News

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are significantly less likely to have vision screening at well visits for 3- to 5-year-olds than are typically developing children, researchers have found.

The report, by Kimberly Hoover, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and colleagues, was published online in Pediatrics.

While 59.9% of children without ASD got vision screening in these visits, only 36.5% of children with ASD got the screening. Both screening rates miss the mark set by American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.

The AAP recommends “annual instrument-based vision screening, if available, at well visits for children starting at age 12 months to 3 years, and direct visual acuity testing beginning at 4 years of age. However, in children with developmental delays, the AAP recommends instrument-based screening, such as photoscreening, as a useful alternative at any age.”
 

Racial, age disparities as well

Racial disparities were evident in the data as well. Of the children who had ASD, Black children had the lowest rates of screening (27.6%), while the rate for White children was 39.7%. The rate for other/multiracial children with ASD was 39.8%.

The lowest rates of screening occurred in the youngest children, at the 3-year visit.

The researchers analyzed data from 63,829 well-child visits between January 2016 and December 2019, collected from the large primary care database PEDSnet.
 

Photoscreening vs. acuity screening

The authors pointed out that children with ASD are less likely to complete a vision test, which can be problematic in a busy primary care office.

“Children with ASD were significantly less likely to have at least one completed vision screening (43.2%) compared with children without ASD (72.1%; P <. 01),” the authors wrote, “with only 6.9% of children with ASD having had two or more vision screenings compared with 22.3% of children without ASD.”

The researchers saw higher vision test completion rates with photoscreening, using a sophisticated camera, compared with acuity screening, which uses a wall chart and requires responses.

Less patient participation is required for photoscreening and it can be done in less than 2 minutes.

If ability to complete the vision tests is a concern, the authors wrote, photoscreening may be a better solution.
 

Photoscreening takes 90 seconds

“Photoscreening has high sensitivity in detecting ocular conditions in children with ASD and has an average screening time of 90 seconds, and [it has] been validated in both children with ASD and developmental delays,” the authors wrote.

Andrew Adesman, MD, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said the authors of this study quantify the gap between need and reality for vision tests for those with ASD.

“Other studies have shown that children on the autism spectrum have more than three times greater risk of having eye disease or vision problems,” he said in an interview. “You’ve got a high-risk population in need of assessment and the likelihood of them getting an assessment is much reduced.”

He said in addition to attention problems in taking the test, vision screening may get lost in the plethora of concerns parents want to talk about in well-child visits.

“If you’re the parent of a child with developmental delays, language delays, poor social engagement, there are a multitude of things the visit could be focused on and it may be that vision screening possibly gets compromised or not done,” Dr. Adesman said.

That, he said, may be a focus area for improving the screening numbers.

Neither parents nor providers should forget that vision screening is important, despite the myriad other issues to address, he said. “They don’t have to take a long time.”

When it comes to vision problems and children, “the earlier they’re identified the better,” Dr. Adesman says, particularly to identify the need for eye muscle surgery or corrective lenses, the two major interventions for strabismus or refractive error.

“If those problems are significant and go untreated, there’s a risk of loss of vision in the affected eye,” he said.
 

Reimbursement concerns for photoscreening

This study strongly supports the use of routine photoscreening to help eliminate the vision screening gap in children with ASD, the authors wrote.

They noted, however, that would require insurance reimbursement for primary care practices to effectively use that screening.

The researchers advised, “Providers treating patients with race, ethnicity, region, or age categories that reduce the adjusted odds of photoscreening can take steps in their practices to address these disparities, particularly in children with ASD.”

The study authors and Dr. Adesman reported no relevant financial relationships.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are significantly less likely to have vision screening at well visits for 3- to 5-year-olds than are typically developing children, researchers have found.

The report, by Kimberly Hoover, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and colleagues, was published online in Pediatrics.

While 59.9% of children without ASD got vision screening in these visits, only 36.5% of children with ASD got the screening. Both screening rates miss the mark set by American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.

The AAP recommends “annual instrument-based vision screening, if available, at well visits for children starting at age 12 months to 3 years, and direct visual acuity testing beginning at 4 years of age. However, in children with developmental delays, the AAP recommends instrument-based screening, such as photoscreening, as a useful alternative at any age.”
 

Racial, age disparities as well

Racial disparities were evident in the data as well. Of the children who had ASD, Black children had the lowest rates of screening (27.6%), while the rate for White children was 39.7%. The rate for other/multiracial children with ASD was 39.8%.

The lowest rates of screening occurred in the youngest children, at the 3-year visit.

The researchers analyzed data from 63,829 well-child visits between January 2016 and December 2019, collected from the large primary care database PEDSnet.
 

Photoscreening vs. acuity screening

The authors pointed out that children with ASD are less likely to complete a vision test, which can be problematic in a busy primary care office.

“Children with ASD were significantly less likely to have at least one completed vision screening (43.2%) compared with children without ASD (72.1%; P <. 01),” the authors wrote, “with only 6.9% of children with ASD having had two or more vision screenings compared with 22.3% of children without ASD.”

The researchers saw higher vision test completion rates with photoscreening, using a sophisticated camera, compared with acuity screening, which uses a wall chart and requires responses.

Less patient participation is required for photoscreening and it can be done in less than 2 minutes.

If ability to complete the vision tests is a concern, the authors wrote, photoscreening may be a better solution.
 

Photoscreening takes 90 seconds

“Photoscreening has high sensitivity in detecting ocular conditions in children with ASD and has an average screening time of 90 seconds, and [it has] been validated in both children with ASD and developmental delays,” the authors wrote.

Andrew Adesman, MD, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said the authors of this study quantify the gap between need and reality for vision tests for those with ASD.

“Other studies have shown that children on the autism spectrum have more than three times greater risk of having eye disease or vision problems,” he said in an interview. “You’ve got a high-risk population in need of assessment and the likelihood of them getting an assessment is much reduced.”

He said in addition to attention problems in taking the test, vision screening may get lost in the plethora of concerns parents want to talk about in well-child visits.

“If you’re the parent of a child with developmental delays, language delays, poor social engagement, there are a multitude of things the visit could be focused on and it may be that vision screening possibly gets compromised or not done,” Dr. Adesman said.

That, he said, may be a focus area for improving the screening numbers.

Neither parents nor providers should forget that vision screening is important, despite the myriad other issues to address, he said. “They don’t have to take a long time.”

When it comes to vision problems and children, “the earlier they’re identified the better,” Dr. Adesman says, particularly to identify the need for eye muscle surgery or corrective lenses, the two major interventions for strabismus or refractive error.

“If those problems are significant and go untreated, there’s a risk of loss of vision in the affected eye,” he said.
 

Reimbursement concerns for photoscreening

This study strongly supports the use of routine photoscreening to help eliminate the vision screening gap in children with ASD, the authors wrote.

They noted, however, that would require insurance reimbursement for primary care practices to effectively use that screening.

The researchers advised, “Providers treating patients with race, ethnicity, region, or age categories that reduce the adjusted odds of photoscreening can take steps in their practices to address these disparities, particularly in children with ASD.”

The study authors and Dr. Adesman reported no relevant financial relationships.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are significantly less likely to have vision screening at well visits for 3- to 5-year-olds than are typically developing children, researchers have found.

The report, by Kimberly Hoover, MD, of Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, and colleagues, was published online in Pediatrics.

While 59.9% of children without ASD got vision screening in these visits, only 36.5% of children with ASD got the screening. Both screening rates miss the mark set by American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.

The AAP recommends “annual instrument-based vision screening, if available, at well visits for children starting at age 12 months to 3 years, and direct visual acuity testing beginning at 4 years of age. However, in children with developmental delays, the AAP recommends instrument-based screening, such as photoscreening, as a useful alternative at any age.”
 

Racial, age disparities as well

Racial disparities were evident in the data as well. Of the children who had ASD, Black children had the lowest rates of screening (27.6%), while the rate for White children was 39.7%. The rate for other/multiracial children with ASD was 39.8%.

The lowest rates of screening occurred in the youngest children, at the 3-year visit.

The researchers analyzed data from 63,829 well-child visits between January 2016 and December 2019, collected from the large primary care database PEDSnet.
 

Photoscreening vs. acuity screening

The authors pointed out that children with ASD are less likely to complete a vision test, which can be problematic in a busy primary care office.

“Children with ASD were significantly less likely to have at least one completed vision screening (43.2%) compared with children without ASD (72.1%; P <. 01),” the authors wrote, “with only 6.9% of children with ASD having had two or more vision screenings compared with 22.3% of children without ASD.”

The researchers saw higher vision test completion rates with photoscreening, using a sophisticated camera, compared with acuity screening, which uses a wall chart and requires responses.

Less patient participation is required for photoscreening and it can be done in less than 2 minutes.

If ability to complete the vision tests is a concern, the authors wrote, photoscreening may be a better solution.
 

Photoscreening takes 90 seconds

“Photoscreening has high sensitivity in detecting ocular conditions in children with ASD and has an average screening time of 90 seconds, and [it has] been validated in both children with ASD and developmental delays,” the authors wrote.

Andrew Adesman, MD, chief of developmental and behavioral pediatrics at Cohen Children’s Medical Center in New Hyde Park, N.Y., said the authors of this study quantify the gap between need and reality for vision tests for those with ASD.

“Other studies have shown that children on the autism spectrum have more than three times greater risk of having eye disease or vision problems,” he said in an interview. “You’ve got a high-risk population in need of assessment and the likelihood of them getting an assessment is much reduced.”

He said in addition to attention problems in taking the test, vision screening may get lost in the plethora of concerns parents want to talk about in well-child visits.

“If you’re the parent of a child with developmental delays, language delays, poor social engagement, there are a multitude of things the visit could be focused on and it may be that vision screening possibly gets compromised or not done,” Dr. Adesman said.

That, he said, may be a focus area for improving the screening numbers.

Neither parents nor providers should forget that vision screening is important, despite the myriad other issues to address, he said. “They don’t have to take a long time.”

When it comes to vision problems and children, “the earlier they’re identified the better,” Dr. Adesman says, particularly to identify the need for eye muscle surgery or corrective lenses, the two major interventions for strabismus or refractive error.

“If those problems are significant and go untreated, there’s a risk of loss of vision in the affected eye,” he said.
 

Reimbursement concerns for photoscreening

This study strongly supports the use of routine photoscreening to help eliminate the vision screening gap in children with ASD, the authors wrote.

They noted, however, that would require insurance reimbursement for primary care practices to effectively use that screening.

The researchers advised, “Providers treating patients with race, ethnicity, region, or age categories that reduce the adjusted odds of photoscreening can take steps in their practices to address these disparities, particularly in children with ASD.”

The study authors and Dr. Adesman reported no relevant financial relationships.

As various surgical procedures become more feasible for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a team of hematologist-oncologists and cardiologists published a new report advising colleagues to carefully consider the risks and benefits of such operations.

In the past decade, as targeted therapies have permitted better management of CLL, a new realm of possibilities has opened up for patients with this blood cancer.

“Previously, patients may not have been candidates for elective surgeries, such as hip replacements,” said hematologist-oncologist Helen Ma, MD, of the University of Irvine (Calif.) and VA Long Beach Healthcare System. She is the lead author of the report, which appeared in the British Journal of Hematology.

“Now that targeted therapies are controlling CLL well, patients may elect to have procedures that they may not have considered if their blood counts were very low or they felt too unwell to go through such invasive surgeries,” said Dr. Ma in an interview. In fact, the study authors noted that, “with currently available treatments, many patients with CLL are living considerably longer than the 1-year life expectancy threshold that proceduralists require.”

But extra surgical risks persist. “Both CLL and its treatment can increase the risk of complications during and after procedures, though available data are not consistently stratified by stage and whether patients are undergoing treatment,” the report authors noted.

