Latest News

TOPLINE:

Among 57,086 older adults, new gabapentin users demonstrated lower fall-related healthcare visits than duloxetine users, with a weighted cumulative incidence of 84.44 vs 158.21 per 1000 person-years at 180 days. Incident gabapentin use showed a 48% lower hazard of falls at 6-month follow-up, with no increase in severe fall-related events.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a new user, active comparator cohort study using IBM MarketScan Research Databases from January 2014 to December 2021.
• Analysis included 57,086 adults aged 65 years or older with postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, or fibromyalgia, excluding those with depression, anxiety, seizures, or cancer in the prior 365 days.
• The primary outcome measured the hazard of experiencing any fall-related visit in the 6 months after initiating gabapentin or duloxetine until treatment discontinuation.
• Secondary outcomes examined severe fall-related events, including falls with hip fractures or emergency department visits/hospitalizations associated with falls.

TAKEAWAY:

• The analytic cohort included 52,152 gabapentin users and 4934 duloxetine users, with a median follow-up duration of 30 days (interquartile range, 30-90 days).
• Weighted cumulative incidence of fall-related visits per 1000 person-years at 30, 90, and 180 days was 103.60, 90.44, and 84.44 for gabapentin users vs 203.43, 177.73, and 158.21 for duloxetine users.
• At 6-month follow-up, incident gabapentin users demonstrated lower hazard of falls (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.64), with no difference in hazards of severe falls.
• Results remained consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

IN PRACTICE:

“One bioplausible explanation for our results is that gabapentin is a highly titratable medication and many in our cohort started on low doses. Alternatively, duloxetine is usually titrated only once or twice. Thus, although it may be that gabapentin is simply safer than duloxetine from a falls perspective, it may also be likely that we are measuring specific clinical scenarios, the peri-initiation and titration period, in which gabapentin may be less likely to cause falls than duloxetine,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, and Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Despite the design aimed at limiting confounding effects, the observational nature of the study introduces potential bias. Claims data may undercount falls for which patients do not seek care, though this limitation likely affects both medication groups equally. The commercial claims database includes only Medicare supplemental insurance beneficiaries, potentially limiting generalizability. Regional variations in prescribing patterns could not be accounted for in the analysis.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was provided for this study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

TOPLINE:

Among 57,086 older adults, new gabapentin users demonstrated lower fall-related healthcare visits than duloxetine users, with a weighted cumulative incidence of 84.44 vs 158.21 per 1000 person-years at 180 days. Incident gabapentin use showed a 48% lower hazard of falls at 6-month follow-up, with no increase in severe fall-related events.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a new user, active comparator cohort study using IBM MarketScan Research Databases from January 2014 to December 2021.
• Analysis included 57,086 adults aged 65 years or older with postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, or fibromyalgia, excluding those with depression, anxiety, seizures, or cancer in the prior 365 days.
• The primary outcome measured the hazard of experiencing any fall-related visit in the 6 months after initiating gabapentin or duloxetine until treatment discontinuation.
• Secondary outcomes examined severe fall-related events, including falls with hip fractures or emergency department visits/hospitalizations associated with falls.

TAKEAWAY:

• The analytic cohort included 52,152 gabapentin users and 4934 duloxetine users, with a median follow-up duration of 30 days (interquartile range, 30-90 days).
• Weighted cumulative incidence of fall-related visits per 1000 person-years at 30, 90, and 180 days was 103.60, 90.44, and 84.44 for gabapentin users vs 203.43, 177.73, and 158.21 for duloxetine users.
• At 6-month follow-up, incident gabapentin users demonstrated lower hazard of falls (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.64), with no difference in hazards of severe falls.
• Results remained consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

IN PRACTICE:

“One bioplausible explanation for our results is that gabapentin is a highly titratable medication and many in our cohort started on low doses. Alternatively, duloxetine is usually titrated only once or twice. Thus, although it may be that gabapentin is simply safer than duloxetine from a falls perspective, it may also be likely that we are measuring specific clinical scenarios, the peri-initiation and titration period, in which gabapentin may be less likely to cause falls than duloxetine,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, and Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Despite the design aimed at limiting confounding effects, the observational nature of the study introduces potential bias. Claims data may undercount falls for which patients do not seek care, though this limitation likely affects both medication groups equally. The commercial claims database includes only Medicare supplemental insurance beneficiaries, potentially limiting generalizability. Regional variations in prescribing patterns could not be accounted for in the analysis.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was provided for this study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

TOPLINE:

Among 57,086 older adults, new gabapentin users demonstrated lower fall-related healthcare visits than duloxetine users, with a weighted cumulative incidence of 84.44 vs 158.21 per 1000 person-years at 180 days. Incident gabapentin use showed a 48% lower hazard of falls at 6-month follow-up, with no increase in severe fall-related events.
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a new user, active comparator cohort study using IBM MarketScan Research Databases from January 2014 to December 2021.
• Analysis included 57,086 adults aged 65 years or older with postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic neuropathy, or fibromyalgia, excluding those with depression, anxiety, seizures, or cancer in the prior 365 days.
• The primary outcome measured the hazard of experiencing any fall-related visit in the 6 months after initiating gabapentin or duloxetine until treatment discontinuation.
• Secondary outcomes examined severe fall-related events, including falls with hip fractures or emergency department visits/hospitalizations associated with falls.

TAKEAWAY:

• The analytic cohort included 52,152 gabapentin users and 4934 duloxetine users, with a median follow-up duration of 30 days (interquartile range, 30-90 days).
• Weighted cumulative incidence of fall-related visits per 1000 person-years at 30, 90, and 180 days was 103.60, 90.44, and 84.44 for gabapentin users vs 203.43, 177.73, and 158.21 for duloxetine users.
• At 6-month follow-up, incident gabapentin users demonstrated lower hazard of falls (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.43-0.64), with no difference in hazards of severe falls.
• Results remained consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses.

IN PRACTICE:

“One bioplausible explanation for our results is that gabapentin is a highly titratable medication and many in our cohort started on low doses. Alternatively, duloxetine is usually titrated only once or twice. Thus, although it may be that gabapentin is simply safer than duloxetine from a falls perspective, it may also be likely that we are measuring specific clinical scenarios, the peri-initiation and titration period, in which gabapentin may be less likely to cause falls than duloxetine,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Alexander Chaitoff, MD, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan School of Medicine in Ann Arbor, and Center for Healthcare Delivery Sciences, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Despite the design aimed at limiting confounding effects, the observational nature of the study introduces potential bias. Claims data may undercount falls for which patients do not seek care, though this limitation likely affects both medication groups equally. The commercial claims database includes only Medicare supplemental insurance beneficiaries, potentially limiting generalizability. Regional variations in prescribing patterns could not be accounted for in the analysis.
 

DISCLOSURES:

No funding was provided for this study.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com. 

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
• They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
• CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
• CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
• Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
• Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
• Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
• They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
• CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
• CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
• Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
• Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
• Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly one in six adults with asthma in the United States is nonadherent to medications due to costs, with younger patients, women, and those without insurance having an increased likelihood of being nonadherent.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the prevalence and determinants of cost-related nonadherence (CRN) to medications among adults with asthma in the United States between 2011 and 2022. Data were obtained from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics.
• They used the data from the NHIS to include a total of 30,793 adults who had asthma, representing 8.1% of the US population.
• CRN was defined through three components: Skipping medication doses, taking less medication, or delaying medication refills to save money over the past 12 months.
• CRN prevalence, factors associated with CRN, and asthma-related adverse events were analyzed.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 17.8% of US adults with asthma reported CRN; 11.6% skipped medication, 12.4% took less medication, and 15.1% delayed refilling medications to save money.
• Patients aged > 60 years were the least likely to report CRN compared with those aged 18-40 years and 41-60 years; women were more likely to report CRN to medications than men (both P < .01).
• Patients who were current or former smokers or had two or more comorbidities, no health insurance coverage, or a family income below 400% of the federal poverty level had an increased likelihood of reporting CRN.
• Compared with patients without CRN, those who reported CRN had almost double the odds of experiencing asthma attacks (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.95; 95% CI, 1.78-2.13) and increased emergency room visits for asthma (aOR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.44-1.84).

IN PRACTICE:

“The present study reinforces the recommendation that patients with asthma are best controlled when they are prescribed and take medications that are strongly recommended by clinical guidelines,” the authors wrote. “For healthcare providers, it is imperative to monitor patient’s adherence to medications to prevent asthma exacerbations, especially when treating patients with financial concerns,” they further added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Chun-Tse Hung, School of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online in Thorax.

LIMITATIONS:

The reliance on self-reported data introduced potential recall bias, and the absence of medical records may have led to misclassification of disease status. The study could not evaluate the effect of asthma severity due to limited measures in the NHIS. Some important variables reflecting economic indicators, such as the consumer price index, could not be included due to limited measures in the NHIS.

DISCLOSURES:

No disclosures or conflicts of interest statements were provided in the study.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Daily treatment with 1200 mg of choline alfoscerate for 12 months shows a modest yet significant improvement in cognitive function and physical health in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and early signs of cognitive decline. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of choline alfoscerate, a phospholipid metabolite naturally found in the brain, in improving cognitive function in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, but its use in patients with T2D remains unexplored.
• Researchers at a hospital in Korea enrolled patients aged over 60 years with T2D and mild cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] scores of 25-28), who were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg/d choline alfoscerate or placebo for 12 months.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the total MMSE score from baseline to month 6; secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in cognitive performance and quality of life, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six patients (average age, 71.8 years; 25% men) with an average diabetes duration of 12.1 years were randomized to receive choline alfoscerate (n = 18) or placebo (n = 18).
• At 6 months, there was modest but nonsignificant improvement in MMSE score with choline alfoscerate vs placebo (P = .059).
• After 12 months, the choline alfoscerate group showed an increase in the MMSE score from 26.2 to 27.1, whereas the placebo group showed a slight decline from 26.6 to 25.8, which represented a significant improvement for the treatment arm (P < .001).
• Physical health scores were significantly superior in the choline alfoscerate group vs the placebo group at 6 months (P = .014), with similar observations at 12 months (P = .039).
• No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Choline alfoscerate could be considered an anticipated therapeutic option to preserve cognitive function and subsequently physical health in elderly patients with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minji Sohn, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea, and published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily comprised non–insulin-dependent patients with controlled glycemia and minimal comorbidities, which may have limited the applicability of the results to a broader population. The small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in some outcomes. Moreover, the 12-month study duration may have not been sufficient to investigate the long-term effects of choline alfoscerate.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Daewoong Pharmaceutical through subcontracting with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Daily treatment with 1200 mg of choline alfoscerate for 12 months shows a modest yet significant improvement in cognitive function and physical health in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and early signs of cognitive decline. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of choline alfoscerate, a phospholipid metabolite naturally found in the brain, in improving cognitive function in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, but its use in patients with T2D remains unexplored.
• Researchers at a hospital in Korea enrolled patients aged over 60 years with T2D and mild cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] scores of 25-28), who were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg/d choline alfoscerate or placebo for 12 months.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the total MMSE score from baseline to month 6; secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in cognitive performance and quality of life, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six patients (average age, 71.8 years; 25% men) with an average diabetes duration of 12.1 years were randomized to receive choline alfoscerate (n = 18) or placebo (n = 18).
• At 6 months, there was modest but nonsignificant improvement in MMSE score with choline alfoscerate vs placebo (P = .059).
• After 12 months, the choline alfoscerate group showed an increase in the MMSE score from 26.2 to 27.1, whereas the placebo group showed a slight decline from 26.6 to 25.8, which represented a significant improvement for the treatment arm (P < .001).
• Physical health scores were significantly superior in the choline alfoscerate group vs the placebo group at 6 months (P = .014), with similar observations at 12 months (P = .039).
• No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Choline alfoscerate could be considered an anticipated therapeutic option to preserve cognitive function and subsequently physical health in elderly patients with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minji Sohn, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea, and published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily comprised non–insulin-dependent patients with controlled glycemia and minimal comorbidities, which may have limited the applicability of the results to a broader population. The small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in some outcomes. Moreover, the 12-month study duration may have not been sufficient to investigate the long-term effects of choline alfoscerate.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Daewoong Pharmaceutical through subcontracting with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Daily treatment with 1200 mg of choline alfoscerate for 12 months shows a modest yet significant improvement in cognitive function and physical health in older patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and early signs of cognitive decline. 
 

