement, and its interaction with other medications and breastfeeding. Additionally, the long-term remission rates of depressive symptoms in patients treated with zuranolone are unknown and warrant further study.
JAIMEY M. PAULI, MD; KENDALL CUNNINGHAM, MD
- Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp .20220785
- Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Gunduz-Bruce H, et al. Effect of zuranolone vs placebo in postpartum depression: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:951-959. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559
- Clayton AH, Lasser R, Parikh SV, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:676-684. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220459
- Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Practice Advisory. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. August 2023. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice -advisory/articles/2023/08/zuranolone-for-the-treatment-of -postpartum-depression
Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Postpartum depression affects approximately 17.2% of patients in the peripartum period.1 Typical pharmacologic treatment of PPD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may take up to 12 weeks to take effect. Postpartum depression is thought to be secondary to maladaptation to hormonal fluctuations in the peripartum period, including allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA (γ-aminobutyric acid type A)receptors and a metabolite of progesterone, levels of which increase in pregnancy and abruptly decrease following delivery.1 In 2019, the GABAA receptor modulator brexanalone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat PPD through continuous intravenous infusion over 60 hours in the hospital setting.
Zuranolone, an allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, also has been studied as an investigational medication for rapid treatment of PPD. Prior studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral zuranolone 30 mg daily for the treatment of PPD2 and 50 mg for the treatment of major depression in nonpregnant patients.3 Deligiannidis and colleagues conducted a trial to investigate the 50-mg dose of zuranolone for the treatment of PPD. (Notably, in August 2023, the FDA approved oral zuranolone once daily for 14 days for the treatment of PPD.) Following the FDA approval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory recommending consideration of zuranolone for PPD that takes into account balancing the benefits and risks, including known sedative effects, potential need for decreasing the dose due to adverse effects, lack of safety data in lactation, and unknown long-term efficacy.4
Details of the study
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 196 patients with an episode of major depression, characterized as a baseline score of 26 or greater on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) beginning in the third trimester or within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg daily or placebo, with stratification by stable concurrent antidepressant use. Treatment duration was for 14 days, with follow-up through day 45.
The study’s primary outcome was a change in the baseline HAM-D score at day 15. Changes in HAM-D score also were recorded at days 3, 28, and 45.
The 2 study groups were well balanced by demographic and baseline characteristics. In both groups, the majority of patients experienced the onset of their major depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Completion rates of the 14-day treatment course and 45-day follow-up were high and similar in both groups; 170 patients completed the study. The rate of concurrent psychiatric medications taken, most of which were SSRIs, was similar between the 2 groups at approximately 15% of patients.
Results. A statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome (the change in HAM-D score) at day 15 occurred in patients who received zuranolone versus placebo (P = .001). Additionally, there were statistically significant improvements in the secondary outcomes HAM-D scores at days 3, 28, and 45. Initial response, as measured by changes in HAM-D scores, occurred at a median duration of 9 days in the zuranolone group and 43 days in the placebo group. More patients in the zuranolone group achieved a reduction in HAM-D score at 15 days (57.0% vs 38.9%; P = .02). Zuranolone was associated with a higher rate of HAM-D remission at day 45 (44.0% vs 29.4%; P = .02).
With regard to safety, 16.3% of patients (17) in the zuranolone group (vs 1% in the placebo group) experienced an adverse event, most commonly somnolence, dizziness, and sedation, which led to a dose reduction. However, 15 of these 17 patients still completed the study, and there were no serious adverse events.
Study strengths and limitations
This study’s strengths include the double-blinded design that was continued throughout the duration of the follow-up. Additionally, the study population was heterogeneous andreflective of patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Lastly, only minor and moderate adverse events were reported and, despite this, nearly all patients who experienced adverse events completed the study.
Limitations of the study include the lack of generalizability, as patients with bipolar disorder and mild or moderate PPD were excluded. Additionally, the majority of patients had depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum, thereby excluding patients with depressive episodes at other time points in the peripartum period. Further, as breastfeeding was prohibited, safety in lactating patients using zuranolone is unknown. Lastly, the study follow-up period was 45 days; therefore, the long-term efficacy of zuranolone treatment is unclear. ●
Zuranolone, a GABAA allosteric modulator, shows promise as an alternative to existing pharmacologic treatments for severe PPD that is orally administered and rapidly acting. While it is reasonable to consider its use in the specific patient population that benefited in this study, further studies are needed to determine its efficacy in other populations, the lowest effective dose for clinical improvement, and its interaction with other medications and breastfeeding. Additionally, the long-term remission rates of depressive symptoms in patients treated with zuranolone are unknown and warrant further study.