Research has linked CLL to higher rates of blood transfusions in cardiac surgeries: One study, conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that 87% of these surgery patients with CLL needed blood products vs. 65% of those who didn’t have CLL (P = .01). Studies didn’t find any extra risk of infections in patients with CLL, however, and there are conflicting findings about whether hospital mortality is higher.

Another study, also conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that patients with CLL who had percutaneous coronary intervention procedures “developed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, any complication, bleeding and postoperative stroke compared to those seen in patients without leukemia.”

The authors of the new report noted that “patients with more advanced stage are at increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events relevant to their disease and invasive procedures.” Patients at more than minimal risk should undergo electrocardiograms prior to cardiac procedures, they wrote. Stress tests, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention may also be warranted.

“To optimize evaluation and perioperative management, we strongly recommend the prospective collaborative inclusion of a multidisciplinary team including hematologists/oncologists, cardiologists (ideally cardio-oncologists), surgeons and anesthetists, as well as their ongoing involvement during the postoperative period,” the authors wrote.

As for medications, the researchers said that “generally, antibody therapy has no impact on surgery.” They added, “There is no evidence to hold treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies prior to procedures unless the patient has cytopenias that may be a contra-indication. If that is the case, we recommend holding until counts recover to the parameters required for the procedure.”

In regard to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, “patients undergoing major surgeries with high risk of bleeding should hold Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for a week prior to surgery to ensure adequate platelet function recovery given the disruption between collagen and platelet aggregation. Medications can be resumed 3-7 days after achieving postoperative hemostasis, depending on the type of surgery and risk of bleeding.”

As for venetoclax, “prior to surgery, patients should receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia, blood transfusions for anemia, and platelet transfusions for thrombocytopenia to maintain procedural parameters.”

In the big picture, study lead author Dr. Ma said, “patients with CLL are doing well on continuous targeted treatments, and if there are otherwise no contraindications, they should be considered for procedures to improve their quality of life.”

In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University surgeon Joe Forrester MD, MSc, who’s familiar with the report findings, said its conclusions are valid. “The nice thing is that a lot of the [CLL] therapies don’t have a lot of surgical side effects. Most should not preclude a patient from going to surgery.”

He advised colleagues to make sure to be open with patients about the heightened surgical risks due to CLL, such when they need emergency procedures. And it’s important to be realistic about whether patients will live long enough to benefit from the rare surgeries – such as weight-loss procedures – that won’t show major benefits for 5-10 years, he said.

The Lymphoma Research Foundation supported the study. Dr. Ma, several coauthors, and Dr. Forrester report no disclosures. One coauthor reports multiple relationships with industry.

As various surgical procedures become more feasible for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a team of hematologist-oncologists and cardiologists published a new report advising colleagues to carefully consider the risks and benefits of such operations.

In the past decade, as targeted therapies have permitted better management of CLL, a new realm of possibilities has opened up for patients with this blood cancer.

“Previously, patients may not have been candidates for elective surgeries, such as hip replacements,” said hematologist-oncologist Helen Ma, MD, of the University of Irvine (Calif.) and VA Long Beach Healthcare System. She is the lead author of the report, which appeared in the British Journal of Hematology.

“Now that targeted therapies are controlling CLL well, patients may elect to have procedures that they may not have considered if their blood counts were very low or they felt too unwell to go through such invasive surgeries,” said Dr. Ma in an interview. In fact, the study authors noted that, “with currently available treatments, many patients with CLL are living considerably longer than the 1-year life expectancy threshold that proceduralists require.”

But extra surgical risks persist. “Both CLL and its treatment can increase the risk of complications during and after procedures, though available data are not consistently stratified by stage and whether patients are undergoing treatment,” the report authors noted.

Research has linked CLL to higher rates of blood transfusions in cardiac surgeries: One study, conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that 87% of these surgery patients with CLL needed blood products vs. 65% of those who didn’t have CLL (P = .01). Studies didn’t find any extra risk of infections in patients with CLL, however, and there are conflicting findings about whether hospital mortality is higher.

Another study, also conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that patients with CLL who had percutaneous coronary intervention procedures “developed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, any complication, bleeding and postoperative stroke compared to those seen in patients without leukemia.”

The authors of the new report noted that “patients with more advanced stage are at increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events relevant to their disease and invasive procedures.” Patients at more than minimal risk should undergo electrocardiograms prior to cardiac procedures, they wrote. Stress tests, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention may also be warranted.

“To optimize evaluation and perioperative management, we strongly recommend the prospective collaborative inclusion of a multidisciplinary team including hematologists/oncologists, cardiologists (ideally cardio-oncologists), surgeons and anesthetists, as well as their ongoing involvement during the postoperative period,” the authors wrote.

As for medications, the researchers said that “generally, antibody therapy has no impact on surgery.” They added, “There is no evidence to hold treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies prior to procedures unless the patient has cytopenias that may be a contra-indication. If that is the case, we recommend holding until counts recover to the parameters required for the procedure.”

In regard to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, “patients undergoing major surgeries with high risk of bleeding should hold Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for a week prior to surgery to ensure adequate platelet function recovery given the disruption between collagen and platelet aggregation. Medications can be resumed 3-7 days after achieving postoperative hemostasis, depending on the type of surgery and risk of bleeding.”

As for venetoclax, “prior to surgery, patients should receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia, blood transfusions for anemia, and platelet transfusions for thrombocytopenia to maintain procedural parameters.”

In the big picture, study lead author Dr. Ma said, “patients with CLL are doing well on continuous targeted treatments, and if there are otherwise no contraindications, they should be considered for procedures to improve their quality of life.”

In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University surgeon Joe Forrester MD, MSc, who’s familiar with the report findings, said its conclusions are valid. “The nice thing is that a lot of the [CLL] therapies don’t have a lot of surgical side effects. Most should not preclude a patient from going to surgery.”

He advised colleagues to make sure to be open with patients about the heightened surgical risks due to CLL, such when they need emergency procedures. And it’s important to be realistic about whether patients will live long enough to benefit from the rare surgeries – such as weight-loss procedures – that won’t show major benefits for 5-10 years, he said.

The Lymphoma Research Foundation supported the study. Dr. Ma, several coauthors, and Dr. Forrester report no disclosures. One coauthor reports multiple relationships with industry.

As various surgical procedures become more feasible for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), a team of hematologist-oncologists and cardiologists published a new report advising colleagues to carefully consider the risks and benefits of such operations.

In the past decade, as targeted therapies have permitted better management of CLL, a new realm of possibilities has opened up for patients with this blood cancer.

“Previously, patients may not have been candidates for elective surgeries, such as hip replacements,” said hematologist-oncologist Helen Ma, MD, of the University of Irvine (Calif.) and VA Long Beach Healthcare System. She is the lead author of the report, which appeared in the British Journal of Hematology.

“Now that targeted therapies are controlling CLL well, patients may elect to have procedures that they may not have considered if their blood counts were very low or they felt too unwell to go through such invasive surgeries,” said Dr. Ma in an interview. In fact, the study authors noted that, “with currently available treatments, many patients with CLL are living considerably longer than the 1-year life expectancy threshold that proceduralists require.”

But extra surgical risks persist. “Both CLL and its treatment can increase the risk of complications during and after procedures, though available data are not consistently stratified by stage and whether patients are undergoing treatment,” the report authors noted.

Research has linked CLL to higher rates of blood transfusions in cardiac surgeries: One study, conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that 87% of these surgery patients with CLL needed blood products vs. 65% of those who didn’t have CLL (P = .01). Studies didn’t find any extra risk of infections in patients with CLL, however, and there are conflicting findings about whether hospital mortality is higher.

Another study, also conducted partially in the era of targeted therapy, found that patients with CLL who had percutaneous coronary intervention procedures “developed higher rates of in-hospital mortality, any complication, bleeding and postoperative stroke compared to those seen in patients without leukemia.”

The authors of the new report noted that “patients with more advanced stage are at increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events relevant to their disease and invasive procedures.” Patients at more than minimal risk should undergo electrocardiograms prior to cardiac procedures, they wrote. Stress tests, coronary angiography, and percutaneous coronary intervention may also be warranted.

“To optimize evaluation and perioperative management, we strongly recommend the prospective collaborative inclusion of a multidisciplinary team including hematologists/oncologists, cardiologists (ideally cardio-oncologists), surgeons and anesthetists, as well as their ongoing involvement during the postoperative period,” the authors wrote.

As for medications, the researchers said that “generally, antibody therapy has no impact on surgery.” They added, “There is no evidence to hold treatment with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies prior to procedures unless the patient has cytopenias that may be a contra-indication. If that is the case, we recommend holding until counts recover to the parameters required for the procedure.”

In regard to Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as ibrutinib, “patients undergoing major surgeries with high risk of bleeding should hold Bruton’s tyrosine kinase inhibitors for a week prior to surgery to ensure adequate platelet function recovery given the disruption between collagen and platelet aggregation. Medications can be resumed 3-7 days after achieving postoperative hemostasis, depending on the type of surgery and risk of bleeding.”

As for venetoclax, “prior to surgery, patients should receive granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for neutropenia, blood transfusions for anemia, and platelet transfusions for thrombocytopenia to maintain procedural parameters.”

In the big picture, study lead author Dr. Ma said, “patients with CLL are doing well on continuous targeted treatments, and if there are otherwise no contraindications, they should be considered for procedures to improve their quality of life.”

In an interview, Stanford (Calif.) University surgeon Joe Forrester MD, MSc, who’s familiar with the report findings, said its conclusions are valid. “The nice thing is that a lot of the [CLL] therapies don’t have a lot of surgical side effects. Most should not preclude a patient from going to surgery.”

He advised colleagues to make sure to be open with patients about the heightened surgical risks due to CLL, such when they need emergency procedures. And it’s important to be realistic about whether patients will live long enough to benefit from the rare surgeries – such as weight-loss procedures – that won’t show major benefits for 5-10 years, he said.

The Lymphoma Research Foundation supported the study. Dr. Ma, several coauthors, and Dr. Forrester report no disclosures. One coauthor reports multiple relationships with industry.

NEW ORLEANS – In two phase 3 trials, bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting two types of interleukin-17 — IL-17A and IL-17F — reduced the abscess and inflammatory nodule count better than placebo in the chronic inflammatory skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), according to results presented together during a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“We are very excited to add this data to what we already have around IL-17 inhibition. This clearly validates this target for the control of HS,” reported lead investigator Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.

Ted Bosworth

The trials, called BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, enrolled 505 and 509 patients with HS, respectively. About 50% of patients in BE HEARD I and 60% of patients in BE HEARD II had Hurley stage 3 disease, which is the most severe of the three stratifications. The remainder were in Hurley stage 2. The mean duration of HS was 8.3 and 7.1 years, respectively.

Patients in both studies were randomized to one of four groups – either to a dosing regimen of 320 mg of bimekizumab administered by subcutaneous injection or to a placebo group. Both trials comprised double-blind 16-week initial and 32-week maintenance treatment periods.

In one experimental group, bimekizumab was given once every 2 weeks for the full course of the 48-week study (Q2W/Q2W). In another, patients started on the every-2-week schedule for 16 weeks and then were switched to every-4-week dosing (Q2W/Q4W). In the third group, patients started and remained on the every-4-week schedule (Q4W/Q4W). Patients in a fourth group started on placebo and switched at 16 weeks to the every-2-week bimekizumab schedule (placebo/Q2W).
 

Results at primary endpoint

The primary endpoint was HiSCR50, signifying a 50% reduction from baseline in abscess and inflammatory nodule count on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) assessment tool. At 16 weeks, the initial Q2W dose in two of the groups outperformed the placebo in both BE HEARD I (47.8% vs. 28.7%) and BE HEARD II (52.0% vs. 32.2%). The response rates in the Q4W arm in BE HEARD I (45.3%) and BE HEARD II (53.8%) were also higher than the placebo, but the difference was only significant in BE HEARD II.