METHODOLOGY:

• Prior studies have demonstrated the efficacy of choline alfoscerate, a phospholipid metabolite naturally found in the brain, in improving cognitive function in patients with neurodegenerative conditions, but its use in patients with T2D remains unexplored.
• Researchers at a hospital in Korea enrolled patients aged over 60 years with T2D and mild cognitive impairment (assessed by Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE] scores of 25-28), who were randomly assigned to receive either 1200 mg/d choline alfoscerate or placebo for 12 months.
• The primary efficacy endpoint was the change in the total MMSE score from baseline to month 6; secondary efficacy endpoints included changes in cognitive performance and quality of life, measured by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, at 6 and 12 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Thirty-six patients (average age, 71.8 years; 25% men) with an average diabetes duration of 12.1 years were randomized to receive choline alfoscerate (n = 18) or placebo (n = 18).
• At 6 months, there was modest but nonsignificant improvement in MMSE score with choline alfoscerate vs placebo (P = .059).
• After 12 months, the choline alfoscerate group showed an increase in the MMSE score from 26.2 to 27.1, whereas the placebo group showed a slight decline from 26.6 to 25.8, which represented a significant improvement for the treatment arm (P < .001).
• Physical health scores were significantly superior in the choline alfoscerate group vs the placebo group at 6 months (P = .014), with similar observations at 12 months (P = .039).
• No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Choline alfoscerate could be considered an anticipated therapeutic option to preserve cognitive function and subsequently physical health in elderly patients with diabetes and mild cognitive impairment,” the authors wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Minji Sohn, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea, and published online in Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism.
 

LIMITATIONS:

The study population primarily comprised non–insulin-dependent patients with controlled glycemia and minimal comorbidities, which may have limited the applicability of the results to a broader population. The small sample size may have contributed to the lack of statistical significance in some outcomes. Moreover, the 12-month study duration may have not been sufficient to investigate the long-term effects of choline alfoscerate.
 

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Daewoong Pharmaceutical through subcontracting with Seoul National University Bundang Hospital. The authors declared no competing interests.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Over the past year, new evidence has emerged in support of the idea that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is neither exclusively immune mediated nor a classic autoimmune disease, but that both mechanisms may be essential in disease pathogenesis, and that innate immune cells may possess adaptive properties that may lead to worsening of inflammation of the skin and joints.

Recent findings help dermatologists and rheumatologists to better understand the pathogenesis of PsA and may lead to more targeted and personalized therapies, Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, who’s led research into the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, reported at the NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Psoriasis and PsA, along with ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, have been thought to be either immune mediated or a classic autoimmune disorder, Ritchlin, a rheumatologist and internist and director of the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester in New York, said in an interview. “But emerging data reveal that these disorders might be triggered and sustained by both autoimmune and immune-mediated events,” he said.

 

Autoimmunity vs Immune Mediated

Autoimmune diseases are characterized by a specific autoantigen and antibody, such as the anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody seen in rheumatoid arthritis, Ritchlin said. He cited a 2023 literature review from Italy that identified five autoantibodies and polymorphisms in PsA.

“In an immune-mediated disease, we demonstrate profound dysregulation of immune cells that promote inflammation, but we have not identified a specific autoantigen,” he said. “There’s an inflammatory response, which can be very severe, but we don’t know if it’s responding to an autoantigen or it’s just dysregulation of the T cells or the B cells or both.”

In a humanized mouse model developed by Maria Garcia-Hernandez, PhD, in Ritchlin’s lab, researchers found that both immunoglobulins and immune cells are required to recapitulate the skin and joint phenotypes. Ritchlin said that further analyses identified a putative autoantigen, which current experiments now underway are looking to confirm and should help discern distinctions in pathogenesis between a response to an autoantigen or cell dysregulation.

“There may be more than one type of immune inflammatory reaction that’s ongoing in individual tissue, and it may be different from one tissue to another,” Ritchlin said in an interview.

The immune-mediated and autoimmune properties of PsA are important to investigate, Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said in an interview.

“Classically considered an autoimmune disease, [PsA] may be better classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease,” Scher said. He noted one feature that makes PsA differ from classic autoimmunity is that it does not affect women predominantly.

“The fundamental question is whether there are elements of classic autoimmunity such as B cells that should be integrated into the research for future identification of novel therapeutics,” Scher said.

 

The ‘Additional Mechanism’

The additional mechanism Ritchlin referred to is “this idea of trained immunity,” he said, “where innate immune cells — fibroblasts, monocytes, keratinocytes — that are not considered to have [the] adaptive memory characteristic of T cells and B cells but act in an environment of inflammation and can actually develop sustained altered phenotypes in response to inflammation.”

A 2024 report from Europe outlined four characteristics of trained immunity, Ritchlin said, including that it is “antigen agnostic” and results from long-term reprogramming of cells through epigenetic and metabolic mechanisms. The effects of trained immunity are shorter in duration than that of classical adaptive immunity, he said.

These reprogrammed innate immune cells “retain a form of ‘memory’ after an initial stimulus, which can lead to enhanced or altered responses upon subsequent challenges,” Scher said.

In the context of PsA, Scher said, monocytes that express heightened inflammatory responses driven by metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming can become “trained” by triggers such as infections, cytokines (such as interleukin [IL]–1 beta and IL-17), or damage-associated molecular patterns that have been epigenetically modified to respond at higher rates in a future encounter with exacerbated production of proinflammatory cytokines, persistent inflammation, and flares.

Ritchlin explained how this emerging understanding of the mechanisms driving psoriasis and PsA is driving research into treatments.

“If you know that monocytes are undergoing change — these are innate cells, they’re not antigen driven — but that change is based on some type of pathway that makes the cell more inflammatory, then you can think about trying to block that pathway,” he said.

The goal would be to normalize the cellular environment that’s otherwise becoming activated to create the signs and symptoms of psoriasis and PsA, he said.

The other potential therapeutic target would be T cells, Ritchlin said. “There now are T cells that have been identified that have very specific alpha-beta receptors that are expanded in the peripheral blood, uveal fluid, and joints of HLAB27-positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis and anterior uveitis, which is thought to be immune mediated, not autoimmune.” 

Those HLAB27-positive patients “have expansion of a certain subtype of T cells, they have a specific receptor, and specific autoantigens have been identified pointing to a potential autoimmune response,” Ritchlin added.

An antibody that binds and removes specific T-cell receptor subsets may be an effective strategy without being immunosuppressive, Ritchlin said. “That’s real exciting, and we’re all hoping that is going to be a therapeutic approach that could be successful.”

Ritchlin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Over the past year, new evidence has emerged in support of the idea that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is neither exclusively immune mediated nor a classic autoimmune disease, but that both mechanisms may be essential in disease pathogenesis, and that innate immune cells may possess adaptive properties that may lead to worsening of inflammation of the skin and joints.

Recent findings help dermatologists and rheumatologists to better understand the pathogenesis of PsA and may lead to more targeted and personalized therapies, Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, who’s led research into the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, reported at the NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Psoriasis and PsA, along with ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, have been thought to be either immune mediated or a classic autoimmune disorder, Ritchlin, a rheumatologist and internist and director of the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester in New York, said in an interview. “But emerging data reveal that these disorders might be triggered and sustained by both autoimmune and immune-mediated events,” he said.

 

Autoimmunity vs Immune Mediated

Autoimmune diseases are characterized by a specific autoantigen and antibody, such as the anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody seen in rheumatoid arthritis, Ritchlin said. He cited a 2023 literature review from Italy that identified five autoantibodies and polymorphisms in PsA.

“In an immune-mediated disease, we demonstrate profound dysregulation of immune cells that promote inflammation, but we have not identified a specific autoantigen,” he said. “There’s an inflammatory response, which can be very severe, but we don’t know if it’s responding to an autoantigen or it’s just dysregulation of the T cells or the B cells or both.”

In a humanized mouse model developed by Maria Garcia-Hernandez, PhD, in Ritchlin’s lab, researchers found that both immunoglobulins and immune cells are required to recapitulate the skin and joint phenotypes. Ritchlin said that further analyses identified a putative autoantigen, which current experiments now underway are looking to confirm and should help discern distinctions in pathogenesis between a response to an autoantigen or cell dysregulation.

“There may be more than one type of immune inflammatory reaction that’s ongoing in individual tissue, and it may be different from one tissue to another,” Ritchlin said in an interview.

The immune-mediated and autoimmune properties of PsA are important to investigate, Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said in an interview.

“Classically considered an autoimmune disease, [PsA] may be better classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease,” Scher said. He noted one feature that makes PsA differ from classic autoimmunity is that it does not affect women predominantly.

“The fundamental question is whether there are elements of classic autoimmunity such as B cells that should be integrated into the research for future identification of novel therapeutics,” Scher said.

 

The ‘Additional Mechanism’

The additional mechanism Ritchlin referred to is “this idea of trained immunity,” he said, “where innate immune cells — fibroblasts, monocytes, keratinocytes — that are not considered to have [the] adaptive memory characteristic of T cells and B cells but act in an environment of inflammation and can actually develop sustained altered phenotypes in response to inflammation.”

A 2024 report from Europe outlined four characteristics of trained immunity, Ritchlin said, including that it is “antigen agnostic” and results from long-term reprogramming of cells through epigenetic and metabolic mechanisms. The effects of trained immunity are shorter in duration than that of classical adaptive immunity, he said.

These reprogrammed innate immune cells “retain a form of ‘memory’ after an initial stimulus, which can lead to enhanced or altered responses upon subsequent challenges,” Scher said.

In the context of PsA, Scher said, monocytes that express heightened inflammatory responses driven by metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming can become “trained” by triggers such as infections, cytokines (such as interleukin [IL]–1 beta and IL-17), or damage-associated molecular patterns that have been epigenetically modified to respond at higher rates in a future encounter with exacerbated production of proinflammatory cytokines, persistent inflammation, and flares.

Ritchlin explained how this emerging understanding of the mechanisms driving psoriasis and PsA is driving research into treatments.

“If you know that monocytes are undergoing change — these are innate cells, they’re not antigen driven — but that change is based on some type of pathway that makes the cell more inflammatory, then you can think about trying to block that pathway,” he said.

The goal would be to normalize the cellular environment that’s otherwise becoming activated to create the signs and symptoms of psoriasis and PsA, he said.

The other potential therapeutic target would be T cells, Ritchlin said. “There now are T cells that have been identified that have very specific alpha-beta receptors that are expanded in the peripheral blood, uveal fluid, and joints of HLAB27-positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis and anterior uveitis, which is thought to be immune mediated, not autoimmune.” 

Those HLAB27-positive patients “have expansion of a certain subtype of T cells, they have a specific receptor, and specific autoantigens have been identified pointing to a potential autoimmune response,” Ritchlin added.

An antibody that binds and removes specific T-cell receptor subsets may be an effective strategy without being immunosuppressive, Ritchlin said. “That’s real exciting, and we’re all hoping that is going to be a therapeutic approach that could be successful.”

Ritchlin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Over the past year, new evidence has emerged in support of the idea that psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is neither exclusively immune mediated nor a classic autoimmune disease, but that both mechanisms may be essential in disease pathogenesis, and that innate immune cells may possess adaptive properties that may lead to worsening of inflammation of the skin and joints.

Recent findings help dermatologists and rheumatologists to better understand the pathogenesis of PsA and may lead to more targeted and personalized therapies, Christopher Ritchlin, MD, MPH, who’s led research into the pathogenesis of inflammatory diseases, reported at the NYU Langone Advanced Seminar in Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

Psoriasis and PsA, along with ankylosing spondylitis and Crohn’s disease, have been thought to be either immune mediated or a classic autoimmune disorder, Ritchlin, a rheumatologist and internist and director of the Clinical Immunology Research Unit at the University of Rochester in New York, said in an interview. “But emerging data reveal that these disorders might be triggered and sustained by both autoimmune and immune-mediated events,” he said.

 

Autoimmunity vs Immune Mediated

Autoimmune diseases are characterized by a specific autoantigen and antibody, such as the anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody seen in rheumatoid arthritis, Ritchlin said. He cited a 2023 literature review from Italy that identified five autoantibodies and polymorphisms in PsA.

“In an immune-mediated disease, we demonstrate profound dysregulation of immune cells that promote inflammation, but we have not identified a specific autoantigen,” he said. “There’s an inflammatory response, which can be very severe, but we don’t know if it’s responding to an autoantigen or it’s just dysregulation of the T cells or the B cells or both.”

In a humanized mouse model developed by Maria Garcia-Hernandez, PhD, in Ritchlin’s lab, researchers found that both immunoglobulins and immune cells are required to recapitulate the skin and joint phenotypes. Ritchlin said that further analyses identified a putative autoantigen, which current experiments now underway are looking to confirm and should help discern distinctions in pathogenesis between a response to an autoantigen or cell dysregulation.

“There may be more than one type of immune inflammatory reaction that’s ongoing in individual tissue, and it may be different from one tissue to another,” Ritchlin said in an interview.

The immune-mediated and autoimmune properties of PsA are important to investigate, Jose U. Scher, MD, director of the Arthritis Clinic and Psoriatic Arthritis Center at NYU Langone Health in New York City, said in an interview.

“Classically considered an autoimmune disease, [PsA] may be better classified as an immune-mediated inflammatory disease,” Scher said. He noted one feature that makes PsA differ from classic autoimmunity is that it does not affect women predominantly.

“The fundamental question is whether there are elements of classic autoimmunity such as B cells that should be integrated into the research for future identification of novel therapeutics,” Scher said.

 

The ‘Additional Mechanism’

The additional mechanism Ritchlin referred to is “this idea of trained immunity,” he said, “where innate immune cells — fibroblasts, monocytes, keratinocytes — that are not considered to have [the] adaptive memory characteristic of T cells and B cells but act in an environment of inflammation and can actually develop sustained altered phenotypes in response to inflammation.”