JAIMEY M. PAULI, MD; KENDALL CUNNINGHAM, MD
Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220785.
EXPERT COMMENTARY
Postpartum depression affects approximately 17.2% of patients in the peripartum period.1 Typical pharmacologic treatment of PPD includes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which may take up to 12 weeks to take effect. Postpartum depression is thought to be secondary to maladaptation to hormonal fluctuations in the peripartum period, including allopregnanolone, a positive allosteric modulator of GABAA (γ-aminobutyric acid type A)receptors and a metabolite of progesterone, levels of which increase in pregnancy and abruptly decrease following delivery.1 In 2019, the GABAA receptor modulator brexanalone was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat PPD through continuous intravenous infusion over 60 hours in the hospital setting.
Zuranolone, an allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, also has been studied as an investigational medication for rapid treatment of PPD. Prior studies demonstrated the efficacy of oral zuranolone 30 mg daily for the treatment of PPD2 and 50 mg for the treatment of major depression in nonpregnant patients.3 Deligiannidis and colleagues conducted a trial to investigate the 50-mg dose of zuranolone for the treatment of PPD. (Notably, in August 2023, the FDA approved oral zuranolone once daily for 14 days for the treatment of PPD.) Following the FDA approval, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) released a Practice Advisory recommending consideration of zuranolone for PPD that takes into account balancing the benefits and risks, including known sedative effects, potential need for decreasing the dose due to adverse effects, lack of safety data in lactation, and unknown long-term efficacy.4
Details of the study
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 196 patients with an episode of major depression, characterized as a baseline score of 26 or greater on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) beginning in the third trimester or within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zuranolone 50 mg daily or placebo, with stratification by stable concurrent antidepressant use. Treatment duration was for 14 days, with follow-up through day 45.
The study’s primary outcome was a change in the baseline HAM-D score at day 15. Changes in HAM-D score also were recorded at days 3, 28, and 45.
The 2 study groups were well balanced by demographic and baseline characteristics. In both groups, the majority of patients experienced the onset of their major depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum. Completion rates of the 14-day treatment course and 45-day follow-up were high and similar in both groups; 170 patients completed the study. The rate of concurrent psychiatric medications taken, most of which were SSRIs, was similar between the 2 groups at approximately 15% of patients.
Results. A statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome (the change in HAM-D score) at day 15 occurred in patients who received zuranolone versus placebo (P = .001). Additionally, there were statistically significant improvements in the secondary outcomes HAM-D scores at days 3, 28, and 45. Initial response, as measured by changes in HAM-D scores, occurred at a median duration of 9 days in the zuranolone group and 43 days in the placebo group. More patients in the zuranolone group achieved a reduction in HAM-D score at 15 days (57.0% vs 38.9%; P = .02). Zuranolone was associated with a higher rate of HAM-D remission at day 45 (44.0% vs 29.4%; P = .02).
With regard to safety, 16.3% of patients (17) in the zuranolone group (vs 1% in the placebo group) experienced an adverse event, most commonly somnolence, dizziness, and sedation, which led to a dose reduction. However, 15 of these 17 patients still completed the study, and there were no serious adverse events.
Study strengths and limitations
This study’s strengths include the double-blinded design that was continued throughout the duration of the follow-up. Additionally, the study population was heterogeneous andreflective of patients from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. Lastly, only minor and moderate adverse events were reported and, despite this, nearly all patients who experienced adverse events completed the study.