At 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with an HiSCR50 response climbed in all groups in both trials. The patterns were generally the same with slightly higher numerical responses among the groups that received the every-2-week dosing schedule relative to the every-4-week schedule.

In BE HEARD I at 48 weeks, the HiSCR50 response rate was about 60% for those who started and remained on every-2-week bimekizumab (Q2W/Q2W) or were switched at 16 weeks to every-4-week bimekizumab (Q2W/Q4W). For those who started and remained on every-4-week bimekizumab and the group started on placebo and switched to every-2-week bimekizumab, the response rates were 52.7% and 45.3%, respectively.  

In BE HEARD II, the HiSCR50 response rates were higher in all groups, including the placebo, and the patterns of response were similar at 48 weeks. Most patients reached the HiSCR50 response – 79.8% (Q2W/Q2W), 78.4% (Q2W/Q4W), 76.7% (Q4W/Q4W), and 65.9 % (placebo/Q2W) of patients.

It is notable that, although there was rapid increase in the proportion of placebo patients reaching HiSCR50 after the switch at 16 weeks, there appeared to be an advantage at 48 weeks for starting on full-dose bimekizumab over starting on placebo.

In this trial, patients were listed as nonresponders if they received antibiotics at any time and for any reason after randomization. This might have concealed an even greater benefit of bimekizumab, Dr. Kimball said, but the study design element was considered necessary to isolate the activity of the study drug.

“In future HS trials, it will be helpful to address the difficulty of handling the impact of antibiotics and pain medications [in assessing results],” Dr. Kimball said.

Clinically meaningful secondary endpoint

For HS patients, the secondary endpoint of HiSCR75 might be considered the most meaningful, according to Dr. Kimball. She said that this higher bar not only documents a higher level of efficacy but correlates with meaningful improvement in quality of life. In the two trials combined, more than 55% of patients on continuous bimekizumab achieved HiSCR75 at week 48 in the observed case analysis, according to a news release from biopharmaceutical company UCB, developer of bimekizumab.

In BE HEARD I, the HiSCR75 rates were 33.4% and 24.7% for the every-2-week and every-4-week bimekizumab doses, respectively. The 33.4% response was statistically superior to placebo (18.4%). In BE HEARD II, both the every-2-week dose (35.7%) and the every-4-week dose (33.7%) were superior to the 15.6% response in placebo patients.

The improvements in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), reflected the changes in disease activity. Relative to about a 3-point reduction from baseline in the placebo groups of the two trials, the 5-point reduction for either the 2-week or 4-week bimekizumab groups in each clinical trial were highly significant, Dr. Kimball said.

Bimekizumab was relatively well tolerated, although it shares the increased risk for candidiasis observed with this agent when used in psoriasis and with other IL-17 inhibitors, such as secukinumab (Cosentyx), in general. The risk of candidiasis appeared to be dose related, but cases were generally mild and easily managed, according to Dr. Kimball. She noted that only three patients discontinued treatment for this reason. Discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event overall was less than 4% at 16 weeks.

This is only the third phase 3 trial ever completed in patients with HS. In fact, Dr. Kimball has led all of the phase 3 trials so far, including clinical studies of adalimumab (Humira), published in 2016, and of secukinumab, published earlier this year. All were positive studies.

“This is amazing news for our patients,” Dr. Kimball said. HS remains a challenging disease, even with a growing number of options showing benefit in large studies, she said, and the high rate of response, particularly at the level of HiSCR75, “is a huge milestone for what we can achieve.”
 

Multiple treatment options important

Her assessment was echoed by other experts, including Christopher J. Sayed, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who publishes frequently about this disease.

“It is incredibly exciting to see the strong phase 3 data on bimekizumab, particularly the deep responses at the HiSCR75 in a majority of patients after the first year,” he said.

Importantly, he does not see the growing array of treatment options as necessarily competitive for a disease with heterogeneous manifestations and variable responses to any one agent.

“While this may be a major step forward, it will still be critical to see more drugs come along for those who do not respond fully enough or have comorbidities that prevent the use of IL-17 and TNF [tumor necrosis factor] antagonists,” he said.

Bimekizumab is not approved for any indication in the United States; it is approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy in the EU/EEA, where it is marketed as Bimzelx, according to UCB. Dr. Kimball reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Kymera, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sayed reports financial relationships with AbbVie, InflaRx, and UCB.
 

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

NEW ORLEANS – In two phase 3 trials, bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting two types of interleukin-17 — IL-17A and IL-17F — reduced the abscess and inflammatory nodule count better than placebo in the chronic inflammatory skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), according to results presented together during a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“We are very excited to add this data to what we already have around IL-17 inhibition. This clearly validates this target for the control of HS,” reported lead investigator Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.

Ted Bosworth

The trials, called BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, enrolled 505 and 509 patients with HS, respectively. About 50% of patients in BE HEARD I and 60% of patients in BE HEARD II had Hurley stage 3 disease, which is the most severe of the three stratifications. The remainder were in Hurley stage 2. The mean duration of HS was 8.3 and 7.1 years, respectively.

Patients in both studies were randomized to one of four groups – either to a dosing regimen of 320 mg of bimekizumab administered by subcutaneous injection or to a placebo group. Both trials comprised double-blind 16-week initial and 32-week maintenance treatment periods.

In one experimental group, bimekizumab was given once every 2 weeks for the full course of the 48-week study (Q2W/Q2W). In another, patients started on the every-2-week schedule for 16 weeks and then were switched to every-4-week dosing (Q2W/Q4W). In the third group, patients started and remained on the every-4-week schedule (Q4W/Q4W). Patients in a fourth group started on placebo and switched at 16 weeks to the every-2-week bimekizumab schedule (placebo/Q2W).
 

Results at primary endpoint

The primary endpoint was HiSCR50, signifying a 50% reduction from baseline in abscess and inflammatory nodule count on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) assessment tool. At 16 weeks, the initial Q2W dose in two of the groups outperformed the placebo in both BE HEARD I (47.8% vs. 28.7%) and BE HEARD II (52.0% vs. 32.2%). The response rates in the Q4W arm in BE HEARD I (45.3%) and BE HEARD II (53.8%) were also higher than the placebo, but the difference was only significant in BE HEARD II.

At 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with an HiSCR50 response climbed in all groups in both trials. The patterns were generally the same with slightly higher numerical responses among the groups that received the every-2-week dosing schedule relative to the every-4-week schedule.

In BE HEARD I at 48 weeks, the HiSCR50 response rate was about 60% for those who started and remained on every-2-week bimekizumab (Q2W/Q2W) or were switched at 16 weeks to every-4-week bimekizumab (Q2W/Q4W). For those who started and remained on every-4-week bimekizumab and the group started on placebo and switched to every-2-week bimekizumab, the response rates were 52.7% and 45.3%, respectively.  

In BE HEARD II, the HiSCR50 response rates were higher in all groups, including the placebo, and the patterns of response were similar at 48 weeks. Most patients reached the HiSCR50 response – 79.8% (Q2W/Q2W), 78.4% (Q2W/Q4W), 76.7% (Q4W/Q4W), and 65.9 % (placebo/Q2W) of patients.

It is notable that, although there was rapid increase in the proportion of placebo patients reaching HiSCR50 after the switch at 16 weeks, there appeared to be an advantage at 48 weeks for starting on full-dose bimekizumab over starting on placebo.

In this trial, patients were listed as nonresponders if they received antibiotics at any time and for any reason after randomization. This might have concealed an even greater benefit of bimekizumab, Dr. Kimball said, but the study design element was considered necessary to isolate the activity of the study drug.

“In future HS trials, it will be helpful to address the difficulty of handling the impact of antibiotics and pain medications [in assessing results],” Dr. Kimball said.

Clinically meaningful secondary endpoint

For HS patients, the secondary endpoint of HiSCR75 might be considered the most meaningful, according to Dr. Kimball. She said that this higher bar not only documents a higher level of efficacy but correlates with meaningful improvement in quality of life. In the two trials combined, more than 55% of patients on continuous bimekizumab achieved HiSCR75 at week 48 in the observed case analysis, according to a news release from biopharmaceutical company UCB, developer of bimekizumab.

In BE HEARD I, the HiSCR75 rates were 33.4% and 24.7% for the every-2-week and every-4-week bimekizumab doses, respectively. The 33.4% response was statistically superior to placebo (18.4%). In BE HEARD II, both the every-2-week dose (35.7%) and the every-4-week dose (33.7%) were superior to the 15.6% response in placebo patients.

The improvements in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), reflected the changes in disease activity. Relative to about a 3-point reduction from baseline in the placebo groups of the two trials, the 5-point reduction for either the 2-week or 4-week bimekizumab groups in each clinical trial were highly significant, Dr. Kimball said.

Bimekizumab was relatively well tolerated, although it shares the increased risk for candidiasis observed with this agent when used in psoriasis and with other IL-17 inhibitors, such as secukinumab (Cosentyx), in general. The risk of candidiasis appeared to be dose related, but cases were generally mild and easily managed, according to Dr. Kimball. She noted that only three patients discontinued treatment for this reason. Discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event overall was less than 4% at 16 weeks.

This is only the third phase 3 trial ever completed in patients with HS. In fact, Dr. Kimball has led all of the phase 3 trials so far, including clinical studies of adalimumab (Humira), published in 2016, and of secukinumab, published earlier this year. All were positive studies.

“This is amazing news for our patients,” Dr. Kimball said. HS remains a challenging disease, even with a growing number of options showing benefit in large studies, she said, and the high rate of response, particularly at the level of HiSCR75, “is a huge milestone for what we can achieve.”
 

Multiple treatment options important

Her assessment was echoed by other experts, including Christopher J. Sayed, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who publishes frequently about this disease.

“It is incredibly exciting to see the strong phase 3 data on bimekizumab, particularly the deep responses at the HiSCR75 in a majority of patients after the first year,” he said.

Importantly, he does not see the growing array of treatment options as necessarily competitive for a disease with heterogeneous manifestations and variable responses to any one agent.

“While this may be a major step forward, it will still be critical to see more drugs come along for those who do not respond fully enough or have comorbidities that prevent the use of IL-17 and TNF [tumor necrosis factor] antagonists,” he said.

Bimekizumab is not approved for any indication in the United States; it is approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy in the EU/EEA, where it is marketed as Bimzelx, according to UCB. Dr. Kimball reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Kymera, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sayed reports financial relationships with AbbVie, InflaRx, and UCB.
 

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

NEW ORLEANS – In two phase 3 trials, bimekizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting two types of interleukin-17 — IL-17A and IL-17F — reduced the abscess and inflammatory nodule count better than placebo in the chronic inflammatory skin condition hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), according to results presented together during a late-breaker session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“We are very excited to add this data to what we already have around IL-17 inhibition. This clearly validates this target for the control of HS,” reported lead investigator Alexa B. Kimball, MD, MPH, professor of dermatology at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, both in Boston.

Ted Bosworth

The trials, called BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II, enrolled 505 and 509 patients with HS, respectively. About 50% of patients in BE HEARD I and 60% of patients in BE HEARD II had Hurley stage 3 disease, which is the most severe of the three stratifications. The remainder were in Hurley stage 2. The mean duration of HS was 8.3 and 7.1 years, respectively.

Patients in both studies were randomized to one of four groups – either to a dosing regimen of 320 mg of bimekizumab administered by subcutaneous injection or to a placebo group. Both trials comprised double-blind 16-week initial and 32-week maintenance treatment periods.

In one experimental group, bimekizumab was given once every 2 weeks for the full course of the 48-week study (Q2W/Q2W). In another, patients started on the every-2-week schedule for 16 weeks and then were switched to every-4-week dosing (Q2W/Q4W). In the third group, patients started and remained on the every-4-week schedule (Q4W/Q4W). Patients in a fourth group started on placebo and switched at 16 weeks to the every-2-week bimekizumab schedule (placebo/Q2W).
 