A 2024 report from Europe outlined four characteristics of trained immunity, Ritchlin said, including that it is “antigen agnostic” and results from long-term reprogramming of cells through epigenetic and metabolic mechanisms. The effects of trained immunity are shorter in duration than that of classical adaptive immunity, he said.

These reprogrammed innate immune cells “retain a form of ‘memory’ after an initial stimulus, which can lead to enhanced or altered responses upon subsequent challenges,” Scher said.

In the context of PsA, Scher said, monocytes that express heightened inflammatory responses driven by metabolic and epigenetic reprogramming can become “trained” by triggers such as infections, cytokines (such as interleukin [IL]–1 beta and IL-17), or damage-associated molecular patterns that have been epigenetically modified to respond at higher rates in a future encounter with exacerbated production of proinflammatory cytokines, persistent inflammation, and flares.

Ritchlin explained how this emerging understanding of the mechanisms driving psoriasis and PsA is driving research into treatments.

“If you know that monocytes are undergoing change — these are innate cells, they’re not antigen driven — but that change is based on some type of pathway that makes the cell more inflammatory, then you can think about trying to block that pathway,” he said.

The goal would be to normalize the cellular environment that’s otherwise becoming activated to create the signs and symptoms of psoriasis and PsA, he said.

The other potential therapeutic target would be T cells, Ritchlin said. “There now are T cells that have been identified that have very specific alpha-beta receptors that are expanded in the peripheral blood, uveal fluid, and joints of HLAB27-positive patients with ankylosing spondylitis and anterior uveitis, which is thought to be immune mediated, not autoimmune.” 

Those HLAB27-positive patients “have expansion of a certain subtype of T cells, they have a specific receptor, and specific autoantigens have been identified pointing to a potential autoimmune response,” Ritchlin added.

An antibody that binds and removes specific T-cell receptor subsets may be an effective strategy without being immunosuppressive, Ritchlin said. “That’s real exciting, and we’re all hoping that is going to be a therapeutic approach that could be successful.”

Ritchlin disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Scher had no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sjögren disease (SjD) presents three distinct phenotypes ― B-cell active with low symptom burden, high systemic activity with high symptom burden, and low systemic activity with high symptom burden; each phenotype has unique cytokine profiles and interferon (IFN) signatures, with elevated cytokine levels for T and B lymphocyte activation in the first two groups and a prominent IFN signature in the B-cell active group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted this study to assess whether three distinct phenotypes of patients with SjD were associated with distinct pathophysiological pathways and IFN signatures.
• They included 395 patients (median age, 53 years; 94% women) from the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution in Sjögren’s Syndrome (ASSESS) cohort who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SjD.
• A panel of biomarkers including IFN alpha-2, IFN gamma, CXCL10, CXCL13, B-cell activating factor, interleukin (IL) 7, FLT3, CCL19, and tumor necrosis factor receptor II (TNF-RII) was compared between the three phenotypes.
• The IFN signature was assessed using whole blood transcriptomic analysis.
• Analysis compared systemic and symptomatic evolution and assessed the risk for new immunosuppressant prescription and lymphoma development across three clusters on the basis of the IFN signature.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of CXCL13, IL-7, and TNF-RII cytokines were found in both the B-cell active and high systemic activity groups than in the low systemic activity group (P < .05 for all).
• The low systemic activity cluster with reduced cytokine levels showed less disease progression, with no instances of lymphoma reported in this group.
• A high IFN signature was found in a higher percentage of patients in the B-cell active group (57%) than in the high systemic activity (48%) and low systemic activity (38%) groups.
• In the B-cell active cluster, this high IFN signature was associated with an increased risk for new immunosuppressant prescription, indicating greater disease progression (hazard ratio, 9.38; P = .0032); also, all cases of lymphoma within this group were found in individuals exhibiting a high IFN signature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrated that our stratification, defined by symptoms, systemic clinical signs, and routine biological data, is based on different pathophysiological pathways, particularly B and T lymphocyte activation and the interferon alpha pathway. The latter could help predict the evolution of the BALS cluster, a biological but minimally symptomatic cluster, to consider closer monitoring and/or early treatments to prevent complications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Bicêtre, Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, and was published online on December 25, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only a few cytokines at the time of inclusion in the ASSESS cohort, which may not have captured the full range of biologic markers relevant to SjD. The evolution of systemic activity defined using the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjogren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index showed no difference according to the IFN signature in the B-cell active with low symptom burden cluster, possibly due to treatments received between annual evaluations.

DISCLOSURES:

The ASSESS cohort is supported by research grants from the French Society of Rheumatology. Some authors reported receiving grants, payments, honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings and having contracts or other ties with pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sjögren disease (SjD) presents three distinct phenotypes ― B-cell active with low symptom burden, high systemic activity with high symptom burden, and low systemic activity with high symptom burden; each phenotype has unique cytokine profiles and interferon (IFN) signatures, with elevated cytokine levels for T and B lymphocyte activation in the first two groups and a prominent IFN signature in the B-cell active group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted this study to assess whether three distinct phenotypes of patients with SjD were associated with distinct pathophysiological pathways and IFN signatures.
• They included 395 patients (median age, 53 years; 94% women) from the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution in Sjögren’s Syndrome (ASSESS) cohort who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SjD.
• A panel of biomarkers including IFN alpha-2, IFN gamma, CXCL10, CXCL13, B-cell activating factor, interleukin (IL) 7, FLT3, CCL19, and tumor necrosis factor receptor II (TNF-RII) was compared between the three phenotypes.
• The IFN signature was assessed using whole blood transcriptomic analysis.
• Analysis compared systemic and symptomatic evolution and assessed the risk for new immunosuppressant prescription and lymphoma development across three clusters on the basis of the IFN signature.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of CXCL13, IL-7, and TNF-RII cytokines were found in both the B-cell active and high systemic activity groups than in the low systemic activity group (P < .05 for all).
• The low systemic activity cluster with reduced cytokine levels showed less disease progression, with no instances of lymphoma reported in this group.
• A high IFN signature was found in a higher percentage of patients in the B-cell active group (57%) than in the high systemic activity (48%) and low systemic activity (38%) groups.
• In the B-cell active cluster, this high IFN signature was associated with an increased risk for new immunosuppressant prescription, indicating greater disease progression (hazard ratio, 9.38; P = .0032); also, all cases of lymphoma within this group were found in individuals exhibiting a high IFN signature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrated that our stratification, defined by symptoms, systemic clinical signs, and routine biological data, is based on different pathophysiological pathways, particularly B and T lymphocyte activation and the interferon alpha pathway. The latter could help predict the evolution of the BALS cluster, a biological but minimally symptomatic cluster, to consider closer monitoring and/or early treatments to prevent complications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Bicêtre, Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, and was published online on December 25, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only a few cytokines at the time of inclusion in the ASSESS cohort, which may not have captured the full range of biologic markers relevant to SjD. The evolution of systemic activity defined using the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjogren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index showed no difference according to the IFN signature in the B-cell active with low symptom burden cluster, possibly due to treatments received between annual evaluations.

DISCLOSURES:

The ASSESS cohort is supported by research grants from the French Society of Rheumatology. Some authors reported receiving grants, payments, honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings and having contracts or other ties with pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Sjögren disease (SjD) presents three distinct phenotypes ― B-cell active with low symptom burden, high systemic activity with high symptom burden, and low systemic activity with high symptom burden; each phenotype has unique cytokine profiles and interferon (IFN) signatures, with elevated cytokine levels for T and B lymphocyte activation in the first two groups and a prominent IFN signature in the B-cell active group.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted this study to assess whether three distinct phenotypes of patients with SjD were associated with distinct pathophysiological pathways and IFN signatures.
• They included 395 patients (median age, 53 years; 94% women) from the Assessment of Systemic Signs and Evolution in Sjögren’s Syndrome (ASSESS) cohort who met the 2002 American-European Consensus Group criteria for SjD.
• A panel of biomarkers including IFN alpha-2, IFN gamma, CXCL10, CXCL13, B-cell activating factor, interleukin (IL) 7, FLT3, CCL19, and tumor necrosis factor receptor II (TNF-RII) was compared between the three phenotypes.
• The IFN signature was assessed using whole blood transcriptomic analysis.
• Analysis compared systemic and symptomatic evolution and assessed the risk for new immunosuppressant prescription and lymphoma development across three clusters on the basis of the IFN signature.

TAKEAWAY:

• Higher levels of CXCL13, IL-7, and TNF-RII cytokines were found in both the B-cell active and high systemic activity groups than in the low systemic activity group (P < .05 for all).
• The low systemic activity cluster with reduced cytokine levels showed less disease progression, with no instances of lymphoma reported in this group.
• A high IFN signature was found in a higher percentage of patients in the B-cell active group (57%) than in the high systemic activity (48%) and low systemic activity (38%) groups.
• In the B-cell active cluster, this high IFN signature was associated with an increased risk for new immunosuppressant prescription, indicating greater disease progression (hazard ratio, 9.38; P = .0032); also, all cases of lymphoma within this group were found in individuals exhibiting a high IFN signature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study demonstrated that our stratification, defined by symptoms, systemic clinical signs, and routine biological data, is based on different pathophysiological pathways, particularly B and T lymphocyte activation and the interferon alpha pathway. The latter could help predict the evolution of the BALS cluster, a biological but minimally symptomatic cluster, to consider closer monitoring and/or early treatments to prevent complications,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Yann Nguyen, MD, PhD, Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Bicêtre, Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris, Université Paris-Saclay, Paris, France, and was published online on December 25, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study evaluated only a few cytokines at the time of inclusion in the ASSESS cohort, which may not have captured the full range of biologic markers relevant to SjD. The evolution of systemic activity defined using the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology Sjogren’s Syndrome Disease Activity Index showed no difference according to the IFN signature in the B-cell active with low symptom burden cluster, possibly due to treatments received between annual evaluations.

DISCLOSURES:

The ASSESS cohort is supported by research grants from the French Society of Rheumatology. Some authors reported receiving grants, payments, honoraria, consulting fees, and support for attending meetings and having contracts or other ties with pharmaceutical companies.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In the second half of the school year, you may find that there is a surge of families coming to appointments with concerns about school performance, wondering if their child has ADHD. We expect you are very familiar with this condition, both diagnosing and treating it. So this month we will offer “mythbusters” for ADHD: Responding to common misperceptions about ADHD with a summary of what the research has demonstrated as emerging facts, what is clearly fiction and what falls into the gray space between.

Demographics

A CDC survey of parents from 2022 indicates that 11.4% of children aged 3-17 have ever been diagnosed with ADHD in the United States. This is more than double the ADHD global prevalence of 5%, suggesting that there is overdiagnosis of this condition in this country. Boys are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed (14.5%) as girls (8%), and White children were more likely to be diagnosed than were Black and Hispanic children. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis decreases as family income increases, and the condition is more frequently diagnosed in 12- to 17-year-olds than in children 11 and younger. The great majority of youth with an ADHD diagnosis (78%) have at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition. Of the children diagnosed with ADHD, slightly over half receive medication treatment (53.6%) whereas nearly a third (30.1%) receive no ADHD-specific treatment.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD Study (MTA), a large (600 children, aged 7-9 years), multicenter, longitudinal study of treatment outcomes for medication as well as behavioral and combination therapies demonstrated in every site that medication alone and combination therapy were significantly superior to intensive behavioral treatment alone and to routine community care in the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Of note, problems commonly associated with ADHD (parent-child conflict, anxiety symptoms, poor academic performance, and limited social skills) improved only with the combination treatment. This suggests that while core ADHD symptoms require medication, associated problems will also require behavioral treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a useful resource guide (healthychildren.org) highlighting the possible symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that should be investigated when considering this diagnosis. It is a clinical diagnosis, but screening instruments (such as the Vanderbilt) can be very helpful to identifying symptoms that should be present in more than one setting (home and school). While a child with ADHD can appear calm and focused when receiving direct one-to-one attention (as during a pediatrician’s appointment), symptoms may flourish in less structured or supervised settings. Sometimes parents are keen reporters of a child’s behaviors, but some loving (and exhausted) parents may overreact to a normal degree of inattention or disobedience. This can be especially true when a parent has a more detail-oriented temperament than the child, or with younger children and first-time parents. It is important to consider ADHD when you hear about social difficulties as well as academic ones, where there is a family history of ADHD or when a child is more impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive than you would expect given their age and developmental stage. Confirm your clinical exam with teacher and parent reports. If the reports don’t line up or there are persistent learning problems in school, consider neuropsychological testing to root out a learning disability.

 

Myth 1: “ADHD never starts in adolescence; you can’t diagnose it after elementary school.”