Limitations of the study include the lack of generalizability, as patients with bipolar disorder and mild or moderate PPD were excluded. Additionally, the majority of patients had depressive episodes within the first 4 weeks postpartum, thereby excluding patients with depressive episodes at other time points in the peripartum period. Further, as breastfeeding was prohibited, safety in lactating patients using zuranolone is unknown. Lastly, the study follow-up period was 45 days; therefore, the long-term efficacy of zuranolone treatment is unclear. ●
Zuranolone, a GABAA allosteric modulator, shows promise as an alternative to existing pharmacologic treatments for severe PPD that is orally administered and rapidly acting. While it is reasonable to consider its use in the specific patient population that benefited in this study, further studies are needed to determine its efficacy in other populations, the lowest effective dose for clinical improvement, and its interaction with other medications and breastfeeding. Additionally, the long-term remission rates of depressive symptoms in patients treated with zuranolone are unknown and warrant further study.
JAIMEY M. PAULI, MD; KENDALL CUNNINGHAM, MD
- Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp .20220785
- Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Gunduz-Bruce H, et al. Effect of zuranolone vs placebo in postpartum depression: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:951-959. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559
- Clayton AH, Lasser R, Parikh SV, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:676-684. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220459
- Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Practice Advisory. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. August 2023. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice -advisory/articles/2023/08/zuranolone-for-the-treatment-of -postpartum-depression
- Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Maximos B, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:668-675. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp .20220785
- Deligiannidis KM, Meltzer-Brody S, Gunduz-Bruce H, et al. Effect of zuranolone vs placebo in postpartum depression: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:951-959. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.1559
- Clayton AH, Lasser R, Parikh SV, et al. Zuranolone for the treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:676-684. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.20220459
- Zuranolone for the treatment of postpartum depression. Practice Advisory. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. August 2023. Accessed September 18, 2023. https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice -advisory/articles/2023/08/zuranolone-for-the-treatment-of -postpartum-depression
Nano drug delivery could overcome toxicity in HCC to enable safer, more effective therapy
leading to safer treatment and better outcomes, according to a recent review.
Nanomedicines homing in on the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway could be particularly impactful, Mamatha Bhat, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and clinician-scientist at Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, and colleagues reported, as this is one of the most up-regulated pathways in HCC.
To date, however, agents addressing this pathway have been hindered by off-target toxicity, suggesting that more work is needed to develop the right payload for nanoparticle delivery, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.
“Although nanotherapeutics offers an unmatched improvement in drug delivery, due to the limited impact and treatment-resistance demonstrated by the current systemic therapies, there is currently no approved nanomedicine for the treatment of HCC,” the investigators wrote. “Therefore, it is of utmost importance to dig deeper into understanding the signaling pathways that govern hepatocarcinogenesis and identify novel targets that can be used to develop more specific and targeted nanotherapies.”
Their review focused on the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway, but first, Dr. Bhat and colleagues discussed the characteristics of inorganic versus lipid nanoparticles, as these differences can determine liver uptake.
Inorganic nanoparticles have a high surface-to-volume ratio, leading to increased surface charges that enhance cellular uptake. However, they are prone to oxidation, requiring surface modifications or short circulation times to prevent degradation. These nanoparticles are limited in delivering chemotherapeutic drugs and peptides, and are not suitable for encapsulating nucleic acids.
In contrast, lipid nanoparticles are preferred for targeted delivery in HCC, according to the investigators. They have a natural affinity for apolipoprotein E (apo E), resembling lipoproteins, which aids in specific liver cell targeting. When lipid nanoparticles enter the bloodstream, they interact with apo E–rich lipoproteins like HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, leading to formation of complexes recognized by LDL cholesterol receptors on liver cells. This triggers receptor-mediated endocytosis, internalizing apo E–lipid nanoparticle complexes into HCC cells.
The other major variable is the selected treatment target. Dr. Bhat and colleagues made the case for the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway based on alterations found in approximately two-thirds of patients with HCC.
“Aberrant activation of this pathway and mutations in genes encoding key components are characteristic to hepatocarcinogenesis and promote tumor growth and dedifferentiation,” they wrote.
Although beta-catenin itself makes for an obvious molecular target, especially considering known associations with drug resistance, its flat structure lacks deep binding pockets that would be suitable for small-molecule inhibitors, and any available pockets may be altered by numerous posttranscriptional modifications. Instead, beta-catenin could be indirectly modulated by nanoparticle-mediated siRNA therapy, as this would allow for precise delivery of siRNA to cancer cells, minimizing off-target toxicity.