Results at primary endpoint

The primary endpoint was HiSCR50, signifying a 50% reduction from baseline in abscess and inflammatory nodule count on the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) assessment tool. At 16 weeks, the initial Q2W dose in two of the groups outperformed the placebo in both BE HEARD I (47.8% vs. 28.7%) and BE HEARD II (52.0% vs. 32.2%). The response rates in the Q4W arm in BE HEARD I (45.3%) and BE HEARD II (53.8%) were also higher than the placebo, but the difference was only significant in BE HEARD II.

At 48 weeks, the proportion of patients with an HiSCR50 response climbed in all groups in both trials. The patterns were generally the same with slightly higher numerical responses among the groups that received the every-2-week dosing schedule relative to the every-4-week schedule.

In BE HEARD I at 48 weeks, the HiSCR50 response rate was about 60% for those who started and remained on every-2-week bimekizumab (Q2W/Q2W) or were switched at 16 weeks to every-4-week bimekizumab (Q2W/Q4W). For those who started and remained on every-4-week bimekizumab and the group started on placebo and switched to every-2-week bimekizumab, the response rates were 52.7% and 45.3%, respectively.  

In BE HEARD II, the HiSCR50 response rates were higher in all groups, including the placebo, and the patterns of response were similar at 48 weeks. Most patients reached the HiSCR50 response – 79.8% (Q2W/Q2W), 78.4% (Q2W/Q4W), 76.7% (Q4W/Q4W), and 65.9 % (placebo/Q2W) of patients.

It is notable that, although there was rapid increase in the proportion of placebo patients reaching HiSCR50 after the switch at 16 weeks, there appeared to be an advantage at 48 weeks for starting on full-dose bimekizumab over starting on placebo.

In this trial, patients were listed as nonresponders if they received antibiotics at any time and for any reason after randomization. This might have concealed an even greater benefit of bimekizumab, Dr. Kimball said, but the study design element was considered necessary to isolate the activity of the study drug.

“In future HS trials, it will be helpful to address the difficulty of handling the impact of antibiotics and pain medications [in assessing results],” Dr. Kimball said.

Clinically meaningful secondary endpoint

For HS patients, the secondary endpoint of HiSCR75 might be considered the most meaningful, according to Dr. Kimball. She said that this higher bar not only documents a higher level of efficacy but correlates with meaningful improvement in quality of life. In the two trials combined, more than 55% of patients on continuous bimekizumab achieved HiSCR75 at week 48 in the observed case analysis, according to a news release from biopharmaceutical company UCB, developer of bimekizumab.

In BE HEARD I, the HiSCR75 rates were 33.4% and 24.7% for the every-2-week and every-4-week bimekizumab doses, respectively. The 33.4% response was statistically superior to placebo (18.4%). In BE HEARD II, both the every-2-week dose (35.7%) and the every-4-week dose (33.7%) were superior to the 15.6% response in placebo patients.

The improvements in quality of life as measured with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), reflected the changes in disease activity. Relative to about a 3-point reduction from baseline in the placebo groups of the two trials, the 5-point reduction for either the 2-week or 4-week bimekizumab groups in each clinical trial were highly significant, Dr. Kimball said.

Bimekizumab was relatively well tolerated, although it shares the increased risk for candidiasis observed with this agent when used in psoriasis and with other IL-17 inhibitors, such as secukinumab (Cosentyx), in general. The risk of candidiasis appeared to be dose related, but cases were generally mild and easily managed, according to Dr. Kimball. She noted that only three patients discontinued treatment for this reason. Discontinuations for a treatment-related adverse event overall was less than 4% at 16 weeks.

This is only the third phase 3 trial ever completed in patients with HS. In fact, Dr. Kimball has led all of the phase 3 trials so far, including clinical studies of adalimumab (Humira), published in 2016, and of secukinumab, published earlier this year. All were positive studies.

“This is amazing news for our patients,” Dr. Kimball said. HS remains a challenging disease, even with a growing number of options showing benefit in large studies, she said, and the high rate of response, particularly at the level of HiSCR75, “is a huge milestone for what we can achieve.”
 

Multiple treatment options important

Her assessment was echoed by other experts, including Christopher J. Sayed, MD, an associate professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who publishes frequently about this disease.

“It is incredibly exciting to see the strong phase 3 data on bimekizumab, particularly the deep responses at the HiSCR75 in a majority of patients after the first year,” he said.

Importantly, he does not see the growing array of treatment options as necessarily competitive for a disease with heterogeneous manifestations and variable responses to any one agent.

“While this may be a major step forward, it will still be critical to see more drugs come along for those who do not respond fully enough or have comorbidities that prevent the use of IL-17 and TNF [tumor necrosis factor] antagonists,” he said.

Bimekizumab is not approved for any indication in the United States; it is approved for treating moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy in the EU/EEA, where it is marketed as Bimzelx, according to UCB. Dr. Kimball reports financial relationships with AbbVie, Janssen, Kymera, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB. Dr. Sayed reports financial relationships with AbbVie, InflaRx, and UCB.
 

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

DENVER – Initiating exercise therapy early on in people who develop symptoms of knee osteoarthritis – even within their first year of pain or reduced function – is associated with modestly lower pain scores and modestly better function than in those whose symptoms have lasted longer, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress.

Although the benefits of exercise therapy for advanced knee osteoarthritis had already been well established, this study looked specifically at benefits from exercise therapy earlier on, in patients with a shorter duration of symptoms.

“Exercise indeed seems especially beneficial in patients with shorter symptom duration and should therefore be encouraged at first symptom presentation,” Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, of Erasmus MC Medical University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told attendees at the meeting, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “It is, however, still a challenge how we can identify patients but also how we can motivate these patients with early symptoms of osteoarthritis.” She noted that a separate pilot study had experienced difficulty recruiting people with short-term symptom duration.

The researchers compared the effect of exercise therapy and no exercise among adults at least 45 years old with knee osteoarthritis, relying on individual participant data from the STEER OA study, a meta-analysis of 31 studies that involved 4,241 participants. After excluding studies that didn’t report symptom duration, lacked a control group or consent, or focused on hip osteoarthritis, the researchers ended up with 10 studies involving 1,895 participants. These participants were stratified based on the duration of their symptoms: up to 1 year (14.4%), 1-2 years (11%), and 2 years or longer (74%).

About two-thirds of the participants were women (65.9%), with an average age of 65 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 30.7 kg/m². Any land-based or water-based therapeutic exercise counted for the 62% of participants in the intervention group, while the control group had no exercise. Outcomes were assessed based on self-reported pain or physical function at short-term and long-term follow-up, which were as close as possible to 3 months for short-term and the closest date to 12 months for longer term. At baseline, the participants reported an average pain score of 41.7 on a 0-to-100 scale and an average physical function score of 37.4 on a 0-to-100 scale where lower scores indicate better function.

Among those doing exercise therapy, average pain scores dropped 4.56 points in the short term and 7.43 points in the long term. Short-term and long-term pain scores were lower among those whose symptom durations were shorter. For example, those with symptoms for less than a year reported a short-term pain score of 29, compared with 30 for those with 1-2 years of pain and 32 for those with at least 2 years of pain. Results were similar for long-term pain (a score of 26, compared with 28 and 33, respectively).

Participants engaging in exercise therapy also improved average function scores, with a pattern of improvement that was similar to pain scores based on patients’ symptom duration. The average short-term function score was 26 among those with less than a year of symptoms, compared with 28 for those with symptoms for 1-2 years, and 30 for those with symptoms for at least 2 years. Longer-term function scores were 21, 24, and 29, respectively, based on increasing symptom durations.

Chris Yun Lane, PT, DPT, a physical therapist and a fourth-year PhD student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was not surprised at the exercise benefit given the extensive evidence already showing that exercise is beneficial for patients with osteoarthritis whose symptoms have lasted longer.

“Just spending a little bit of time on education, designing kind of simple exercise programs, such as walking programs, can be very helpful,” Dr. Lane said in an interview. “Of course, some of it is dependent on the patient itself, but strengthening range of motion is often very helpful.” Dr. Lane said it’s particularly important for physicians and physical therapists to emphasize the importance of exercise to their patients because that guidance doesn’t always occur as often as it should.

Ron Ellis Jr., DO, MBA, chief strategy officer of Pacira BioSciences in Tampa, Fla., noted that a lot of patients with knee osteoarthritis have weakness in their quads, so quad strengthening is “a typical part of our improvement program for patients with osteoarthritis,” he said in an interview. Dr. Ellis also referenced a session he attended the previous day that showed exercise results in reduced inflammation.

“So you may not have weight loss, but you can lower the inflammatory state of the overall body and of the specific joints,” Dr. Ellis said, “so that would support [this study’s] conclusion.”

The STEER OA study was funded by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research. Dr. van Middelkoop and Dr. Lane both reported having no relevant financial relationships.

DENVER – Initiating exercise therapy early on in people who develop symptoms of knee osteoarthritis – even within their first year of pain or reduced function – is associated with modestly lower pain scores and modestly better function than in those whose symptoms have lasted longer, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress.

Although the benefits of exercise therapy for advanced knee osteoarthritis had already been well established, this study looked specifically at benefits from exercise therapy earlier on, in patients with a shorter duration of symptoms.

“Exercise indeed seems especially beneficial in patients with shorter symptom duration and should therefore be encouraged at first symptom presentation,” Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, of Erasmus MC Medical University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told attendees at the meeting, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “It is, however, still a challenge how we can identify patients but also how we can motivate these patients with early symptoms of osteoarthritis.” She noted that a separate pilot study had experienced difficulty recruiting people with short-term symptom duration.

The researchers compared the effect of exercise therapy and no exercise among adults at least 45 years old with knee osteoarthritis, relying on individual participant data from the STEER OA study, a meta-analysis of 31 studies that involved 4,241 participants. After excluding studies that didn’t report symptom duration, lacked a control group or consent, or focused on hip osteoarthritis, the researchers ended up with 10 studies involving 1,895 participants. These participants were stratified based on the duration of their symptoms: up to 1 year (14.4%), 1-2 years (11%), and 2 years or longer (74%).

About two-thirds of the participants were women (65.9%), with an average age of 65 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 30.7 kg/m². Any land-based or water-based therapeutic exercise counted for the 62% of participants in the intervention group, while the control group had no exercise. Outcomes were assessed based on self-reported pain or physical function at short-term and long-term follow-up, which were as close as possible to 3 months for short-term and the closest date to 12 months for longer term. At baseline, the participants reported an average pain score of 41.7 on a 0-to-100 scale and an average physical function score of 37.4 on a 0-to-100 scale where lower scores indicate better function.

Among those doing exercise therapy, average pain scores dropped 4.56 points in the short term and 7.43 points in the long term. Short-term and long-term pain scores were lower among those whose symptom durations were shorter. For example, those with symptoms for less than a year reported a short-term pain score of 29, compared with 30 for those with 1-2 years of pain and 32 for those with at least 2 years of pain. Results were similar for long-term pain (a score of 26, compared with 28 and 33, respectively).

Participants engaging in exercise therapy also improved average function scores, with a pattern of improvement that was similar to pain scores based on patients’ symptom duration. The average short-term function score was 26 among those with less than a year of symptoms, compared with 28 for those with symptoms for 1-2 years, and 30 for those with symptoms for at least 2 years. Longer-term function scores were 21, 24, and 29, respectively, based on increasing symptom durations.

Chris Yun Lane, PT, DPT, a physical therapist and a fourth-year PhD student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was not surprised at the exercise benefit given the extensive evidence already showing that exercise is beneficial for patients with osteoarthritis whose symptoms have lasted longer.

“Just spending a little bit of time on education, designing kind of simple exercise programs, such as walking programs, can be very helpful,” Dr. Lane said in an interview. “Of course, some of it is dependent on the patient itself, but strengthening range of motion is often very helpful.” Dr. Lane said it’s particularly important for physicians and physical therapists to emphasize the importance of exercise to their patients because that guidance doesn’t always occur as often as it should.