Diagnostic criteria used to require that symptoms were present before the age of 7 (DSM 3). But current criteria allow for diagnosis before 12 years of age or after. While the consensus is that ADHD is present in childhood, its symptoms are often not apparent. This is because normal development in much younger children is marked by higher levels of activity, distractibility, and impulsivity. Also, children with inattentive-type ADHD may not be apparent to adults if they are performing adequately in school. These youth often do not present for assessment until the challenges of a busy course load make their inattention and consequent inefficiency apparent, in high school or even college. Certainly, when a teenager presents complaining of trouble performing at school, it is critical to rule out an overburdened schedule, anxiety or mood disorder, poor sleep habits or sleep disorder, and substance use disorders, all of which are more common in adolescence. But inattentive-type ADHD that was previously missed is also a possibility worth investigating.

Myth 2: “Most children outgrow ADHD; it’s best to find natural solutions and wait it out.”

Early epidemiological studies suggested that as many as 30% of ADHD cases remitted by adulthood, but more recent data has adjusted that number down substantially, closer to 9%. Interestingly, it appears that 10% of patients will experience sustained symptoms, 9% will experience recovery (sustained remission without treatment), and a large majority will have a remitting and relapsing course into adulthood.¹

This emerging evidence suggests that ADHD is almost always a lifelong condition. Untreated, it can threaten healthy development (including social skills and self-esteem) and day-to-day function (academic, social and athletic performance and even vulnerability to accidents) in ways that can be profound. The MTA Study has powerfully demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment and of specific behavioral treatments for ADHD and associated problems.

 

Myth 3: “You should exhaust natural cures first before trying medications.”

There has been a large amount of research into a variety of “natural” treatments for ADHD: special diets, supplements, increased exercise, and interventions like neurofeedback. While high-dose omega 3 fatty acid supplementation has demonstrated mild improvement in ADHD symptoms, no “natural” treatment has come close to the efficacy of stimulant medications. Interventions such as neurofeedback are expensive and time-consuming without any demonstrated efficacy. That said, improving a child’s routines around sleep, nutrition, and regular exercise are broadly useful strategies to improve any child’s (or adult’s) energy, impulse control, attention, motivation, and capacity to manage adversity and stress. Start any treatment by addressing sleep and exercise, including moderating time spent on screens, to support healthy function. But only medication will achieve symptom remission if your patient has underlying ADHD.

Myth 4: “All medications are equally effective in ADHD.”

It is well-established that stimulants are more effective than non-stimulants in the treatment of ADHD symptoms, with an effect size that is almost double that of non-stimulants.²

Amphetamine-based medications are slightly more effective than methylphenidate-based medications, but they are also generally less well-tolerated. Individual patients commonly have a better response to one class than the other, but you will need a trial to determine which one. It is reasonable to start a patient with an extended formulation of one class, based on your assessment of their vulnerability to side effects or a family history of medication response. Non-stimulants are of use when stimulants are not tolerated (ie, use of atomoxetine with patients who have comorbid anxiety), or to target specific symptoms, such as guanfacine or clonidine for hyperactivity.

 

Myth 5: “You can’t treat ADHD in substance abusing teens, stimulant medications are addictive.”

ADHD itself (not medications) increases the risk for addiction; those with ADHD are almost twice as likely to develop a substance use disorder, with highest risk for marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine abuse.³

This may be a function of limited impulse control or increased sensitivity in the ADHD brain to a drug’s addictive potential. Importantly, there is growing evidence that youth whose ADHD is treated pharmacologically are at lower risk for addiction than their peers with untreated ADHD.⁴

Those youth who have both ADHD and addiction are more likely to stay engaged in treatment for addiction when their ADHD is effectively treated, and there are medication formulations (lisdexamfetamine) that are safe in addiction (cannot be absorbed nasally or intravenously). It is important for you to talk about the heightened vulnerability to addiction with your ADHD patients and their parents, and the value of effective treatment in preventing this complication.

 

Myth 6: “ADHD is usually behavioral. Help parents to set rules, expectations, and limits instead of medicating the problem.”

Bad parenting does not cause ADHD. ADHD is marked by difficulties with impulse control, hyperactivity, and sustaining attention with matters that are not intrinsically engaging. “Behavioral issues” are patterns of behavior children learn to seek rewards or avoid negative consequences. Youth with ADHD can develop behavioral problems, but these are usually driven by negative feedback about their activity level, forgetfulness, or impulse control, which they are not able to change. This can lead to frustration and irritability, poor self-esteem, and even hopelessness — in parents and children both!

While parents are not the source of ADHD symptoms, there is a great deal of parent education and support that can be powerfully effective for these families. Parents benefit from learning strategies that can help their children to shift their attention, plan ahead, and manage frustration, especially for times when their children are unmedicated (vacations and bedtime). It is worth noting that ADHD is among the most heritable of youth psychiatric illnesses, so it is not uncommon for a parent of a child with ADHD to have similar symptoms. If the parents’ ADHD is untreated, they may be more impulsive themselves. They may also be extra sensitive to the qualities they dislike in themselves, inadvertently adding to their children’s sense of shame. ADHD is very treatable, and those with it can learn executive function skills and organizational strategies that can equip them to manage residual symptoms. Parents will benefit from strategies to understand their children and to help them learn adaptive skills in a realistic way. Your discussions with parents could help the families in your practice make adjustments that can translate into big differences in their child’s healthiest development.

Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Sibley MH et al. MTA Cooperative Group. Variable Patterns of Remission From ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;179(2):142-151. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21010032.

2. Cortese S et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Medications for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5(9):727-738. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.

3. Lee SS et al. Prospective Association of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use and Abuse/Dependence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):328-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. 

4. Chorniy A, Kitashima L. Sex, Drugs, and ADHD: The Effects of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment on Teens’ Risky Behaviors. Labour Economics. 2016;43:87-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.06.014.

In the second half of the school year, you may find that there is a surge of families coming to appointments with concerns about school performance, wondering if their child has ADHD. We expect you are very familiar with this condition, both diagnosing and treating it. So this month we will offer “mythbusters” for ADHD: Responding to common misperceptions about ADHD with a summary of what the research has demonstrated as emerging facts, what is clearly fiction and what falls into the gray space between.

Demographics

A CDC survey of parents from 2022 indicates that 11.4% of children aged 3-17 have ever been diagnosed with ADHD in the United States. This is more than double the ADHD global prevalence of 5%, suggesting that there is overdiagnosis of this condition in this country. Boys are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed (14.5%) as girls (8%), and White children were more likely to be diagnosed than were Black and Hispanic children. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis decreases as family income increases, and the condition is more frequently diagnosed in 12- to 17-year-olds than in children 11 and younger. The great majority of youth with an ADHD diagnosis (78%) have at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition. Of the children diagnosed with ADHD, slightly over half receive medication treatment (53.6%) whereas nearly a third (30.1%) receive no ADHD-specific treatment.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD Study (MTA), a large (600 children, aged 7-9 years), multicenter, longitudinal study of treatment outcomes for medication as well as behavioral and combination therapies demonstrated in every site that medication alone and combination therapy were significantly superior to intensive behavioral treatment alone and to routine community care in the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Of note, problems commonly associated with ADHD (parent-child conflict, anxiety symptoms, poor academic performance, and limited social skills) improved only with the combination treatment. This suggests that while core ADHD symptoms require medication, associated problems will also require behavioral treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a useful resource guide (healthychildren.org) highlighting the possible symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that should be investigated when considering this diagnosis. It is a clinical diagnosis, but screening instruments (such as the Vanderbilt) can be very helpful to identifying symptoms that should be present in more than one setting (home and school). While a child with ADHD can appear calm and focused when receiving direct one-to-one attention (as during a pediatrician’s appointment), symptoms may flourish in less structured or supervised settings. Sometimes parents are keen reporters of a child’s behaviors, but some loving (and exhausted) parents may overreact to a normal degree of inattention or disobedience. This can be especially true when a parent has a more detail-oriented temperament than the child, or with younger children and first-time parents. It is important to consider ADHD when you hear about social difficulties as well as academic ones, where there is a family history of ADHD or when a child is more impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive than you would expect given their age and developmental stage. Confirm your clinical exam with teacher and parent reports. If the reports don’t line up or there are persistent learning problems in school, consider neuropsychological testing to root out a learning disability.

 

Myth 1: “ADHD never starts in adolescence; you can’t diagnose it after elementary school.”

Diagnostic criteria used to require that symptoms were present before the age of 7 (DSM 3). But current criteria allow for diagnosis before 12 years of age or after. While the consensus is that ADHD is present in childhood, its symptoms are often not apparent. This is because normal development in much younger children is marked by higher levels of activity, distractibility, and impulsivity. Also, children with inattentive-type ADHD may not be apparent to adults if they are performing adequately in school. These youth often do not present for assessment until the challenges of a busy course load make their inattention and consequent inefficiency apparent, in high school or even college. Certainly, when a teenager presents complaining of trouble performing at school, it is critical to rule out an overburdened schedule, anxiety or mood disorder, poor sleep habits or sleep disorder, and substance use disorders, all of which are more common in adolescence. But inattentive-type ADHD that was previously missed is also a possibility worth investigating.

Myth 2: “Most children outgrow ADHD; it’s best to find natural solutions and wait it out.”

Early epidemiological studies suggested that as many as 30% of ADHD cases remitted by adulthood, but more recent data has adjusted that number down substantially, closer to 9%. Interestingly, it appears that 10% of patients will experience sustained symptoms, 9% will experience recovery (sustained remission without treatment), and a large majority will have a remitting and relapsing course into adulthood.¹

This emerging evidence suggests that ADHD is almost always a lifelong condition. Untreated, it can threaten healthy development (including social skills and self-esteem) and day-to-day function (academic, social and athletic performance and even vulnerability to accidents) in ways that can be profound. The MTA Study has powerfully demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment and of specific behavioral treatments for ADHD and associated problems.

 

Myth 3: “You should exhaust natural cures first before trying medications.”

There has been a large amount of research into a variety of “natural” treatments for ADHD: special diets, supplements, increased exercise, and interventions like neurofeedback. While high-dose omega 3 fatty acid supplementation has demonstrated mild improvement in ADHD symptoms, no “natural” treatment has come close to the efficacy of stimulant medications. Interventions such as neurofeedback are expensive and time-consuming without any demonstrated efficacy. That said, improving a child’s routines around sleep, nutrition, and regular exercise are broadly useful strategies to improve any child’s (or adult’s) energy, impulse control, attention, motivation, and capacity to manage adversity and stress. Start any treatment by addressing sleep and exercise, including moderating time spent on screens, to support healthy function. But only medication will achieve symptom remission if your patient has underlying ADHD.

Myth 4: “All medications are equally effective in ADHD.”

It is well-established that stimulants are more effective than non-stimulants in the treatment of ADHD symptoms, with an effect size that is almost double that of non-stimulants.²

Amphetamine-based medications are slightly more effective than methylphenidate-based medications, but they are also generally less well-tolerated. Individual patients commonly have a better response to one class than the other, but you will need a trial to determine which one. It is reasonable to start a patient with an extended formulation of one class, based on your assessment of their vulnerability to side effects or a family history of medication response. Non-stimulants are of use when stimulants are not tolerated (ie, use of atomoxetine with patients who have comorbid anxiety), or to target specific symptoms, such as guanfacine or clonidine for hyperactivity.

 

Myth 5: “You can’t treat ADHD in substance abusing teens, stimulant medications are addictive.”

ADHD itself (not medications) increases the risk for addiction; those with ADHD are almost twice as likely to develop a substance use disorder, with highest risk for marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine abuse.³

This may be a function of limited impulse control or increased sensitivity in the ADHD brain to a drug’s addictive potential. Importantly, there is growing evidence that youth whose ADHD is treated pharmacologically are at lower risk for addiction than their peers with untreated ADHD.⁴

Those youth who have both ADHD and addiction are more likely to stay engaged in treatment for addiction when their ADHD is effectively treated, and there are medication formulations (lisdexamfetamine) that are safe in addiction (cannot be absorbed nasally or intravenously). It is important for you to talk about the heightened vulnerability to addiction with your ADHD patients and their parents, and the value of effective treatment in preventing this complication.

 

Myth 6: “ADHD is usually behavioral. Help parents to set rules, expectations, and limits instead of medicating the problem.”

Bad parenting does not cause ADHD. ADHD is marked by difficulties with impulse control, hyperactivity, and sustaining attention with matters that are not intrinsically engaging. “Behavioral issues” are patterns of behavior children learn to seek rewards or avoid negative consequences. Youth with ADHD can develop behavioral problems, but these are usually driven by negative feedback about their activity level, forgetfulness, or impulse control, which they are not able to change. This can lead to frustration and irritability, poor self-esteem, and even hopelessness — in parents and children both!

While parents are not the source of ADHD symptoms, there is a great deal of parent education and support that can be powerfully effective for these families. Parents benefit from learning strategies that can help their children to shift their attention, plan ahead, and manage frustration, especially for times when their children are unmedicated (vacations and bedtime). It is worth noting that ADHD is among the most heritable of youth psychiatric illnesses, so it is not uncommon for a parent of a child with ADHD to have similar symptoms. If the parents’ ADHD is untreated, they may be more impulsive themselves. They may also be extra sensitive to the qualities they dislike in themselves, inadvertently adding to their children’s sense of shame. ADHD is very treatable, and those with it can learn executive function skills and organizational strategies that can equip them to manage residual symptoms. Parents will benefit from strategies to understand their children and to help them learn adaptive skills in a realistic way. Your discussions with parents could help the families in your practice make adjustments that can translate into big differences in their child’s healthiest development.

Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Sibley MH et al. MTA Cooperative Group. Variable Patterns of Remission From ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;179(2):142-151. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21010032.

2. Cortese S et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Medications for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5(9):727-738. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.

3. Lee SS et al. Prospective Association of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use and Abuse/Dependence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):328-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. 

4. Chorniy A, Kitashima L. Sex, Drugs, and ADHD: The Effects of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment on Teens’ Risky Behaviors. Labour Economics. 2016;43:87-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.06.014.

In the second half of the school year, you may find that there is a surge of families coming to appointments with concerns about school performance, wondering if their child has ADHD. We expect you are very familiar with this condition, both diagnosing and treating it. So this month we will offer “mythbusters” for ADHD: Responding to common misperceptions about ADHD with a summary of what the research has demonstrated as emerging facts, what is clearly fiction and what falls into the gray space between.

Demographics

A CDC survey of parents from 2022 indicates that 11.4% of children aged 3-17 have ever been diagnosed with ADHD in the United States. This is more than double the ADHD global prevalence of 5%, suggesting that there is overdiagnosis of this condition in this country. Boys are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed (14.5%) as girls (8%), and White children were more likely to be diagnosed than were Black and Hispanic children. The prevalence of ADHD diagnosis decreases as family income increases, and the condition is more frequently diagnosed in 12- to 17-year-olds than in children 11 and younger. The great majority of youth with an ADHD diagnosis (78%) have at least one co-occurring psychiatric condition. Of the children diagnosed with ADHD, slightly over half receive medication treatment (53.6%) whereas nearly a third (30.1%) receive no ADHD-specific treatment.

The Multimodal Treatment of ADHD Study (MTA), a large (600 children, aged 7-9 years), multicenter, longitudinal study of treatment outcomes for medication as well as behavioral and combination therapies demonstrated in every site that medication alone and combination therapy were significantly superior to intensive behavioral treatment alone and to routine community care in the reduction of ADHD symptoms. Of note, problems commonly associated with ADHD (parent-child conflict, anxiety symptoms, poor academic performance, and limited social skills) improved only with the combination treatment. This suggests that while core ADHD symptoms require medication, associated problems will also require behavioral treatment.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has a useful resource guide (healthychildren.org) highlighting the possible symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that should be investigated when considering this diagnosis. It is a clinical diagnosis, but screening instruments (such as the Vanderbilt) can be very helpful to identifying symptoms that should be present in more than one setting (home and school). While a child with ADHD can appear calm and focused when receiving direct one-to-one attention (as during a pediatrician’s appointment), symptoms may flourish in less structured or supervised settings. Sometimes parents are keen reporters of a child’s behaviors, but some loving (and exhausted) parents may overreact to a normal degree of inattention or disobedience. This can be especially true when a parent has a more detail-oriented temperament than the child, or with younger children and first-time parents. It is important to consider ADHD when you hear about social difficulties as well as academic ones, where there is a family history of ADHD or when a child is more impulsive, hyperactive, or inattentive than you would expect given their age and developmental stage. Confirm your clinical exam with teacher and parent reports. If the reports don’t line up or there are persistent learning problems in school, consider neuropsychological testing to root out a learning disability.

 

Myth 1: “ADHD never starts in adolescence; you can’t diagnose it after elementary school.”

Diagnostic criteria used to require that symptoms were present before the age of 7 (DSM 3). But current criteria allow for diagnosis before 12 years of age or after. While the consensus is that ADHD is present in childhood, its symptoms are often not apparent. This is because normal development in much younger children is marked by higher levels of activity, distractibility, and impulsivity. Also, children with inattentive-type ADHD may not be apparent to adults if they are performing adequately in school. These youth often do not present for assessment until the challenges of a busy course load make their inattention and consequent inefficiency apparent, in high school or even college. Certainly, when a teenager presents complaining of trouble performing at school, it is critical to rule out an overburdened schedule, anxiety or mood disorder, poor sleep habits or sleep disorder, and substance use disorders, all of which are more common in adolescence. But inattentive-type ADHD that was previously missed is also a possibility worth investigating.

Myth 2: “Most children outgrow ADHD; it’s best to find natural solutions and wait it out.”

Early epidemiological studies suggested that as many as 30% of ADHD cases remitted by adulthood, but more recent data has adjusted that number down substantially, closer to 9%. Interestingly, it appears that 10% of patients will experience sustained symptoms, 9% will experience recovery (sustained remission without treatment), and a large majority will have a remitting and relapsing course into adulthood.¹

This emerging evidence suggests that ADHD is almost always a lifelong condition. Untreated, it can threaten healthy development (including social skills and self-esteem) and day-to-day function (academic, social and athletic performance and even vulnerability to accidents) in ways that can be profound. The MTA Study has powerfully demonstrated the efficacy of pharmacological treatment and of specific behavioral treatments for ADHD and associated problems.

 

Myth 3: “You should exhaust natural cures first before trying medications.”

There has been a large amount of research into a variety of “natural” treatments for ADHD: special diets, supplements, increased exercise, and interventions like neurofeedback. While high-dose omega 3 fatty acid supplementation has demonstrated mild improvement in ADHD symptoms, no “natural” treatment has come close to the efficacy of stimulant medications. Interventions such as neurofeedback are expensive and time-consuming without any demonstrated efficacy. That said, improving a child’s routines around sleep, nutrition, and regular exercise are broadly useful strategies to improve any child’s (or adult’s) energy, impulse control, attention, motivation, and capacity to manage adversity and stress. Start any treatment by addressing sleep and exercise, including moderating time spent on screens, to support healthy function. But only medication will achieve symptom remission if your patient has underlying ADHD.

Myth 4: “All medications are equally effective in ADHD.”

It is well-established that stimulants are more effective than non-stimulants in the treatment of ADHD symptoms, with an effect size that is almost double that of non-stimulants.²

Amphetamine-based medications are slightly more effective than methylphenidate-based medications, but they are also generally less well-tolerated. Individual patients commonly have a better response to one class than the other, but you will need a trial to determine which one. It is reasonable to start a patient with an extended formulation of one class, based on your assessment of their vulnerability to side effects or a family history of medication response. Non-stimulants are of use when stimulants are not tolerated (ie, use of atomoxetine with patients who have comorbid anxiety), or to target specific symptoms, such as guanfacine or clonidine for hyperactivity.

 

Myth 5: “You can’t treat ADHD in substance abusing teens, stimulant medications are addictive.”

ADHD itself (not medications) increases the risk for addiction; those with ADHD are almost twice as likely to develop a substance use disorder, with highest risk for marijuana, alcohol, and nicotine abuse.³

This may be a function of limited impulse control or increased sensitivity in the ADHD brain to a drug’s addictive potential. Importantly, there is growing evidence that youth whose ADHD is treated pharmacologically are at lower risk for addiction than their peers with untreated ADHD.⁴

Those youth who have both ADHD and addiction are more likely to stay engaged in treatment for addiction when their ADHD is effectively treated, and there are medication formulations (lisdexamfetamine) that are safe in addiction (cannot be absorbed nasally or intravenously). It is important for you to talk about the heightened vulnerability to addiction with your ADHD patients and their parents, and the value of effective treatment in preventing this complication.

 

Myth 6: “ADHD is usually behavioral. Help parents to set rules, expectations, and limits instead of medicating the problem.”

Bad parenting does not cause ADHD. ADHD is marked by difficulties with impulse control, hyperactivity, and sustaining attention with matters that are not intrinsically engaging. “Behavioral issues” are patterns of behavior children learn to seek rewards or avoid negative consequences. Youth with ADHD can develop behavioral problems, but these are usually driven by negative feedback about their activity level, forgetfulness, or impulse control, which they are not able to change. This can lead to frustration and irritability, poor self-esteem, and even hopelessness — in parents and children both!

While parents are not the source of ADHD symptoms, there is a great deal of parent education and support that can be powerfully effective for these families. Parents benefit from learning strategies that can help their children to shift their attention, plan ahead, and manage frustration, especially for times when their children are unmedicated (vacations and bedtime). It is worth noting that ADHD is among the most heritable of youth psychiatric illnesses, so it is not uncommon for a parent of a child with ADHD to have similar symptoms. If the parents’ ADHD is untreated, they may be more impulsive themselves. They may also be extra sensitive to the qualities they dislike in themselves, inadvertently adding to their children’s sense of shame. ADHD is very treatable, and those with it can learn executive function skills and organizational strategies that can equip them to manage residual symptoms. Parents will benefit from strategies to understand their children and to help them learn adaptive skills in a realistic way. Your discussions with parents could help the families in your practice make adjustments that can translate into big differences in their child’s healthiest development.

Swick is physician in chief at Ohana, Center for Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health, Community Hospital of the Monterey (Calif.) Peninsula. Jellinek is professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston. Email them at [email protected].

References

1. Sibley MH et al. MTA Cooperative Group. Variable Patterns of Remission From ADHD in the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD. Am J Psychiatry. 2022 Feb;179(2):142-151. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21010032.

2. Cortese S et al. Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Medications for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Children, Adolescents, and Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2018 Sep;5(9):727-738. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4.

3. Lee SS et al. Prospective Association of Childhood Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Substance Use and Abuse/Dependence: A Meta-Analytic Review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Apr;31(3):328-41. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.006. 

4. Chorniy A, Kitashima L. Sex, Drugs, and ADHD: The Effects of ADHD Pharmacological Treatment on Teens’ Risky Behaviors. Labour Economics. 2016;43:87-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.06.014.

TOPLINE:

Children with congenital cataract in one eye are more likely to achieve nearly normal vision when their caregivers maintain consistent daily patching schedules in the first year after surgery, particularly in the morning or at regular times every day.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study to examine the association between the reported consistency in patching during the first year after unilateral cataract surgery and visual acuity.
• They included data from 101 children whose caregivers completed 7-day patching diaries at 2 months after surgery or at age 13 months.
• The treatment protocol required caregivers to have their child wear a patch over the fellow eye for 1 hour daily from the second week after cataract surgery until age 8 months, followed by patching for 50% of waking hours until age 5 years.
• Consistent patching was defined as daily patching with an average start time before 9 AM or an interquartile range of the first application time of 60 minutes or less.
• Visual acuity in the treated eye was the primary outcome, assessed at ages 54 + 1 months and 10.5 years; participants with a visual acuity of 20/40 or better were said to have near-normal vision.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children whose caregivers reported consistent patching patterns demonstrated better average visual acuity at age 54 months than those whose caregivers reported inconsistent patching patterns (mean difference in logMAR visual acuity, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87); the results were promising for children aged 10.5 years, as well.
• Data from the diary completed at age 13 months showed children whose caregivers reported patching before 9 AM or around the same time daily were more likely to achieve near-normal vision at age 54 + 1 months and 10.5 years (relative risk, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.61-7.80, and 2.31; 95% CI, 1.12-4.78, respectively) than those whose caregivers did not report such behavior.
• Children whose caregivers reported consistent vs inconsistent patching patterns achieved more average daily hours of patching both during the first year (4.82 h vs 3.50 h) and between ages 12 and 48 months (4.96 h vs 3.03 h).

IN PRACTICE:

“This information can be used by healthcare providers to motivate caregivers to develop consistent patching habits. Further, providers can present caregivers with simple advice: Apply the patch every day either first thing in the morning or about the same time every day,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carolyn Drews-Botsch, PhD, MPH, of the Department of Global and Community Health at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia. It was published online in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The diaries covered only 14 days of the first year following surgery, which may not have fully represented patching patterns during other periods. The researchers noted that establishing a routine for patching was particularly challenging for infants aged less than 5 months at the time of the first diary completion as these infants may not yet have established regular sleep and feeding routines. Parents who participated in this trial may have differed from those in routine practice, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to general clinical populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the following grants: 1 R21 EY032152, 2 UG1 EY031287, 5 U10 EY013287, 5 UG1 EY02553, and 7 UG1 EY013272. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Children with congenital cataract in one eye are more likely to achieve nearly normal vision when their caregivers maintain consistent daily patching schedules in the first year after surgery, particularly in the morning or at regular times every day.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study to examine the association between the reported consistency in patching during the first year after unilateral cataract surgery and visual acuity.
• They included data from 101 children whose caregivers completed 7-day patching diaries at 2 months after surgery or at age 13 months.
• The treatment protocol required caregivers to have their child wear a patch over the fellow eye for 1 hour daily from the second week after cataract surgery until age 8 months, followed by patching for 50% of waking hours until age 5 years.
• Consistent patching was defined as daily patching with an average start time before 9 AM or an interquartile range of the first application time of 60 minutes or less.
• Visual acuity in the treated eye was the primary outcome, assessed at ages 54 + 1 months and 10.5 years; participants with a visual acuity of 20/40 or better were said to have near-normal vision.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children whose caregivers reported consistent patching patterns demonstrated better average visual acuity at age 54 months than those whose caregivers reported inconsistent patching patterns (mean difference in logMAR visual acuity, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87); the results were promising for children aged 10.5 years, as well.
• Data from the diary completed at age 13 months showed children whose caregivers reported patching before 9 AM or around the same time daily were more likely to achieve near-normal vision at age 54 + 1 months and 10.5 years (relative risk, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.61-7.80, and 2.31; 95% CI, 1.12-4.78, respectively) than those whose caregivers did not report such behavior.
• Children whose caregivers reported consistent vs inconsistent patching patterns achieved more average daily hours of patching both during the first year (4.82 h vs 3.50 h) and between ages 12 and 48 months (4.96 h vs 3.03 h).