Alternative approaches could involve targeting proteasomal degradation of beta-catenin, transcriptional coactivators of beta-catenin, or different oncogenes in HCC, all of which are described in further detail in the review, along with promising preclinical findings.
“With ongoing advancements in nanotechnology, there is optimism that it will continue to play a vital role in overcoming the challenges associated with HCC management and contribute to further advancements in therapeutic outcomes for patients,” the authors concluded.
One coauthor disclosed external funding by a Mitacs Elevate postdoctoral fellowship in collaboration with Highland Therapeutics. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) remains a major health problem associate with increasing prevalence and mortality rates worldwide. Around 50-60% of HCC patients are exposed to systemic therapies during their natural history. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (median OS: 19.2mo, ORR 30%), and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (median OS: 16.4mo, ORR: 20%) are considered first line treatment options for advanced HCC, and sorafenib or lenvatinib are recommended for patients with any contraindication for immune checkpoint inhibitors. These therapies are indicated for ‘all comers’ an no molecular markers /personalize medicine is currently available for this cancer. The lack of precision oncology relates to the fact that the most common mutations ( i.e TERT, TP53,CTNNB1) are unactionable targets. In this scenario, advances in precision oncology are an unmet medical need.
The Wnt/B-catenin signaling pathway is a master regulator of oncogenesis in HCC and defines one of the molecular subclasses characterized by CTNNB1 mutations (~25-30%) or AXIN1 mutations (~5-10%). Most of these tumors have an immune excluded/desert phenotype. Thus, targeting this pathway is expected to provide a primary antitumoral effect along with an immune-modulatory effect rescuing cases with an immune excluded phenotype.
In this review, the authors discuss the applicability of precision oncology in HCC targeting the WNT/B-catenin pathway by inhibiting the interaction with transcriptional coactivators of B-catenin such as CBP and TCF or by enhancing the proteasomal degradation of B-catenin, reducing pathway activation, with drugs like Tankyrase inhibitors and casein kinase 1a activators. These approaches are challenging due to its associated off-target toxicity and its complexity. To overcome these caveats, the author propose to utilization of nanotechnology to deliver Wnt inhibitors, an approach that currently requires further research to refine the most promising strategies and drugs suitable for clinical implementation.
Josep M. Llovet, MD, PhD, FAASLD, director, Mount Sinai Liver Cancer Program in New York, and head of translational research in the Liver Cancer Group, Liver Unit, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic Barcelona. Dr. Llovet receives research support from Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ipsen.
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) remains a major health problem associate with increasing prevalence and mortality rates worldwide. Around 50-60% of HCC patients are exposed to systemic therapies during their natural history. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (median OS: 19.2mo, ORR 30%), and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (median OS: 16.4mo, ORR: 20%) are considered first line treatment options for advanced HCC, and sorafenib or lenvatinib are recommended for patients with any contraindication for immune checkpoint inhibitors. These therapies are indicated for ‘all comers’ an no molecular markers /personalize medicine is currently available for this cancer. The lack of precision oncology relates to the fact that the most common mutations ( i.e TERT, TP53,CTNNB1) are unactionable targets. In this scenario, advances in precision oncology are an unmet medical need.
The Wnt/B-catenin signaling pathway is a master regulator of oncogenesis in HCC and defines one of the molecular subclasses characterized by CTNNB1 mutations (~25-30%) or AXIN1 mutations (~5-10%). Most of these tumors have an immune excluded/desert phenotype. Thus, targeting this pathway is expected to provide a primary antitumoral effect along with an immune-modulatory effect rescuing cases with an immune excluded phenotype.
In this review, the authors discuss the applicability of precision oncology in HCC targeting the WNT/B-catenin pathway by inhibiting the interaction with transcriptional coactivators of B-catenin such as CBP and TCF or by enhancing the proteasomal degradation of B-catenin, reducing pathway activation, with drugs like Tankyrase inhibitors and casein kinase 1a activators. These approaches are challenging due to its associated off-target toxicity and its complexity. To overcome these caveats, the author propose to utilization of nanotechnology to deliver Wnt inhibitors, an approach that currently requires further research to refine the most promising strategies and drugs suitable for clinical implementation.