Ron Ellis Jr., DO, MBA, chief strategy officer of Pacira BioSciences in Tampa, Fla., noted that a lot of patients with knee osteoarthritis have weakness in their quads, so quad strengthening is “a typical part of our improvement program for patients with osteoarthritis,” he said in an interview. Dr. Ellis also referenced a session he attended the previous day that showed exercise results in reduced inflammation.

“So you may not have weight loss, but you can lower the inflammatory state of the overall body and of the specific joints,” Dr. Ellis said, “so that would support [this study’s] conclusion.”

The STEER OA study was funded by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research. Dr. van Middelkoop and Dr. Lane both reported having no relevant financial relationships.

DENVER – Initiating exercise therapy early on in people who develop symptoms of knee osteoarthritis – even within their first year of pain or reduced function – is associated with modestly lower pain scores and modestly better function than in those whose symptoms have lasted longer, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress.

Although the benefits of exercise therapy for advanced knee osteoarthritis had already been well established, this study looked specifically at benefits from exercise therapy earlier on, in patients with a shorter duration of symptoms.

“Exercise indeed seems especially beneficial in patients with shorter symptom duration and should therefore be encouraged at first symptom presentation,” Marienke van Middelkoop, PhD, of Erasmus MC Medical University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, told attendees at the meeting, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “It is, however, still a challenge how we can identify patients but also how we can motivate these patients with early symptoms of osteoarthritis.” She noted that a separate pilot study had experienced difficulty recruiting people with short-term symptom duration.

The researchers compared the effect of exercise therapy and no exercise among adults at least 45 years old with knee osteoarthritis, relying on individual participant data from the STEER OA study, a meta-analysis of 31 studies that involved 4,241 participants. After excluding studies that didn’t report symptom duration, lacked a control group or consent, or focused on hip osteoarthritis, the researchers ended up with 10 studies involving 1,895 participants. These participants were stratified based on the duration of their symptoms: up to 1 year (14.4%), 1-2 years (11%), and 2 years or longer (74%).

About two-thirds of the participants were women (65.9%), with an average age of 65 years and an average body mass index (BMI) of 30.7 kg/m². Any land-based or water-based therapeutic exercise counted for the 62% of participants in the intervention group, while the control group had no exercise. Outcomes were assessed based on self-reported pain or physical function at short-term and long-term follow-up, which were as close as possible to 3 months for short-term and the closest date to 12 months for longer term. At baseline, the participants reported an average pain score of 41.7 on a 0-to-100 scale and an average physical function score of 37.4 on a 0-to-100 scale where lower scores indicate better function.

Among those doing exercise therapy, average pain scores dropped 4.56 points in the short term and 7.43 points in the long term. Short-term and long-term pain scores were lower among those whose symptom durations were shorter. For example, those with symptoms for less than a year reported a short-term pain score of 29, compared with 30 for those with 1-2 years of pain and 32 for those with at least 2 years of pain. Results were similar for long-term pain (a score of 26, compared with 28 and 33, respectively).

Participants engaging in exercise therapy also improved average function scores, with a pattern of improvement that was similar to pain scores based on patients’ symptom duration. The average short-term function score was 26 among those with less than a year of symptoms, compared with 28 for those with symptoms for 1-2 years, and 30 for those with symptoms for at least 2 years. Longer-term function scores were 21, 24, and 29, respectively, based on increasing symptom durations.

Chris Yun Lane, PT, DPT, a physical therapist and a fourth-year PhD student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, was not surprised at the exercise benefit given the extensive evidence already showing that exercise is beneficial for patients with osteoarthritis whose symptoms have lasted longer.

“Just spending a little bit of time on education, designing kind of simple exercise programs, such as walking programs, can be very helpful,” Dr. Lane said in an interview. “Of course, some of it is dependent on the patient itself, but strengthening range of motion is often very helpful.” Dr. Lane said it’s particularly important for physicians and physical therapists to emphasize the importance of exercise to their patients because that guidance doesn’t always occur as often as it should.

Ron Ellis Jr., DO, MBA, chief strategy officer of Pacira BioSciences in Tampa, Fla., noted that a lot of patients with knee osteoarthritis have weakness in their quads, so quad strengthening is “a typical part of our improvement program for patients with osteoarthritis,” he said in an interview. Dr. Ellis also referenced a session he attended the previous day that showed exercise results in reduced inflammation.

“So you may not have weight loss, but you can lower the inflammatory state of the overall body and of the specific joints,” Dr. Ellis said, “so that would support [this study’s] conclusion.”

The STEER OA study was funded by the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health Research School of Primary Care Research. Dr. van Middelkoop and Dr. Lane both reported having no relevant financial relationships.

Air pollution appears to contribute independently to bone damage in postmenopausal women, new data suggest.

The findings come from a new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and location-specific air particulate information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

copyright Sergiy Serdyuk/istockphoto.com

“Our findings confirm that poor air quality may be a risk factor for bone loss, independent of socioeconomic or demographic factors, and expands previous findings to postmenopausal women. Indeed, to our knowledge, this is the first study of the impact of criteria air pollutants on bone health in postmenopausal women,” Diddier Prada, MD, PhD, Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The results are also the first to show that “nitrogen oxides contribute the most to bone damage and that the lumbar spine is one of the most susceptible sites,” they added.

Public health policies should aim to reduce air pollution in general, they wrote, and reducing nitrogen oxides, in particular, will reduce bone damage in postmenopausal women, prevent bone fractures, and reduce the health cost burden associated with osteoporosis in this population.

The findings were recently published in eClinicalMedicine.

Asked to comment, Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the study “adds to the body of literature on air pollution and bone health. The study confirms and provides further evidence linking air pollution exposure and osteoporosis.”

Dr. Adami, of the University of Verona (Italy), who also studies this topic, said that these new findings align with those from his group and others.

“The scientific literature in the field is clearly pointing toward a negative effect of chronic pollution exposure on bone health.”

He pointed to one study from his group that found chronic exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with low BMD, and consequently, bone fragility, and another study that showed acute exposure to high levels of pollutants could actually cause fractures.

As for what might be done clinically, Dr. Adami said: “It is difficult to extrapolate direct and immediate recommendations for patients.

“However, it might be acceptable to say that patients at risk of osteoporosis, such as older women or those with prior bone fractures, should avoid chronic exposure to air pollution, perhaps using masks when walking in traffic or using air filters for indoor ventilation.”

Dr. Adami also said that this evidence so far might spur the future inclusion of chronic exposure to air pollution in fracture risk assessment tools, although this isn’t likely to come about in the near future.
 

Particulates linked to whole-body, hip, lumbar, and femoral neck BMD

The prospective observational study included 9,041 WHI participants seen over 32,663 visits who were an average of 63 years old at baseline. More than 70% were White, and just under half were college graduates.

With geocoded address data used to estimate particulate matter concentrations, mean levels of particulate matter of 10 mcm or less, nitrogen oxide nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years were all negatively associated with whole-body, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD.

In the multivariate analysis, the highest correlations were found between nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide. For example, lumbar spine BMD decreased by 0.026 g/cm² per year per 10% increase in 3-year mean nitrogen dioxide concentration.

“Our findings show that both particulate matter and gases may adversely impact BMD and that nitrogen oxides may play a critical role in bone damage and osteoporosis risk,” Dr. Prada and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Adami added: “We need more data to understand the precise magnitude of effect of air pollution on fractures, which might depend on levels of exposure but also on genetics and lifestyle.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adami reported receiving fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, and Theramex.

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

Air pollution appears to contribute independently to bone damage in postmenopausal women, new data suggest.

The findings come from a new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and location-specific air particulate information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

copyright Sergiy Serdyuk/istockphoto.com

“Our findings confirm that poor air quality may be a risk factor for bone loss, independent of socioeconomic or demographic factors, and expands previous findings to postmenopausal women. Indeed, to our knowledge, this is the first study of the impact of criteria air pollutants on bone health in postmenopausal women,” Diddier Prada, MD, PhD, Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The results are also the first to show that “nitrogen oxides contribute the most to bone damage and that the lumbar spine is one of the most susceptible sites,” they added.

Public health policies should aim to reduce air pollution in general, they wrote, and reducing nitrogen oxides, in particular, will reduce bone damage in postmenopausal women, prevent bone fractures, and reduce the health cost burden associated with osteoporosis in this population.

The findings were recently published in eClinicalMedicine.

Asked to comment, Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the study “adds to the body of literature on air pollution and bone health. The study confirms and provides further evidence linking air pollution exposure and osteoporosis.”

Dr. Adami, of the University of Verona (Italy), who also studies this topic, said that these new findings align with those from his group and others.

“The scientific literature in the field is clearly pointing toward a negative effect of chronic pollution exposure on bone health.”

He pointed to one study from his group that found chronic exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with low BMD, and consequently, bone fragility, and another study that showed acute exposure to high levels of pollutants could actually cause fractures.

As for what might be done clinically, Dr. Adami said: “It is difficult to extrapolate direct and immediate recommendations for patients.

“However, it might be acceptable to say that patients at risk of osteoporosis, such as older women or those with prior bone fractures, should avoid chronic exposure to air pollution, perhaps using masks when walking in traffic or using air filters for indoor ventilation.”

Dr. Adami also said that this evidence so far might spur the future inclusion of chronic exposure to air pollution in fracture risk assessment tools, although this isn’t likely to come about in the near future.
 

Particulates linked to whole-body, hip, lumbar, and femoral neck BMD

The prospective observational study included 9,041 WHI participants seen over 32,663 visits who were an average of 63 years old at baseline. More than 70% were White, and just under half were college graduates.

With geocoded address data used to estimate particulate matter concentrations, mean levels of particulate matter of 10 mcm or less, nitrogen oxide nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years were all negatively associated with whole-body, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD.

In the multivariate analysis, the highest correlations were found between nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide. For example, lumbar spine BMD decreased by 0.026 g/cm² per year per 10% increase in 3-year mean nitrogen dioxide concentration.

“Our findings show that both particulate matter and gases may adversely impact BMD and that nitrogen oxides may play a critical role in bone damage and osteoporosis risk,” Dr. Prada and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Adami added: “We need more data to understand the precise magnitude of effect of air pollution on fractures, which might depend on levels of exposure but also on genetics and lifestyle.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adami reported receiving fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, and Theramex.

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

Air pollution appears to contribute independently to bone damage in postmenopausal women, new data suggest.

The findings come from a new analysis of data from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) and location-specific air particulate information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

copyright Sergiy Serdyuk/istockphoto.com

“Our findings confirm that poor air quality may be a risk factor for bone loss, independent of socioeconomic or demographic factors, and expands previous findings to postmenopausal women. Indeed, to our knowledge, this is the first study of the impact of criteria air pollutants on bone health in postmenopausal women,” Diddier Prada, MD, PhD, Columbia University, New York, and colleagues wrote.

The results are also the first to show that “nitrogen oxides contribute the most to bone damage and that the lumbar spine is one of the most susceptible sites,” they added.

Public health policies should aim to reduce air pollution in general, they wrote, and reducing nitrogen oxides, in particular, will reduce bone damage in postmenopausal women, prevent bone fractures, and reduce the health cost burden associated with osteoporosis in this population.

The findings were recently published in eClinicalMedicine.

Asked to comment, Giovanni Adami, MD, PhD, said in an interview that the study “adds to the body of literature on air pollution and bone health. The study confirms and provides further evidence linking air pollution exposure and osteoporosis.”

Dr. Adami, of the University of Verona (Italy), who also studies this topic, said that these new findings align with those from his group and others.

“The scientific literature in the field is clearly pointing toward a negative effect of chronic pollution exposure on bone health.”

He pointed to one study from his group that found chronic exposure to ultrafine particulate matter is associated with low BMD, and consequently, bone fragility, and another study that showed acute exposure to high levels of pollutants could actually cause fractures.

As for what might be done clinically, Dr. Adami said: “It is difficult to extrapolate direct and immediate recommendations for patients.