IN PRACTICE:

“This information can be used by healthcare providers to motivate caregivers to develop consistent patching habits. Further, providers can present caregivers with simple advice: Apply the patch every day either first thing in the morning or about the same time every day,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carolyn Drews-Botsch, PhD, MPH, of the Department of Global and Community Health at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia. It was published online in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The diaries covered only 14 days of the first year following surgery, which may not have fully represented patching patterns during other periods. The researchers noted that establishing a routine for patching was particularly challenging for infants aged less than 5 months at the time of the first diary completion as these infants may not yet have established regular sleep and feeding routines. Parents who participated in this trial may have differed from those in routine practice, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to general clinical populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the following grants: 1 R21 EY032152, 2 UG1 EY031287, 5 U10 EY013287, 5 UG1 EY02553, and 7 UG1 EY013272. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Children with congenital cataract in one eye are more likely to achieve nearly normal vision when their caregivers maintain consistent daily patching schedules in the first year after surgery, particularly in the morning or at regular times every day.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the Infant Aphakia Treatment Study to examine the association between the reported consistency in patching during the first year after unilateral cataract surgery and visual acuity.
• They included data from 101 children whose caregivers completed 7-day patching diaries at 2 months after surgery or at age 13 months.
• The treatment protocol required caregivers to have their child wear a patch over the fellow eye for 1 hour daily from the second week after cataract surgery until age 8 months, followed by patching for 50% of waking hours until age 5 years.
• Consistent patching was defined as daily patching with an average start time before 9 AM or an interquartile range of the first application time of 60 minutes or less.
• Visual acuity in the treated eye was the primary outcome, assessed at ages 54 + 1 months and 10.5 years; participants with a visual acuity of 20/40 or better were said to have near-normal vision.

TAKEAWAY:

• Children whose caregivers reported consistent patching patterns demonstrated better average visual acuity at age 54 months than those whose caregivers reported inconsistent patching patterns (mean difference in logMAR visual acuity, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.22-0.87); the results were promising for children aged 10.5 years, as well.
• Data from the diary completed at age 13 months showed children whose caregivers reported patching before 9 AM or around the same time daily were more likely to achieve near-normal vision at age 54 + 1 months and 10.5 years (relative risk, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.61-7.80, and 2.31; 95% CI, 1.12-4.78, respectively) than those whose caregivers did not report such behavior.
• Children whose caregivers reported consistent vs inconsistent patching patterns achieved more average daily hours of patching both during the first year (4.82 h vs 3.50 h) and between ages 12 and 48 months (4.96 h vs 3.03 h).

IN PRACTICE:

“This information can be used by healthcare providers to motivate caregivers to develop consistent patching habits. Further, providers can present caregivers with simple advice: Apply the patch every day either first thing in the morning or about the same time every day,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carolyn Drews-Botsch, PhD, MPH, of the Department of Global and Community Health at George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia. It was published online in Ophthalmology.

LIMITATIONS:

The diaries covered only 14 days of the first year following surgery, which may not have fully represented patching patterns during other periods. The researchers noted that establishing a routine for patching was particularly challenging for infants aged less than 5 months at the time of the first diary completion as these infants may not yet have established regular sleep and feeding routines. Parents who participated in this trial may have differed from those in routine practice, potentially affecting the generalizability of the findings to general clinical populations.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the following grants: 1 R21 EY032152, 2 UG1 EY031287, 5 U10 EY013287, 5 UG1 EY02553, and 7 UG1 EY013272. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For millennia in medicine, alcohol, particularly red wine, carried a health halo; in small doses, it has historically been thought to have cardioprotective benefits. Michael Farkouh, MD, a professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai, estimates half the physicians still accept people having a drink or two a day. “That is still in practice, though the numbers are reducing,” he said.

But Farkouh no longer drinks alcohol, a position he has come to after getting more involved in research into the substance and his realization that many of the studies touting alcohol’s health benefits were flawed.

Today, alcohol sits alongside asbestos and tobacco as class 1 carcinogens. According to the World Health Organization, it has no known safe ingestible amount. In 2018, a blockbuster report in The Lancet found no amount of any kind of alcohol improves health. In early January, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels.

But the way doctors drink is far from black and white. For physicians, drinking habits are tied up in personal values, professional understanding of a substance with a confusing research history, and the fact alcohol is deeply ingrained in the social fabric of society — and in medicine. As thinking on alcohol shifts, this news organization spoke with physicians about their own drinking habits, how they counsel patients on it, and alcohol’s place in a field that works to keep people healthy.

 

Cultural Currency

From the days of Hippocrates, who believed alcohol could cure virtually every ailment, alcohol has held a large role in medicine. Through much of the 19th century, patent remedies like Hamlin’s Wizard Oil and the Seven Sutherland Sisters Hair Grower, contained alcohol — sometimes in concentrations exceeding 50%.

The first American Pharmacopoeia, published in 1820, even contained nine wine-based medicines. Throughout the second half of the 19th century, physicians largely debated alcohol’s role in medicine. However, a 1922 poll of members of the American Medical Association found that physicians were still using alcohol as a medicine for everything from heart attacks to animal bites.

Today, alcohol’s presence in medicine is, in some ways, representative of a realized cognitive dissonance.

“In my mind, alcohol has completely lost any illusion of benefit. It is a poison to almost every single organ in our body. Yet I’m currently engaged in a duel of being a physician who drinks in moderation and constantly judging myself for it,” said Tyra Fainstad, MD, an internist and an associate professor at CU Medicine in Denver.

Fainstad said every academic national conference she has attended has had a reception with multiple cash bars — and professional recruitment dinners regularly include at least the offering of alcohol. Private hospitals often have open bars at events.

“Drinking has historically been a way that people unwind, even in medicine,” said addiction psychiatrist Alexis Ritvo, MD. Ritvo — who said she drinks occasionally but much less than she used to after paying attention to how alcohol makes her feel and the harm alcohol can cause — noted that some occasions where alcohol is present socially in medicine don’t bother her. Alcohol is even an option at the addiction psychiatry conference, where attendees can exchange tickets for drinks. But last year, the event provided separate bars for alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks.

“Our life is full of things that are contradictory or at odds,” Ritvo said. “We want things to either be wrong or right, appropriate or inappropriate, but just like all things, everything’s pretty nuanced.”

But there are examples of alcohol being a part of an event that are downright inappropriate, such as when she attended a fundraiser for a recovery facility that had an open bar.

Farkouh said alcohol at events can exclude others. (He recommends that instead of calling a social gathering “going out for drinks,” someone might say, “We’re getting together.”) He drinks mocktails or nonalcoholic beer at work events where alcohol is served.

Brian Dwinnell, MD, associate dean of student life at CU Medicine, said alcohol can quickly become the focus of an event — something he noticed at an annual kickball game between first- and second-year students that has historically served beer.

In recent years, school leadership has removed alcohol from his institution’s match day celebration and the kickball game. “Initially, there was some pushback from students,” he said of making these events dry, “but now, it’s just sort of accepted, and the events have been just as great as they were when we did provide alcohol.”

 

How Doctors Drink

Physicians may have a greater understanding of alcohol’s health harms. Still, they don’t necessarily drink less because of it, and whether they should becomes a question not just of health but also of the standards to which society holds medical professionals.

Data suggest physicians tend to drink at rates similar to those among the general population. A recent Medscape Medical News survey found nearly 60% of physicians have started drinking less.

Dwinnell said he is a long-time “wine connoisseur” and drinks on occasion. But he admitted that while he thinks about the health implications of alcohol more — and he has nixed it from various events for medical students — he does not believe his drinking habits have changed much.

Navya Mysore, MD, a family physician in New York City, said she has become interested in wine over the past few years, even taking classes to learn more about it. “I like understanding how it’s made, the regions it’s from, and how to pair it with food,” she said. Mysore admits she drank a little more than usual throughout the pandemic, yet today, she said her relationship with alcohol in moderation is related to family, community, and connection.

Fainstad, who drinks socially, said: “I think there’s an immeasurable quality to the social ritual of it. I think for better or worse — probably for worse — for many generations, alcohol has been a part of many meaningful traditions and rituals that we hold.”

Farkouh was quick to underscore the importance of social connection, and that alcohol reduces stress for some people. “I don’t want to take that away from people,” he said. But he also stated the importance of finding other ways to find social fulfillment and enjoyment — and said it’s essential for societal norms to shift to reflect this.

With emerging data, alcohol’s image in society is shifting. Ireland recently became the first country to pass regulation requiring all alcohol sold there to come with a cancer warning. All the clinicians interviewed for this article spoke about the increased acceptability of choosing not to drink for whatever reason.

In the context of alcohol, Dwinnell often asks his students, “What if you were out at a restaurant and you saw your mother’s surgeon there and they were intoxicated? Are you going to feel comfortable with that individual operating on your mother tomorrow or any time?” He added: “Physicians are held to a higher professional standard than those in other fields — and they should be. This is a high-stakes business.”

Dwinnell’s hypothetical question to students is a good one, albeit perhaps not always a fair one. “It’s important for people to realize that physicians are humans,” Mysore said. “We are people, we have lives, and we may choose to have habits that are not necessarily the healthiest for us.”

Fainstad said there’s no shame in medical professionals drinking on occasion. “You can’t be held accountable for something you don’t know about,” she said, acknowledging the known harms of alcohol and that there is still more to learn. But she does wonder how doctors who drank might be perceived in years to come. “I can imagine in a couple of decades, people could say, ‘Even doctors used to have a glass of wine with dinner.’”

 

‘Physicians Should Tighten Their Stances on Alcohol’

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines suggest limiting intake to two alcoholic drinks or less daily for men and one drink or less for women or to choose not to drink. Farkouh said he skews toward the latter, encouraging patients to drink as little as possible or nothing at all. “If you take a holistic approach, physicians should tighten their stances on alcohol,” he said.

Ultimately, he said a randomized trial is warranted to address the risk for cardiovascular disease, in particular.

Of course, physicians vary in how they discuss the topic with patients.

Mysore said she regularly educates patients about pour size and ways to swap out alcoholic drinks with nonalcoholic ones. Outside of cases of addiction, she favors the idea of moderation. “I don’t really subscribe to all-or-nothing mindsets. If there’s something that you enjoy having as a part of your life, I don’t think there’s any reason why you need to eliminate it,” she said. “You just need to figure out what moderation looks like for you.”

Ritvo favors motivational interviewing and tries to understand someone’s relationship with alcohol.

Fainstad provides the Dietary Guidelines’ cutoffs to patients and educates them on the poisonous nature of the substance.

Clearer guidance from large governing bodies — potential changes around alcohol in the 2025-230 revision of the US Dietary Guidelines or cancer warnings on booze sold in the United States — are coming and could help streamline messaging.

And although he speaks with urgency about alcohol’s dangers, Farkouh emphasized the need for a judgment-free and patient-centered approach to conversations around drinking: “People have grown up with alcohol being acceptable, and it’s going to take time to change that.”

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

For millennia in medicine, alcohol, particularly red wine, carried a health halo; in small doses, it has historically been thought to have cardioprotective benefits. Michael Farkouh, MD, a professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai, estimates half the physicians still accept people having a drink or two a day. “That is still in practice, though the numbers are reducing,” he said.

But Farkouh no longer drinks alcohol, a position he has come to after getting more involved in research into the substance and his realization that many of the studies touting alcohol’s health benefits were flawed.

Today, alcohol sits alongside asbestos and tobacco as class 1 carcinogens. According to the World Health Organization, it has no known safe ingestible amount. In 2018, a blockbuster report in The Lancet found no amount of any kind of alcohol improves health. In early January, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels.

But the way doctors drink is far from black and white. For physicians, drinking habits are tied up in personal values, professional understanding of a substance with a confusing research history, and the fact alcohol is deeply ingrained in the social fabric of society — and in medicine. As thinking on alcohol shifts, this news organization spoke with physicians about their own drinking habits, how they counsel patients on it, and alcohol’s place in a field that works to keep people healthy.

 

Cultural Currency

From the days of Hippocrates, who believed alcohol could cure virtually every ailment, alcohol has held a large role in medicine. Through much of the 19th century, patent remedies like Hamlin’s Wizard Oil and the Seven Sutherland Sisters Hair Grower, contained alcohol — sometimes in concentrations exceeding 50%.