Josep M. Llovet, MD, PhD, FAASLD, director, Mount Sinai Liver Cancer Program in New York, and head of translational research in the Liver Cancer Group, Liver Unit, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic Barcelona. Dr. Llovet receives research support from Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ipsen.
Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) remains a major health problem associate with increasing prevalence and mortality rates worldwide. Around 50-60% of HCC patients are exposed to systemic therapies during their natural history. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (median OS: 19.2mo, ORR 30%), and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (median OS: 16.4mo, ORR: 20%) are considered first line treatment options for advanced HCC, and sorafenib or lenvatinib are recommended for patients with any contraindication for immune checkpoint inhibitors. These therapies are indicated for ‘all comers’ an no molecular markers /personalize medicine is currently available for this cancer. The lack of precision oncology relates to the fact that the most common mutations ( i.e TERT, TP53,CTNNB1) are unactionable targets. In this scenario, advances in precision oncology are an unmet medical need.
The Wnt/B-catenin signaling pathway is a master regulator of oncogenesis in HCC and defines one of the molecular subclasses characterized by CTNNB1 mutations (~25-30%) or AXIN1 mutations (~5-10%). Most of these tumors have an immune excluded/desert phenotype. Thus, targeting this pathway is expected to provide a primary antitumoral effect along with an immune-modulatory effect rescuing cases with an immune excluded phenotype.
In this review, the authors discuss the applicability of precision oncology in HCC targeting the WNT/B-catenin pathway by inhibiting the interaction with transcriptional coactivators of B-catenin such as CBP and TCF or by enhancing the proteasomal degradation of B-catenin, reducing pathway activation, with drugs like Tankyrase inhibitors and casein kinase 1a activators. These approaches are challenging due to its associated off-target toxicity and its complexity. To overcome these caveats, the author propose to utilization of nanotechnology to deliver Wnt inhibitors, an approach that currently requires further research to refine the most promising strategies and drugs suitable for clinical implementation.
Josep M. Llovet, MD, PhD, FAASLD, director, Mount Sinai Liver Cancer Program in New York, and head of translational research in the Liver Cancer Group, Liver Unit, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clínic Barcelona. Dr. Llovet receives research support from Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Eisai Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ipsen.
leading to safer treatment and better outcomes, according to a recent review.
Nanomedicines homing in on the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway could be particularly impactful, Mamatha Bhat, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and clinician-scientist at Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, and colleagues reported, as this is one of the most up-regulated pathways in HCC.
To date, however, agents addressing this pathway have been hindered by off-target toxicity, suggesting that more work is needed to develop the right payload for nanoparticle delivery, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.
“Although nanotherapeutics offers an unmatched improvement in drug delivery, due to the limited impact and treatment-resistance demonstrated by the current systemic therapies, there is currently no approved nanomedicine for the treatment of HCC,” the investigators wrote. “Therefore, it is of utmost importance to dig deeper into understanding the signaling pathways that govern hepatocarcinogenesis and identify novel targets that can be used to develop more specific and targeted nanotherapies.”
Their review focused on the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway, but first, Dr. Bhat and colleagues discussed the characteristics of inorganic versus lipid nanoparticles, as these differences can determine liver uptake.
Inorganic nanoparticles have a high surface-to-volume ratio, leading to increased surface charges that enhance cellular uptake. However, they are prone to oxidation, requiring surface modifications or short circulation times to prevent degradation. These nanoparticles are limited in delivering chemotherapeutic drugs and peptides, and are not suitable for encapsulating nucleic acids.
In contrast, lipid nanoparticles are preferred for targeted delivery in HCC, according to the investigators. They have a natural affinity for apolipoprotein E (apo E), resembling lipoproteins, which aids in specific liver cell targeting. When lipid nanoparticles enter the bloodstream, they interact with apo E–rich lipoproteins like HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, leading to formation of complexes recognized by LDL cholesterol receptors on liver cells. This triggers receptor-mediated endocytosis, internalizing apo E–lipid nanoparticle complexes into HCC cells.
The other major variable is the selected treatment target. Dr. Bhat and colleagues made the case for the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway based on alterations found in approximately two-thirds of patients with HCC.
“Aberrant activation of this pathway and mutations in genes encoding key components are characteristic to hepatocarcinogenesis and promote tumor growth and dedifferentiation,” they wrote.