“However, it might be acceptable to say that patients at risk of osteoporosis, such as older women or those with prior bone fractures, should avoid chronic exposure to air pollution, perhaps using masks when walking in traffic or using air filters for indoor ventilation.”

Dr. Adami also said that this evidence so far might spur the future inclusion of chronic exposure to air pollution in fracture risk assessment tools, although this isn’t likely to come about in the near future.
 

Particulates linked to whole-body, hip, lumbar, and femoral neck BMD

The prospective observational study included 9,041 WHI participants seen over 32,663 visits who were an average of 63 years old at baseline. More than 70% were White, and just under half were college graduates.

With geocoded address data used to estimate particulate matter concentrations, mean levels of particulate matter of 10 mcm or less, nitrogen oxide nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide over 1, 3, and 5 years were all negatively associated with whole-body, total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine BMD.

In the multivariate analysis, the highest correlations were found between nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide. For example, lumbar spine BMD decreased by 0.026 g/cm² per year per 10% increase in 3-year mean nitrogen dioxide concentration.

“Our findings show that both particulate matter and gases may adversely impact BMD and that nitrogen oxides may play a critical role in bone damage and osteoporosis risk,” Dr. Prada and colleagues wrote.

Dr. Adami added: “We need more data to understand the precise magnitude of effect of air pollution on fractures, which might depend on levels of exposure but also on genetics and lifestyle.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Adami reported receiving fees from Amgen, Eli Lilly, UCB, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, and Theramex.

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

Long-distance runners are often warned that they are wearing out their joints, but a new study found that running mileage, frequency, and pace were not associated with an increased risk of osteoarthritis.

Runners who had undergone knee or hip surgery or had a previous hip or knee injury that prevented running were most likely to have arthritis, researchers found. Family history of arthritis, higher body mass index (BMI), and older age were also associated with increased risk of the condition.

The study was presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2023 Annual Meeting.

It has generally been thought that running may increase risk of osteoarthritis because it puts more load on joints than walking or standing, noted Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, an assistant professor of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved with the work. Research in this area has yielded mixed results: A 2017 analysis of multiple studies found that competitive runners did have higher rates of arthritis than recreational runners, while another study conducted by Dr. Lo found that runners did not have an increased risk of knee osteoarthritis, compared with nonrunners. A 2018 study showed that marathon runners had lower instances of arthritis, compared with the general population.

In this new study, researchers surveyed 3,804 runners who participated in the 2019 or 2021 Chicago Marathon about their running history, average mileage per week, and average running pace. The survey also asked about known risk factors for osteoarthritis, including BMI, family history of arthritis, and past knee and hip injuries that prevented running.

Runners, on average, were about 44 years old and ran 27.9 miles per week. The largest proportion of respondents had completed 2-5 marathons (37.3%), around 21% of respondents had finished 6-10 marathons, and 17% were running their first marathon. Study participants had an average of 15 years of running experience, 1,892 reported a previous hip or knee injury, and 413 had undergone knee or hip surgery. Overall, 36.4% reported experiencing hip or knee pain in the past year, and 7.3% had been diagnosed with arthritis.

Researchers found that there was no association between the risk of osteoarthritis and weekly mileage, years spent running, number of marathons completed, or running pace. Respondents who had undergone knee or hip surgery had the highest risk of osteoarthritis (odds ratio, 5.85; P < .0001), followed by those with a history of knee or hip injuries that prevented running (OR, 5.04; P < .0001). Other identified risk factors were family history of arthritis (OR, 3.47; P < .0001), BMI (OR, 1.10; P < .0001), and older age (OR, 1.08; P < .0001).

The news should be encouraging for runners, said Matthew Hartwell, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the research. If someone does not have injuries or surgeries that keep them from running, “you can still continue to run,” he said. “There may not necessarily be this dose-response relationship where the more you run, the more you break down your knee or your hip.”

Still, 24.2% of runners reported that their physician had advised them to reduce their mileage or stop running altogether. Most runners (94.2%) said they planned to run another marathon.

“The results of this study are consistent with the experiences of many lifelong runners and observations of sports medicine professionals that osteoarthritis is not an inevitable consequence of distance running,” said Brett Toresdahl, MD, a sports medicine physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved with the study.

Still, he emphasized that more research is necessary to understand whether running contributes to the risk of developing osteoarthritis. The participants in the study were current marathoners, he noted, so it is likely they have healthy joints that can tolerate running longer distances. “If there is a subset of people who have joints that are negatively affected by running, they wouldn’t likely be registering for a marathon,” he said in an email interview.

Dr. Lo added that comparing these marathoners to a group who did not run would help assess whether running can be harmful to joints. “To be fair, this is a challenging subject to study,” she said. “Osteoarthritis has a long natural history, and so it is difficult to evaluate this kind of question over many years of running and many years of evaluation of arthritis.”

While the research does not answer the question of whether running can lead to osteoarthritis, it helps show the need for long-term research on how running affects joints over time as well as one’s general health, Dr. Toresdahl noted. “I would not be surprised if future longitudinal research will come to the same conclusion that running for the majority of patients is a net benefit for overall health and at least net neutral for joint health when done in moderation,” he said.

Dr. Hartwell, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Toresdahl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-distance runners are often warned that they are wearing out their joints, but a new study found that running mileage, frequency, and pace were not associated with an increased risk of osteoarthritis.

Runners who had undergone knee or hip surgery or had a previous hip or knee injury that prevented running were most likely to have arthritis, researchers found. Family history of arthritis, higher body mass index (BMI), and older age were also associated with increased risk of the condition.

The study was presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2023 Annual Meeting.

It has generally been thought that running may increase risk of osteoarthritis because it puts more load on joints than walking or standing, noted Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, an assistant professor of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved with the work. Research in this area has yielded mixed results: A 2017 analysis of multiple studies found that competitive runners did have higher rates of arthritis than recreational runners, while another study conducted by Dr. Lo found that runners did not have an increased risk of knee osteoarthritis, compared with nonrunners. A 2018 study showed that marathon runners had lower instances of arthritis, compared with the general population.

In this new study, researchers surveyed 3,804 runners who participated in the 2019 or 2021 Chicago Marathon about their running history, average mileage per week, and average running pace. The survey also asked about known risk factors for osteoarthritis, including BMI, family history of arthritis, and past knee and hip injuries that prevented running.

Runners, on average, were about 44 years old and ran 27.9 miles per week. The largest proportion of respondents had completed 2-5 marathons (37.3%), around 21% of respondents had finished 6-10 marathons, and 17% were running their first marathon. Study participants had an average of 15 years of running experience, 1,892 reported a previous hip or knee injury, and 413 had undergone knee or hip surgery. Overall, 36.4% reported experiencing hip or knee pain in the past year, and 7.3% had been diagnosed with arthritis.

Researchers found that there was no association between the risk of osteoarthritis and weekly mileage, years spent running, number of marathons completed, or running pace. Respondents who had undergone knee or hip surgery had the highest risk of osteoarthritis (odds ratio, 5.85; P < .0001), followed by those with a history of knee or hip injuries that prevented running (OR, 5.04; P < .0001). Other identified risk factors were family history of arthritis (OR, 3.47; P < .0001), BMI (OR, 1.10; P < .0001), and older age (OR, 1.08; P < .0001).

The news should be encouraging for runners, said Matthew Hartwell, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the research. If someone does not have injuries or surgeries that keep them from running, “you can still continue to run,” he said. “There may not necessarily be this dose-response relationship where the more you run, the more you break down your knee or your hip.”

Still, 24.2% of runners reported that their physician had advised them to reduce their mileage or stop running altogether. Most runners (94.2%) said they planned to run another marathon.

“The results of this study are consistent with the experiences of many lifelong runners and observations of sports medicine professionals that osteoarthritis is not an inevitable consequence of distance running,” said Brett Toresdahl, MD, a sports medicine physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved with the study.

Still, he emphasized that more research is necessary to understand whether running contributes to the risk of developing osteoarthritis. The participants in the study were current marathoners, he noted, so it is likely they have healthy joints that can tolerate running longer distances. “If there is a subset of people who have joints that are negatively affected by running, they wouldn’t likely be registering for a marathon,” he said in an email interview.

Dr. Lo added that comparing these marathoners to a group who did not run would help assess whether running can be harmful to joints. “To be fair, this is a challenging subject to study,” she said. “Osteoarthritis has a long natural history, and so it is difficult to evaluate this kind of question over many years of running and many years of evaluation of arthritis.”

While the research does not answer the question of whether running can lead to osteoarthritis, it helps show the need for long-term research on how running affects joints over time as well as one’s general health, Dr. Toresdahl noted. “I would not be surprised if future longitudinal research will come to the same conclusion that running for the majority of patients is a net benefit for overall health and at least net neutral for joint health when done in moderation,” he said.

Dr. Hartwell, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Toresdahl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-distance runners are often warned that they are wearing out their joints, but a new study found that running mileage, frequency, and pace were not associated with an increased risk of osteoarthritis.

Runners who had undergone knee or hip surgery or had a previous hip or knee injury that prevented running were most likely to have arthritis, researchers found. Family history of arthritis, higher body mass index (BMI), and older age were also associated with increased risk of the condition.

The study was presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2023 Annual Meeting.

It has generally been thought that running may increase risk of osteoarthritis because it puts more load on joints than walking or standing, noted Grace Hsiao-Wei Lo, MD, an assistant professor of immunology, allergy, and rheumatology at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who was not involved with the work. Research in this area has yielded mixed results: A 2017 analysis of multiple studies found that competitive runners did have higher rates of arthritis than recreational runners, while another study conducted by Dr. Lo found that runners did not have an increased risk of knee osteoarthritis, compared with nonrunners. A 2018 study showed that marathon runners had lower instances of arthritis, compared with the general population.

In this new study, researchers surveyed 3,804 runners who participated in the 2019 or 2021 Chicago Marathon about their running history, average mileage per week, and average running pace. The survey also asked about known risk factors for osteoarthritis, including BMI, family history of arthritis, and past knee and hip injuries that prevented running.

Runners, on average, were about 44 years old and ran 27.9 miles per week. The largest proportion of respondents had completed 2-5 marathons (37.3%), around 21% of respondents had finished 6-10 marathons, and 17% were running their first marathon. Study participants had an average of 15 years of running experience, 1,892 reported a previous hip or knee injury, and 413 had undergone knee or hip surgery. Overall, 36.4% reported experiencing hip or knee pain in the past year, and 7.3% had been diagnosed with arthritis.

Researchers found that there was no association between the risk of osteoarthritis and weekly mileage, years spent running, number of marathons completed, or running pace. Respondents who had undergone knee or hip surgery had the highest risk of osteoarthritis (odds ratio, 5.85; P < .0001), followed by those with a history of knee or hip injuries that prevented running (OR, 5.04; P < .0001). Other identified risk factors were family history of arthritis (OR, 3.47; P < .0001), BMI (OR, 1.10; P < .0001), and older age (OR, 1.08; P < .0001).

The news should be encouraging for runners, said Matthew Hartwell, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the research. If someone does not have injuries or surgeries that keep them from running, “you can still continue to run,” he said. “There may not necessarily be this dose-response relationship where the more you run, the more you break down your knee or your hip.”

Still, 24.2% of runners reported that their physician had advised them to reduce their mileage or stop running altogether. Most runners (94.2%) said they planned to run another marathon.

“The results of this study are consistent with the experiences of many lifelong runners and observations of sports medicine professionals that osteoarthritis is not an inevitable consequence of distance running,” said Brett Toresdahl, MD, a sports medicine physician at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, who was not involved with the study.

Still, he emphasized that more research is necessary to understand whether running contributes to the risk of developing osteoarthritis. The participants in the study were current marathoners, he noted, so it is likely they have healthy joints that can tolerate running longer distances. “If there is a subset of people who have joints that are negatively affected by running, they wouldn’t likely be registering for a marathon,” he said in an email interview.