The first American Pharmacopoeia, published in 1820, even contained nine wine-based medicines. Throughout the second half of the 19th century, physicians largely debated alcohol’s role in medicine. However, a 1922 poll of members of the American Medical Association found that physicians were still using alcohol as a medicine for everything from heart attacks to animal bites.

Today, alcohol’s presence in medicine is, in some ways, representative of a realized cognitive dissonance.

“In my mind, alcohol has completely lost any illusion of benefit. It is a poison to almost every single organ in our body. Yet I’m currently engaged in a duel of being a physician who drinks in moderation and constantly judging myself for it,” said Tyra Fainstad, MD, an internist and an associate professor at CU Medicine in Denver.

Fainstad said every academic national conference she has attended has had a reception with multiple cash bars — and professional recruitment dinners regularly include at least the offering of alcohol. Private hospitals often have open bars at events.

“Drinking has historically been a way that people unwind, even in medicine,” said addiction psychiatrist Alexis Ritvo, MD. Ritvo — who said she drinks occasionally but much less than she used to after paying attention to how alcohol makes her feel and the harm alcohol can cause — noted that some occasions where alcohol is present socially in medicine don’t bother her. Alcohol is even an option at the addiction psychiatry conference, where attendees can exchange tickets for drinks. But last year, the event provided separate bars for alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks.

“Our life is full of things that are contradictory or at odds,” Ritvo said. “We want things to either be wrong or right, appropriate or inappropriate, but just like all things, everything’s pretty nuanced.”

But there are examples of alcohol being a part of an event that are downright inappropriate, such as when she attended a fundraiser for a recovery facility that had an open bar.

Farkouh said alcohol at events can exclude others. (He recommends that instead of calling a social gathering “going out for drinks,” someone might say, “We’re getting together.”) He drinks mocktails or nonalcoholic beer at work events where alcohol is served.

Brian Dwinnell, MD, associate dean of student life at CU Medicine, said alcohol can quickly become the focus of an event — something he noticed at an annual kickball game between first- and second-year students that has historically served beer.

In recent years, school leadership has removed alcohol from his institution’s match day celebration and the kickball game. “Initially, there was some pushback from students,” he said of making these events dry, “but now, it’s just sort of accepted, and the events have been just as great as they were when we did provide alcohol.”

 

How Doctors Drink

Physicians may have a greater understanding of alcohol’s health harms. Still, they don’t necessarily drink less because of it, and whether they should becomes a question not just of health but also of the standards to which society holds medical professionals.

Data suggest physicians tend to drink at rates similar to those among the general population. A recent Medscape Medical News survey found nearly 60% of physicians have started drinking less.

Dwinnell said he is a long-time “wine connoisseur” and drinks on occasion. But he admitted that while he thinks about the health implications of alcohol more — and he has nixed it from various events for medical students — he does not believe his drinking habits have changed much.

Navya Mysore, MD, a family physician in New York City, said she has become interested in wine over the past few years, even taking classes to learn more about it. “I like understanding how it’s made, the regions it’s from, and how to pair it with food,” she said. Mysore admits she drank a little more than usual throughout the pandemic, yet today, she said her relationship with alcohol in moderation is related to family, community, and connection.

Fainstad, who drinks socially, said: “I think there’s an immeasurable quality to the social ritual of it. I think for better or worse — probably for worse — for many generations, alcohol has been a part of many meaningful traditions and rituals that we hold.”

Farkouh was quick to underscore the importance of social connection, and that alcohol reduces stress for some people. “I don’t want to take that away from people,” he said. But he also stated the importance of finding other ways to find social fulfillment and enjoyment — and said it’s essential for societal norms to shift to reflect this.

With emerging data, alcohol’s image in society is shifting. Ireland recently became the first country to pass regulation requiring all alcohol sold there to come with a cancer warning. All the clinicians interviewed for this article spoke about the increased acceptability of choosing not to drink for whatever reason.

In the context of alcohol, Dwinnell often asks his students, “What if you were out at a restaurant and you saw your mother’s surgeon there and they were intoxicated? Are you going to feel comfortable with that individual operating on your mother tomorrow or any time?” He added: “Physicians are held to a higher professional standard than those in other fields — and they should be. This is a high-stakes business.”

Dwinnell’s hypothetical question to students is a good one, albeit perhaps not always a fair one. “It’s important for people to realize that physicians are humans,” Mysore said. “We are people, we have lives, and we may choose to have habits that are not necessarily the healthiest for us.”

Fainstad said there’s no shame in medical professionals drinking on occasion. “You can’t be held accountable for something you don’t know about,” she said, acknowledging the known harms of alcohol and that there is still more to learn. But she does wonder how doctors who drank might be perceived in years to come. “I can imagine in a couple of decades, people could say, ‘Even doctors used to have a glass of wine with dinner.’”

 

‘Physicians Should Tighten Their Stances on Alcohol’

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines suggest limiting intake to two alcoholic drinks or less daily for men and one drink or less for women or to choose not to drink. Farkouh said he skews toward the latter, encouraging patients to drink as little as possible or nothing at all. “If you take a holistic approach, physicians should tighten their stances on alcohol,” he said.

Ultimately, he said a randomized trial is warranted to address the risk for cardiovascular disease, in particular.

Of course, physicians vary in how they discuss the topic with patients.

Mysore said she regularly educates patients about pour size and ways to swap out alcoholic drinks with nonalcoholic ones. Outside of cases of addiction, she favors the idea of moderation. “I don’t really subscribe to all-or-nothing mindsets. If there’s something that you enjoy having as a part of your life, I don’t think there’s any reason why you need to eliminate it,” she said. “You just need to figure out what moderation looks like for you.”

Ritvo favors motivational interviewing and tries to understand someone’s relationship with alcohol.

Fainstad provides the Dietary Guidelines’ cutoffs to patients and educates them on the poisonous nature of the substance.

Clearer guidance from large governing bodies — potential changes around alcohol in the 2025-230 revision of the US Dietary Guidelines or cancer warnings on booze sold in the United States — are coming and could help streamline messaging.

And although he speaks with urgency about alcohol’s dangers, Farkouh emphasized the need for a judgment-free and patient-centered approach to conversations around drinking: “People have grown up with alcohol being acceptable, and it’s going to take time to change that.”

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

For millennia in medicine, alcohol, particularly red wine, carried a health halo; in small doses, it has historically been thought to have cardioprotective benefits. Michael Farkouh, MD, a professor of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai, estimates half the physicians still accept people having a drink or two a day. “That is still in practice, though the numbers are reducing,” he said.

But Farkouh no longer drinks alcohol, a position he has come to after getting more involved in research into the substance and his realization that many of the studies touting alcohol’s health benefits were flawed.

Today, alcohol sits alongside asbestos and tobacco as class 1 carcinogens. According to the World Health Organization, it has no known safe ingestible amount. In 2018, a blockbuster report in The Lancet found no amount of any kind of alcohol improves health. In early January, US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for adding cancer warnings to alcohol labels.

But the way doctors drink is far from black and white. For physicians, drinking habits are tied up in personal values, professional understanding of a substance with a confusing research history, and the fact alcohol is deeply ingrained in the social fabric of society — and in medicine. As thinking on alcohol shifts, this news organization spoke with physicians about their own drinking habits, how they counsel patients on it, and alcohol’s place in a field that works to keep people healthy.

 

Cultural Currency

From the days of Hippocrates, who believed alcohol could cure virtually every ailment, alcohol has held a large role in medicine. Through much of the 19th century, patent remedies like Hamlin’s Wizard Oil and the Seven Sutherland Sisters Hair Grower, contained alcohol — sometimes in concentrations exceeding 50%.

The first American Pharmacopoeia, published in 1820, even contained nine wine-based medicines. Throughout the second half of the 19th century, physicians largely debated alcohol’s role in medicine. However, a 1922 poll of members of the American Medical Association found that physicians were still using alcohol as a medicine for everything from heart attacks to animal bites.

Today, alcohol’s presence in medicine is, in some ways, representative of a realized cognitive dissonance.

“In my mind, alcohol has completely lost any illusion of benefit. It is a poison to almost every single organ in our body. Yet I’m currently engaged in a duel of being a physician who drinks in moderation and constantly judging myself for it,” said Tyra Fainstad, MD, an internist and an associate professor at CU Medicine in Denver.

Fainstad said every academic national conference she has attended has had a reception with multiple cash bars — and professional recruitment dinners regularly include at least the offering of alcohol. Private hospitals often have open bars at events.

“Drinking has historically been a way that people unwind, even in medicine,” said addiction psychiatrist Alexis Ritvo, MD. Ritvo — who said she drinks occasionally but much less than she used to after paying attention to how alcohol makes her feel and the harm alcohol can cause — noted that some occasions where alcohol is present socially in medicine don’t bother her. Alcohol is even an option at the addiction psychiatry conference, where attendees can exchange tickets for drinks. But last year, the event provided separate bars for alcoholic and nonalcoholic drinks.

“Our life is full of things that are contradictory or at odds,” Ritvo said. “We want things to either be wrong or right, appropriate or inappropriate, but just like all things, everything’s pretty nuanced.”

But there are examples of alcohol being a part of an event that are downright inappropriate, such as when she attended a fundraiser for a recovery facility that had an open bar.

Farkouh said alcohol at events can exclude others. (He recommends that instead of calling a social gathering “going out for drinks,” someone might say, “We’re getting together.”) He drinks mocktails or nonalcoholic beer at work events where alcohol is served.

Brian Dwinnell, MD, associate dean of student life at CU Medicine, said alcohol can quickly become the focus of an event — something he noticed at an annual kickball game between first- and second-year students that has historically served beer.

In recent years, school leadership has removed alcohol from his institution’s match day celebration and the kickball game. “Initially, there was some pushback from students,” he said of making these events dry, “but now, it’s just sort of accepted, and the events have been just as great as they were when we did provide alcohol.”

 

How Doctors Drink

Physicians may have a greater understanding of alcohol’s health harms. Still, they don’t necessarily drink less because of it, and whether they should becomes a question not just of health but also of the standards to which society holds medical professionals.

Data suggest physicians tend to drink at rates similar to those among the general population. A recent Medscape Medical News survey found nearly 60% of physicians have started drinking less.

Dwinnell said he is a long-time “wine connoisseur” and drinks on occasion. But he admitted that while he thinks about the health implications of alcohol more — and he has nixed it from various events for medical students — he does not believe his drinking habits have changed much.

Navya Mysore, MD, a family physician in New York City, said she has become interested in wine over the past few years, even taking classes to learn more about it. “I like understanding how it’s made, the regions it’s from, and how to pair it with food,” she said. Mysore admits she drank a little more than usual throughout the pandemic, yet today, she said her relationship with alcohol in moderation is related to family, community, and connection.

Fainstad, who drinks socially, said: “I think there’s an immeasurable quality to the social ritual of it. I think for better or worse — probably for worse — for many generations, alcohol has been a part of many meaningful traditions and rituals that we hold.”

Farkouh was quick to underscore the importance of social connection, and that alcohol reduces stress for some people. “I don’t want to take that away from people,” he said. But he also stated the importance of finding other ways to find social fulfillment and enjoyment — and said it’s essential for societal norms to shift to reflect this.

With emerging data, alcohol’s image in society is shifting. Ireland recently became the first country to pass regulation requiring all alcohol sold there to come with a cancer warning. All the clinicians interviewed for this article spoke about the increased acceptability of choosing not to drink for whatever reason.

In the context of alcohol, Dwinnell often asks his students, “What if you were out at a restaurant and you saw your mother’s surgeon there and they were intoxicated? Are you going to feel comfortable with that individual operating on your mother tomorrow or any time?” He added: “Physicians are held to a higher professional standard than those in other fields — and they should be. This is a high-stakes business.”

Dwinnell’s hypothetical question to students is a good one, albeit perhaps not always a fair one. “It’s important for people to realize that physicians are humans,” Mysore said. “We are people, we have lives, and we may choose to have habits that are not necessarily the healthiest for us.”

Fainstad said there’s no shame in medical professionals drinking on occasion. “You can’t be held accountable for something you don’t know about,” she said, acknowledging the known harms of alcohol and that there is still more to learn. But she does wonder how doctors who drank might be perceived in years to come. “I can imagine in a couple of decades, people could say, ‘Even doctors used to have a glass of wine with dinner.’”

 

‘Physicians Should Tighten Their Stances on Alcohol’

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines suggest limiting intake to two alcoholic drinks or less daily for men and one drink or less for women or to choose not to drink. Farkouh said he skews toward the latter, encouraging patients to drink as little as possible or nothing at all. “If you take a holistic approach, physicians should tighten their stances on alcohol,” he said.

Ultimately, he said a randomized trial is warranted to address the risk for cardiovascular disease, in particular.

Of course, physicians vary in how they discuss the topic with patients.

Mysore said she regularly educates patients about pour size and ways to swap out alcoholic drinks with nonalcoholic ones. Outside of cases of addiction, she favors the idea of moderation. “I don’t really subscribe to all-or-nothing mindsets. If there’s something that you enjoy having as a part of your life, I don’t think there’s any reason why you need to eliminate it,” she said. “You just need to figure out what moderation looks like for you.”