Although beta-catenin itself makes for an obvious molecular target, especially considering known associations with drug resistance, its flat structure lacks deep binding pockets that would be suitable for small-molecule inhibitors, and any available pockets may be altered by numerous posttranscriptional modifications. Instead, beta-catenin could be indirectly modulated by nanoparticle-mediated siRNA therapy, as this would allow for precise delivery of siRNA to cancer cells, minimizing off-target toxicity.
Alternative approaches could involve targeting proteasomal degradation of beta-catenin, transcriptional coactivators of beta-catenin, or different oncogenes in HCC, all of which are described in further detail in the review, along with promising preclinical findings.
“With ongoing advancements in nanotechnology, there is optimism that it will continue to play a vital role in overcoming the challenges associated with HCC management and contribute to further advancements in therapeutic outcomes for patients,” the authors concluded.
One coauthor disclosed external funding by a Mitacs Elevate postdoctoral fellowship in collaboration with Highland Therapeutics. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
leading to safer treatment and better outcomes, according to a recent review.
Nanomedicines homing in on the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway could be particularly impactful, Mamatha Bhat, MD, PhD, a hepatologist and clinician-scientist at Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, and colleagues reported, as this is one of the most up-regulated pathways in HCC.
To date, however, agents addressing this pathway have been hindered by off-target toxicity, suggesting that more work is needed to develop the right payload for nanoparticle delivery, the investigators wrote in Gastro Hep Advances.
“Although nanotherapeutics offers an unmatched improvement in drug delivery, due to the limited impact and treatment-resistance demonstrated by the current systemic therapies, there is currently no approved nanomedicine for the treatment of HCC,” the investigators wrote. “Therefore, it is of utmost importance to dig deeper into understanding the signaling pathways that govern hepatocarcinogenesis and identify novel targets that can be used to develop more specific and targeted nanotherapies.”
Their review focused on the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway, but first, Dr. Bhat and colleagues discussed the characteristics of inorganic versus lipid nanoparticles, as these differences can determine liver uptake.
Inorganic nanoparticles have a high surface-to-volume ratio, leading to increased surface charges that enhance cellular uptake. However, they are prone to oxidation, requiring surface modifications or short circulation times to prevent degradation. These nanoparticles are limited in delivering chemotherapeutic drugs and peptides, and are not suitable for encapsulating nucleic acids.
In contrast, lipid nanoparticles are preferred for targeted delivery in HCC, according to the investigators. They have a natural affinity for apolipoprotein E (apo E), resembling lipoproteins, which aids in specific liver cell targeting. When lipid nanoparticles enter the bloodstream, they interact with apo E–rich lipoproteins like HDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, leading to formation of complexes recognized by LDL cholesterol receptors on liver cells. This triggers receptor-mediated endocytosis, internalizing apo E–lipid nanoparticle complexes into HCC cells.
The other major variable is the selected treatment target. Dr. Bhat and colleagues made the case for the Wnt/beta-catenin signaling pathway based on alterations found in approximately two-thirds of patients with HCC.
“Aberrant activation of this pathway and mutations in genes encoding key components are characteristic to hepatocarcinogenesis and promote tumor growth and dedifferentiation,” they wrote.
Although beta-catenin itself makes for an obvious molecular target, especially considering known associations with drug resistance, its flat structure lacks deep binding pockets that would be suitable for small-molecule inhibitors, and any available pockets may be altered by numerous posttranscriptional modifications. Instead, beta-catenin could be indirectly modulated by nanoparticle-mediated siRNA therapy, as this would allow for precise delivery of siRNA to cancer cells, minimizing off-target toxicity.
Alternative approaches could involve targeting proteasomal degradation of beta-catenin, transcriptional coactivators of beta-catenin, or different oncogenes in HCC, all of which are described in further detail in the review, along with promising preclinical findings.
“With ongoing advancements in nanotechnology, there is optimism that it will continue to play a vital role in overcoming the challenges associated with HCC management and contribute to further advancements in therapeutic outcomes for patients,” the authors concluded.
One coauthor disclosed external funding by a Mitacs Elevate postdoctoral fellowship in collaboration with Highland Therapeutics. The remaining authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM GASTRO HEP ADVANCES