Dr. Lo added that comparing these marathoners to a group who did not run would help assess whether running can be harmful to joints. “To be fair, this is a challenging subject to study,” she said. “Osteoarthritis has a long natural history, and so it is difficult to evaluate this kind of question over many years of running and many years of evaluation of arthritis.”

While the research does not answer the question of whether running can lead to osteoarthritis, it helps show the need for long-term research on how running affects joints over time as well as one’s general health, Dr. Toresdahl noted. “I would not be surprised if future longitudinal research will come to the same conclusion that running for the majority of patients is a net benefit for overall health and at least net neutral for joint health when done in moderation,” he said.

Dr. Hartwell, Dr. Lo, and Dr. Toresdahl report no relevant financial relationships.

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

New data released by the U.S. Department of Defense show that the incidence of many types of cancer is higher among military pilots and aviation support personnel in comparison with the general population.

“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.

The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.

Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.

For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.

A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.

The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.

For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.

There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
 

Lower rates of cancer mortality

In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.

When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.

However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”

The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.

“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.

Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
 

Further study underway

The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.

The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.

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

New data released by the U.S. Department of Defense show that the incidence of many types of cancer is higher among military pilots and aviation support personnel in comparison with the general population.

“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.

The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.

Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.

For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.

A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.

The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.

For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.

There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
 

Lower rates of cancer mortality

In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.

When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.

However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”

The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.

“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.

Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
 

Further study underway

The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.

The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.

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

New data released by the U.S. Department of Defense show that the incidence of many types of cancer is higher among military pilots and aviation support personnel in comparison with the general population.

“Military aircrew and ground crew were overall more likely to be diagnosed with cancer, but less likely to die from cancer compared to the U.S. population,” the report concludes.

The study involved 156,050 aircrew and 737,891 ground crew. Participants were followed between 1992 and 2017. Both groups were predominantly male and non-Hispanic.

Data on cancer incidence and mortality for these two groups were compared with data from groups of similar age in the general population through use of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Database of the National Cancer Institute.

For aircrew, the study found an 87% higher rate of melanoma, a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 16% higher rate of prostate cancer, and a 24% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.

A higher rate of melanoma and prostate cancer among aircrew has been reported previously, but the increased rate of thyroid cancer is a new finding, the authors note.

The uptick in melanoma has also been reported in studies of civilian pilots and cabin crew. It has been attributed to exposure to hazardous ultraviolet and cosmic radiation.

For ground crew members, the analysis found a 19% higher rate of cancers of the brain and nervous system, a 15% higher rate of thyroid cancer, a 9% higher rate of melanoma and of kidney and renal pelvis cancers, and a 3% higher rate of cancer for all sites combined.

There is little to compare these findings with: This is the first time that cancer risk has been evaluated in such a large population of military ground crew.
 

Lower rates of cancer mortality

In contrast to the increase in cancer incidence, the report found a decrease in cancer mortality.

When compared with a demographically similar U.S. population, the mortality rate among aircrew was 56% lower for all cancer sites; for ground crew, the mortality rate was 35% lower.

However, the report authors emphasize that “it is important to note that the military study population was relatively young.”

The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer incidence analysis was 41 years for aircrew and 26 years for ground crew. The median age at the end of follow-up for the cancer mortality analysis was 48 years for aircrew and 41 years for ground crew.

“Results may have differed if additional older former Service members had been included in the study, since cancer risk and mortality rates increase with age,” the authors comment.

Other studies have found an increase in deaths from melanoma as well as an increase in the incidence of melanoma. A meta-analysis published in 2019 in the British Journal of Dermatology found that airline pilots and cabin crew have about twice the risk of melanoma and other skin cancers than the general population. Pilots are also more likely to die from melanoma.
 

Further study underway

The findings on military air and ground crew come from phase 1 of a study that was required by Congress in the 2021 defense bill. Because the investigators found an increase in the incidence of cancer, phase 2 of the study is now necessary.

The report authors explain that phase 2 will consist of identifying the carcinogenic toxicants or hazardous materials associated with military flight operations; identifying operating environments that could be associated with increased amounts of ionizing and nonionizing radiation; identifying specific duties, dates of service, and types of aircraft flown that could have increased the risk for cancer; identifying duty locations associated with a higher incidence of cancers; identifying potential exposures through military service that are not related to aviation; and determining the appropriate age to begin screening military aircrew and ground crew for cancers.

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

Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.

The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.

The guidelines also recommended:

• Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
• Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
• Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.

The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.

Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.

The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.

Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.

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

Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.

The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.

The guidelines also recommended:

• Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
• Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
• Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.

The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.

Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.

The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.

Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.

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

Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis (OA) or osteonecrosis (ON) eligible for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who have failed one or more nonoperative therapies should proceed directly to surgery, according to new guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“One of the reasons for creating this guideline was that many patients have been subjected to delays for surgery after completing nonoperative therapy, despite persistent moderate to severe pain, loss of function, and moderate to severe radiographic OA or ON,” said coauthors Susan M. Goodman, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, and Charles Hannon, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University in St. Louis, in an email interview with this news organization. “This guideline supports surgery being performed in an expeditious fashion after the decision has been made to proceed with surgery by both the physician and patient through a shared decision-making process,” they said.

The guidelines also state that obesity by itself should not be a reason to delay TJA. “We could not find a rationale for a strict cut off for weight/body mass index (BMI). Our literature review revealed that though many adverse events were, in fact, increased in patients with morbid obesity, there is also an increase in adverse events for those who had bariatric surgery prior to their arthroplasty,” they added, noting that patients need to be made aware of the increased risk for adverse events in patients with obesity. Though the guidelines do not pose any BMI cutoffs, they state that weight loss should be “strongly encouraged.” These new recommendations are conditional, and all had a “low” to “very low” certainty of evidence; however, there was high consensus on the recommendations from the expert panel.

The guidelines also recommended:

• Delaying TJA to achieve smoking and nicotine cessation or reduction.
• Delaying TJA to improve glycemic control in patients with diabetes, although the group did not recommend any specific measure or threshold.
• Not delaying TJA in patients with a severe deformity, bone loss, or a neuropathic joint.

The new guidelines formalize what many surgeons have already been doing for the past few years, said Arjun Saxena, MD, MBA, an orthopedic surgeon in Philadelphia who was not involved with the guidelines. “A lot of total joint programs have really focused on patient optimization, including smoking cessation, glycemic control, and weight loss prior to surgery,” he said.

Most importantly, the guidelines put an emphasis on how the decision to proceed with TJA should be a shared decision between a physician and patient, he added. Some insurance companies with prior authorization policies may require a patient to try additional nonoperative therapies before approving surgery, creating barriers to care, he said. “Hopefully [these new recommendations] will help third parties understand that joint replacement is a big decision – most doctors aren’t going to recommend that unless it’s necessary or something that is going to help patients,” he said. “I understand that there is a certain need for preauthorization, but just having strict guidelines isn’t appropriate. You really need to look at the whole picture,” he added.

The full manuscript has been submitted for review and is expected to be jointly published in American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons journals later this year.

Dr. Saxena consults for the orthopedic implant company Corin.

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

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers. 

This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women. 

This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said. 

Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.” 

The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.

The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too. 

Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”

In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.  
 

Starting early

While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines. 

“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.” 

As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip. 

“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.” 

A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.

If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said. 

She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions. 

From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more. 

“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”

Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.” 

Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways. 

For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries. 

“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said. 

Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners. 

“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com. 

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers. 

This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women. 

This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said. 

Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.” 

The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.

The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too. 

Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”

In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.  
 

Starting early

While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines. 

“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.” 

As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip. 

“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.” 

A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.

If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said. 

She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions. 

From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more. 

“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”

Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.” 

Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways. 

For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries. 

“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said. 

Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners. 

“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com. 

When Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fell recently at a dinner event in Washington, he unfortunately joined a large group of his senior citizen peers. 

This wasn’t the first tumble the 81-year-old has taken. In 2019, he fell in his home, fracturing his shoulder. This time, he got a concussion and was recently released to an in-patient rehabilitation facility. While Sen. McConnell didn’t fracture his skull, in falling and hitting his head, he became part of an emerging statistic: One that reveals falls are more dangerous for senior men than senior women. 

This new research, which appeared in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine, came as a surprise to lead researcher Scott Alter, MD, associate professor of emergency medicine at the Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. 

“We always hear about lower bone density rates among females, so we didn’t expect to see males with more skull fractures,” he said. 

Dr. Alter said that as a clinician in a southern Florida facility, his emergency department was the perfect study grounds to evaluate incoming geriatric patients due to falls. Older “patients are at higher risk of skull fractures and intercranial bleeding, and we wanted to look at any patient presenting with a head injury. Some 80% were fall related, however.” 

The statistics bear out the fact that falls of all types are common among the elderly: Some 800,000 seniors wind up in the hospital each year because of falls.

The numbers show death rates from falls are on the rise in the senior citizen age group, too, up 30% from 2007 to 2016. Falls account for 70% of accidental deaths in people 75 and older. They are the leading cause of injury-related visits to emergency departments in the country, too. 

Jennifer Stevens, MD, a gerontologist and executive director at Florida-based Abbey Delray South, is aware of the dire numbers and sees their consequences regularly. “The reasons seniors are at a high fall risk are many,” she said. “They include balance issues, declining strength, diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, side effects of their medications, and more.”

In addition, many seniors live in spaces that are not necessarily equipped for their limitations, and hazards exist all over their homes. Put together, and the risks for falls are everywhere. But there are steps seniors, their families, and even middle-aged people can take to mitigate and hopefully prevent dangerous falls.  
 

Starting early

While in many cases the journey to lessen fall risks begins after a fall, the time to begin addressing the issue is long before you hit your senior years. Mary Therese Cole, a physical therapist and certified dementia practitioner at Manual Edge Physical Therapy in Colorado Springs, Colo., says that age 50 is a good time to start paying attention and addressing physical declines. 

“This is an age where your vision might begin deteriorating,” she said. “It’s a big reason why elderly people trip and fall.” 

As our brains begin to age in our middle years, the neural pathways from brain to extremities start to decline, too. The result is that many people stop picking up their feet as well as they used to do, making them more likely to trip. 

“You’re not elderly yet, but you’re not a spring chicken, either,” Ms. Cole said. “Any issues you have now will only get worse if you’re not working on them.” 

A good starting point in middle age, then, is to work on both strength training and balance exercises. A certified personal trainer or physical therapist can help get you on a program to ward off many of these declines.

If you’ve reached your later years, however, and are experiencing physical declines, it’s smart to check in with your primary care doctor for an assessment. “He or she can get your started on regular PT to evaluate any shortcomings and then address them,” Ms. Cole said. 

She noted that when she’s working with senior patients, she’ll test their strength getting into and out of a chair, do a manual strength test to check on lower extremities, check their walking stride, and ask about conditions such as diabetes, former surgeries, and other conditions. 

From there, Ms. Cole said she can write up a plan for the patient. Likewise, Dr. Stevens uses a program called Be Active that allows her to test seniors on a variety of measurements, including flexibility, balance, hand strength, and more. 

“Then we match them with classes to address their shortcomings,” she said. “It’s critical that seniors have the ability to recover and not fall if they get knocked off balance.”

Beyond working on your physical limitations, taking a good look at your home is essential, too. “You can have an occupational therapist come to your home and do an evaluation,” Dr. Stevens said. “They can help you rearrange and reorganize for a safer environment.” 

Big, common household fall hazards include throw rugs, lack of nightlights for middle-of-the-night visits to the bathroom, a lack of grab bars in the shower/bathtub, and furniture that blocks pathways. 

For his part, Dr. Alter likes to point seniors and their doctors to the CDC’s STEADI program, which is aimed at stopping elderly accidents, deaths, and injuries. 

“It includes screening for fall risk, assessing factors you can modify or improve, and more tools,” he said. 