Ritvo favors motivational interviewing and tries to understand someone’s relationship with alcohol.

Fainstad provides the Dietary Guidelines’ cutoffs to patients and educates them on the poisonous nature of the substance.

Clearer guidance from large governing bodies — potential changes around alcohol in the 2025-230 revision of the US Dietary Guidelines or cancer warnings on booze sold in the United States — are coming and could help streamline messaging.

And although he speaks with urgency about alcohol’s dangers, Farkouh emphasized the need for a judgment-free and patient-centered approach to conversations around drinking: “People have grown up with alcohol being acceptable, and it’s going to take time to change that.”

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

TOPLINE: 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–PET detected metastatic disease in 46% of patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously classified as nonmetastatic by conventional imaging. Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
• A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
• Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
• Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.

TAKEAWAY:

• PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
• Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
• Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
• According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.

DISCLOSURES:

Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–PET detected metastatic disease in 46% of patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously classified as nonmetastatic by conventional imaging. Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
• A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
• Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
• Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.

TAKEAWAY:

• PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
• Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
• Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
• According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.

DISCLOSURES:

Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE: 

Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–PET detected metastatic disease in 46% of patients with high-risk prostate cancer previously classified as nonmetastatic by conventional imaging. Results were positive in 84% of patients, with polymetastatic disease found in 24% of cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Recurrent nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer is characterized by increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels while naive or responsive to androgen deprivation therapy, without evidence of metastasis on conventional imaging.
• A post hoc, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis included 182 patients from four prospective studies conducted from September 2016 to September 2021, with participants having recurrent prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, definitive radiotherapy, or salvage radiotherapy.
• Inclusion criteria encompassed PSA levels > 1.0 ng/mL after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy or > 2.0 ng/mL above nadir after definitive radiotherapy, PSA doubling time ≤ 9 months, and serum testosterone ≥ 150 ng/dL.
• Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, performed Gallium-68-PSMA-11 PET/CT imaging with a median injection of 5.0 mCi and uptake time of 61 minutes, with 98% of patients receiving CT contrast.

TAKEAWAY:

• PSMA-PET findings were positive in 80% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 92% after definitive radiotherapy, 85% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 84% overall (153 of 182 patients).
• Distant metastatic disease was detected in 34% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 56% after definitive radiotherapy, 60% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 46% overall.
• Polymetastatic disease (≥ 5 lesions) was identified in 19% of patients after radical prostatectomy, 36% after definitive radiotherapy, 23% after radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy, and 24% overall.
• According to the authors, these findings suggest that patients’ high-risk nonmetastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancers are understaged by conventional imaging.

IN PRACTICE:

“In a cohort of patients with high-risk hormone-sensitive prostate cancer without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, PSMA-PET results were positive in 84% of patients, detected M1 disease stage in 46% of patients, and found polymetastatic disease in 24% of patients. ... The results challenge the interpretation of previous studies, such as the EMBARK trial, and support the evolving role of PSMA-PET for patient selection in clinical and trial interventions in prostate cancer,” the authors of the new paper wrote. “Further studies are needed to assess its independent prognostic value and use for treatment guidance.”

SOURCE:

This study was led by Adrien Holzgreve, MD, and Wesley R. Armstrong, BS, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles. It was published online on January 3 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The analysis included significantly fewer patients treated with combined radical prostatectomy and salvage radiotherapy than the original EMBARK trial (29% vs 49%). Patients in this study had a lower median PSA doubling time and serum PSA level at enrollment than those in the EMBARK study. The retrospective nature of this study precluded systematic baseline imaging that would be standard for clinical trial enrollment. Additionally, while PSMA-PET offers the best diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer staging, it can produce false-positive findings, particularly in bone metastases, with a positive predictive value of 0.84% in biochemical recurrence.

DISCLOSURES:

Holzgreve reported receiving personal fees from ABX advanced biochemical compounds outside the submitted work. This study was supported by grants from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the Prostate Cancer Foundation, and the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A systematic review of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) finds that, among glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and co-agonists on the market or still being investigated, the experimental drug retatrutide (Eli Lilly) produces the greatest weight loss.

The review, conducted by researchers at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, examined three commercially available medications in the class and nine that have not yet received regulatory approval.

In healthy adults with overweight or obesity who did not have diabetes, the highest mean reductions in relative and absolute body weight were achieved with once-weekly triple glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, followed by the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) and lastly by the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), according to the authors.

The use of all the GLP-1s or co-agonist medications “led to decreased body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, SBP (systolic blood pressure), and DBP (diastolic blood pressure),” wrote the authors in Annals of Internal Medicine. All the medications had a similar safety profile.

The researchers did not find any head-to-head studies, so instead examined the results from 26 RCTs that enrolled more than 15,000 patients. Only trials with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks were included, to ensure that patients had at least a month of a fixed dose.

Not surprisingly, the review found that, except for semaglutide, trials with “dual and triple agonists generally reported numerically greater mean weight losses than single GLP-1 agonists.”

They caution, however, against drawing conclusions about comparative efficacy, as the populations, control groups, and contexts of the various studies might not be directly comparable. All the trial enrollees also received lifestyle modification along with drug therapy or placebo, but the interventions and protocols varied across the studies.

The authors found that individuals on retatrutide (12-mg once-weekly injection) lost 22% of body weight from baseline after 48 weeks. Tirzepatide (15 mg once-weekly injection) recipients lost almost 18% of body weight after 72 weeks, while those on semaglutide (2.4-mg once-weekly injection) lost about 14% after 68 weeks. Both tirzepatide and semaglutide are commercially available.

Patients taking liraglutide (3-mg once-daily injection), also on the market, lost up to 6% of body weight after 26 weeks.

The authors also examined studies of investigational agents and reported that the greatest loss, aside from retatrutide, was with the dual glucagon/GLP-1 agonists survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim; 6%-15%) and mazdutide (Innovent Biologics; 7%-11%).

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly), a once-daily pill, produced weight loss of 9%-15%, depending on the dose.

The study found that four investigational drugs did not produce as much weight loss: Beinaglutide (0.2-mg injection three times daily, 6%), efpeglenatide (4- to 8-mg injection once weekly, about 7%), exenatide (10-mcg injection twice daily, 5-kg change in weight), and noiiglutide (once-daily injection, 9%).

The most common adverse events for all GLP-1s were gastrointestinal (GI), such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Across all agents, 60%-80% of patients taking the medications experienced a GI adverse event, although most were transient, according to the authors. A total of 6%-26% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of a side effect.

The authors said that no serious GI disorders, such as bowel obstruction or gastroparesis, were reported in any of the 26 trials.

The review also shows that it is likely that GLP-1s would have to be used chronically to have the greatest effect, said the authors. They noted that they found that trials “with longer treatment durations demonstrate similar weight loss results to those with shorter follow-up, reinforcing the idea that continuous treatment may be required.”

One coauthor reported receiving payments or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. The study was carried out independently without any grant or other funding.

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

A systematic review of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) finds that, among glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and co-agonists on the market or still being investigated, the experimental drug retatrutide (Eli Lilly) produces the greatest weight loss.

The review, conducted by researchers at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, examined three commercially available medications in the class and nine that have not yet received regulatory approval.

In healthy adults with overweight or obesity who did not have diabetes, the highest mean reductions in relative and absolute body weight were achieved with once-weekly triple glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, followed by the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) and lastly by the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), according to the authors.

The use of all the GLP-1s or co-agonist medications “led to decreased body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, SBP (systolic blood pressure), and DBP (diastolic blood pressure),” wrote the authors in Annals of Internal Medicine. All the medications had a similar safety profile.

The researchers did not find any head-to-head studies, so instead examined the results from 26 RCTs that enrolled more than 15,000 patients. Only trials with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks were included, to ensure that patients had at least a month of a fixed dose.

Not surprisingly, the review found that, except for semaglutide, trials with “dual and triple agonists generally reported numerically greater mean weight losses than single GLP-1 agonists.”

They caution, however, against drawing conclusions about comparative efficacy, as the populations, control groups, and contexts of the various studies might not be directly comparable. All the trial enrollees also received lifestyle modification along with drug therapy or placebo, but the interventions and protocols varied across the studies.

The authors found that individuals on retatrutide (12-mg once-weekly injection) lost 22% of body weight from baseline after 48 weeks. Tirzepatide (15 mg once-weekly injection) recipients lost almost 18% of body weight after 72 weeks, while those on semaglutide (2.4-mg once-weekly injection) lost about 14% after 68 weeks. Both tirzepatide and semaglutide are commercially available.

Patients taking liraglutide (3-mg once-daily injection), also on the market, lost up to 6% of body weight after 26 weeks.

The authors also examined studies of investigational agents and reported that the greatest loss, aside from retatrutide, was with the dual glucagon/GLP-1 agonists survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim; 6%-15%) and mazdutide (Innovent Biologics; 7%-11%).

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly), a once-daily pill, produced weight loss of 9%-15%, depending on the dose.

The study found that four investigational drugs did not produce as much weight loss: Beinaglutide (0.2-mg injection three times daily, 6%), efpeglenatide (4- to 8-mg injection once weekly, about 7%), exenatide (10-mcg injection twice daily, 5-kg change in weight), and noiiglutide (once-daily injection, 9%).

The most common adverse events for all GLP-1s were gastrointestinal (GI), such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Across all agents, 60%-80% of patients taking the medications experienced a GI adverse event, although most were transient, according to the authors. A total of 6%-26% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of a side effect.

The authors said that no serious GI disorders, such as bowel obstruction or gastroparesis, were reported in any of the 26 trials.

The review also shows that it is likely that GLP-1s would have to be used chronically to have the greatest effect, said the authors. They noted that they found that trials “with longer treatment durations demonstrate similar weight loss results to those with shorter follow-up, reinforcing the idea that continuous treatment may be required.”

One coauthor reported receiving payments or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. The study was carried out independently without any grant or other funding.

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

A systematic review of 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) finds that, among glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and co-agonists on the market or still being investigated, the experimental drug retatrutide (Eli Lilly) produces the greatest weight loss.

The review, conducted by researchers at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, examined three commercially available medications in the class and nine that have not yet received regulatory approval.

In healthy adults with overweight or obesity who did not have diabetes, the highest mean reductions in relative and absolute body weight were achieved with once-weekly triple glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist retatrutide, followed by the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide (Eli Lilly) and lastly by the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide (Novo Nordisk), according to the authors.

The use of all the GLP-1s or co-agonist medications “led to decreased body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, SBP (systolic blood pressure), and DBP (diastolic blood pressure),” wrote the authors in Annals of Internal Medicine. All the medications had a similar safety profile.

The researchers did not find any head-to-head studies, so instead examined the results from 26 RCTs that enrolled more than 15,000 patients. Only trials with a treatment duration of at least 16 weeks were included, to ensure that patients had at least a month of a fixed dose.

Not surprisingly, the review found that, except for semaglutide, trials with “dual and triple agonists generally reported numerically greater mean weight losses than single GLP-1 agonists.”

They caution, however, against drawing conclusions about comparative efficacy, as the populations, control groups, and contexts of the various studies might not be directly comparable. All the trial enrollees also received lifestyle modification along with drug therapy or placebo, but the interventions and protocols varied across the studies.

The authors found that individuals on retatrutide (12-mg once-weekly injection) lost 22% of body weight from baseline after 48 weeks. Tirzepatide (15 mg once-weekly injection) recipients lost almost 18% of body weight after 72 weeks, while those on semaglutide (2.4-mg once-weekly injection) lost about 14% after 68 weeks. Both tirzepatide and semaglutide are commercially available.

Patients taking liraglutide (3-mg once-daily injection), also on the market, lost up to 6% of body weight after 26 weeks.

The authors also examined studies of investigational agents and reported that the greatest loss, aside from retatrutide, was with the dual glucagon/GLP-1 agonists survodutide (Boehringer Ingelheim; 6%-15%) and mazdutide (Innovent Biologics; 7%-11%).

Orforglipron (Eli Lilly), a once-daily pill, produced weight loss of 9%-15%, depending on the dose.

The study found that four investigational drugs did not produce as much weight loss: Beinaglutide (0.2-mg injection three times daily, 6%), efpeglenatide (4- to 8-mg injection once weekly, about 7%), exenatide (10-mcg injection twice daily, 5-kg change in weight), and noiiglutide (once-daily injection, 9%).

The most common adverse events for all GLP-1s were gastrointestinal (GI), such as nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and vomiting. Across all agents, 60%-80% of patients taking the medications experienced a GI adverse event, although most were transient, according to the authors. A total of 6%-26% of patients discontinued treatment as a result of a side effect.

The authors said that no serious GI disorders, such as bowel obstruction or gastroparesis, were reported in any of the 26 trials.

The review also shows that it is likely that GLP-1s would have to be used chronically to have the greatest effect, said the authors. They noted that they found that trials “with longer treatment durations demonstrate similar weight loss results to those with shorter follow-up, reinforcing the idea that continuous treatment may be required.”

One coauthor reported receiving payments or honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, and Novo Nordisk. The study was carried out independently without any grant or other funding.

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