Dr. Alter also recommended seniors talk to their doctors about medications, particularly blood thinners. 

“At a certain point, you need to weigh the benefits of disease prevention with the risk of injury if you fall,” he said. “The bleeding risk might be too high if the patient is at a high risk of falls.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on WebMD.com. 

Detecting melanoma early, when it is easier to treat, remains a “paramount goal,” but guidelines surrounding optimal melanoma screening practices and diagnostic evaluations need greater clarity, according to the authors of a new consensus statement.

That is why a group of expert panelists evaluated the existing evidence and a range of clinical scenarios to help clarify the optimal strategies for early detection and assessment of cutaneous melanoma.

Overall, the panelists agreed that a risk-stratified approach is likely the most appropriate strategy for melanoma screening and follow-up and supported the use of visual and dermoscopic examination. However, the panelists did not reach consensus on the role for gene expression profile (GEP) testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for these assays to be validated in large randomized clinical trials.

In an accompanying editorial, two experts highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating the role of diagnostic tests.

“Diagnostic tests such as GEP must face critical scrutiny; if not, there are immediate concerns for patient care, such as the patient being erroneously informed that they do not have cancer or told that they do have cancer when they do not,” write Alan C. Geller, MPH, RN, from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marvin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD, from Brown University, Providence, R.I.

The consensus statement was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

The need for guidance

Although focusing melanoma screening on higher-risk populations may be cost effective, compared with population-based screening, the major guidelines lack consistent guidance to support a risk-stratified approach to skin cancer screening and best practices on diagnosing cutaneous melanoma.

In the prebiopsy setting, the appropriate use of diagnostic tools for evaluating the need for biopsy remain poorly defined, and, in the post-biopsy setting, questions remain concerning the diagnostic accuracy of molecular techniques, diagnostic GEP testing, next-generation sequencing, and immunohistochemical assessment for various markers of melanoma.

To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices, prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostics, and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma, a group of 42 panelists voted on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey. The panel then came together for a consensus conference, which included 51 experts who discussed their approach to the various clinical case scenarios. Most attendees (45 of the 51) answered a follow-up survey for their final recommendations.

The panelists reached a consensus, with 70% agreement, to support a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events. The experts agreed that higher-risk individuals (those with a relative risk of 5 or greater) could be appropriately screened by a general dermatologist or pigmented lesion evaluation. Higher-risk individuals included those with severe skin damage from the sun, systemic immunosuppression, or a personal history of nonmelanoma or melanoma skin cancer.

Panelists agreed that those at general or lower risk (RR < 2) could be screened by a primary care provider or through regular self- or partner examinations, whereas those at moderate risk could be screened by their primary care clinician or general dermatologist. The experts observed “a shift in acceptance” of primary care physicians screening the general population, and an acknowledgement of the importance of self- and partner examinations as screening adjuncts for all populations.

In the prebiopsy setting, panelists reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination was appropriate for evaluating patients with “no new, changing, or unusual skin lesions or with a new lesion that is not visually concerning.”

The panelists also reached consensus that lesions deemed clinically suspicious for cancer or showing features of cancer on reflectance confocal microscopy should be biopsied. Although most respondents (86%) did not currently use epidermal tape stripping routinely, they agreed that, in a hypothetical situation where epidermal tape stripping was used, that lesions positive for PRAME or LINC should be biopsied.

In the postbiopsy setting, views on the use of GEP scores varied. Although panelists agreed that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when patients are selected to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), they did not reach consensus for imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status.

“The panelists await future, well-designed prospective studies to determine if use of these and newer technologies improves the care of patients with melanoma,” the panelists write.

In the editorial, Mr. Geller and Dr. Weinstock highlighted concerns about the cost and potential access issues associated with these newer technologies, given that the current cost of GEP testing exceeds $7,000.

The editorialists also emphasize that “going forward, the field should be advanced by tackling one of the more pressing, common, potentially morbid, and costly procedures – the prognostic use of sentinel lymph node biopsy.”

Of critical importance is “whether GEP can reduce morbidity and cost by safely reducing the number of SLNBs performed,” Mr. Geller and Dr. Weinstock write.

The funding for the administration and facilitation of the consensus development conference and the development of the manuscript was provided by Dermtech, in an unrestricted award overseen by the Melanoma Research Foundation and managed and executed at UPMC by the principal investigator. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry. Mr. Geller is a contributor to UptoDate for which he receives royalties. Dr. Weinstock receives consulting fees from AbbVie.

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

Detecting melanoma early, when it is easier to treat, remains a “paramount goal,” but guidelines surrounding optimal melanoma screening practices and diagnostic evaluations need greater clarity, according to the authors of a new consensus statement.

That is why a group of expert panelists evaluated the existing evidence and a range of clinical scenarios to help clarify the optimal strategies for early detection and assessment of cutaneous melanoma.

Overall, the panelists agreed that a risk-stratified approach is likely the most appropriate strategy for melanoma screening and follow-up and supported the use of visual and dermoscopic examination. However, the panelists did not reach consensus on the role for gene expression profile (GEP) testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for these assays to be validated in large randomized clinical trials.

In an accompanying editorial, two experts highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating the role of diagnostic tests.

“Diagnostic tests such as GEP must face critical scrutiny; if not, there are immediate concerns for patient care, such as the patient being erroneously informed that they do not have cancer or told that they do have cancer when they do not,” write Alan C. Geller, MPH, RN, from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marvin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD, from Brown University, Providence, R.I.

The consensus statement was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

The need for guidance

Although focusing melanoma screening on higher-risk populations may be cost effective, compared with population-based screening, the major guidelines lack consistent guidance to support a risk-stratified approach to skin cancer screening and best practices on diagnosing cutaneous melanoma.

In the prebiopsy setting, the appropriate use of diagnostic tools for evaluating the need for biopsy remain poorly defined, and, in the post-biopsy setting, questions remain concerning the diagnostic accuracy of molecular techniques, diagnostic GEP testing, next-generation sequencing, and immunohistochemical assessment for various markers of melanoma.

To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices, prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostics, and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma, a group of 42 panelists voted on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey. The panel then came together for a consensus conference, which included 51 experts who discussed their approach to the various clinical case scenarios. Most attendees (45 of the 51) answered a follow-up survey for their final recommendations.

The panelists reached a consensus, with 70% agreement, to support a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events. The experts agreed that higher-risk individuals (those with a relative risk of 5 or greater) could be appropriately screened by a general dermatologist or pigmented lesion evaluation. Higher-risk individuals included those with severe skin damage from the sun, systemic immunosuppression, or a personal history of nonmelanoma or melanoma skin cancer.

Panelists agreed that those at general or lower risk (RR < 2) could be screened by a primary care provider or through regular self- or partner examinations, whereas those at moderate risk could be screened by their primary care clinician or general dermatologist. The experts observed “a shift in acceptance” of primary care physicians screening the general population, and an acknowledgement of the importance of self- and partner examinations as screening adjuncts for all populations.

In the prebiopsy setting, panelists reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination was appropriate for evaluating patients with “no new, changing, or unusual skin lesions or with a new lesion that is not visually concerning.”

The panelists also reached consensus that lesions deemed clinically suspicious for cancer or showing features of cancer on reflectance confocal microscopy should be biopsied. Although most respondents (86%) did not currently use epidermal tape stripping routinely, they agreed that, in a hypothetical situation where epidermal tape stripping was used, that lesions positive for PRAME or LINC should be biopsied.

In the postbiopsy setting, views on the use of GEP scores varied. Although panelists agreed that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when patients are selected to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), they did not reach consensus for imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status.

“The panelists await future, well-designed prospective studies to determine if use of these and newer technologies improves the care of patients with melanoma,” the panelists write.

In the editorial, Mr. Geller and Dr. Weinstock highlighted concerns about the cost and potential access issues associated with these newer technologies, given that the current cost of GEP testing exceeds $7,000.

The editorialists also emphasize that “going forward, the field should be advanced by tackling one of the more pressing, common, potentially morbid, and costly procedures – the prognostic use of sentinel lymph node biopsy.”

Of critical importance is “whether GEP can reduce morbidity and cost by safely reducing the number of SLNBs performed,” Mr. Geller and Dr. Weinstock write.

The funding for the administration and facilitation of the consensus development conference and the development of the manuscript was provided by Dermtech, in an unrestricted award overseen by the Melanoma Research Foundation and managed and executed at UPMC by the principal investigator. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry. Mr. Geller is a contributor to UptoDate for which he receives royalties. Dr. Weinstock receives consulting fees from AbbVie.

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

Detecting melanoma early, when it is easier to treat, remains a “paramount goal,” but guidelines surrounding optimal melanoma screening practices and diagnostic evaluations need greater clarity, according to the authors of a new consensus statement.

That is why a group of expert panelists evaluated the existing evidence and a range of clinical scenarios to help clarify the optimal strategies for early detection and assessment of cutaneous melanoma.

Overall, the panelists agreed that a risk-stratified approach is likely the most appropriate strategy for melanoma screening and follow-up and supported the use of visual and dermoscopic examination. However, the panelists did not reach consensus on the role for gene expression profile (GEP) testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for these assays to be validated in large randomized clinical trials.

In an accompanying editorial, two experts highlighted the importance of carefully evaluating the role of diagnostic tests.

“Diagnostic tests such as GEP must face critical scrutiny; if not, there are immediate concerns for patient care, such as the patient being erroneously informed that they do not have cancer or told that they do have cancer when they do not,” write Alan C. Geller, MPH, RN, from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, and Marvin A. Weinstock, MD, PhD, from Brown University, Providence, R.I.

The consensus statement was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
 

The need for guidance

Although focusing melanoma screening on higher-risk populations may be cost effective, compared with population-based screening, the major guidelines lack consistent guidance to support a risk-stratified approach to skin cancer screening and best practices on diagnosing cutaneous melanoma.

In the prebiopsy setting, the appropriate use of diagnostic tools for evaluating the need for biopsy remain poorly defined, and, in the post-biopsy setting, questions remain concerning the diagnostic accuracy of molecular techniques, diagnostic GEP testing, next-generation sequencing, and immunohistochemical assessment for various markers of melanoma.

To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices, prebiopsy and postbiopsy diagnostics, and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma, a group of 42 panelists voted on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey. The panel then came together for a consensus conference, which included 51 experts who discussed their approach to the various clinical case scenarios. Most attendees (45 of the 51) answered a follow-up survey for their final recommendations.

The panelists reached a consensus, with 70% agreement, to support a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events. The experts agreed that higher-risk individuals (those with a relative risk of 5 or greater) could be appropriately screened by a general dermatologist or pigmented lesion evaluation. Higher-risk individuals included those with severe skin damage from the sun, systemic immunosuppression, or a personal history of nonmelanoma or melanoma skin cancer.

Panelists agreed that those at general or lower risk (RR < 2) could be screened by a primary care provider or through regular self- or partner examinations, whereas those at moderate risk could be screened by their primary care clinician or general dermatologist. The experts observed “a shift in acceptance” of primary care physicians screening the general population, and an acknowledgement of the importance of self- and partner examinations as screening adjuncts for all populations.

In the prebiopsy setting, panelists reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination was appropriate for evaluating patients with “no new, changing, or unusual skin lesions or with a new lesion that is not visually concerning.”

The panelists also reached consensus that lesions deemed clinically suspicious for cancer or showing features of cancer on reflectance confocal microscopy should be biopsied. Although most respondents (86%) did not currently use epidermal tape stripping routinely, they agreed that, in a hypothetical situation where epidermal tape stripping was used, that lesions positive for PRAME or LINC should be biopsied.

In the postbiopsy setting, views on the use of GEP scores varied. Although panelists agreed that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when patients are selected to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB), they did not reach consensus for imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status.

“The panelists await future, well-designed prospective studies to determine if use of these and newer technologies improves the care of patients with melanoma,” the panelists write.

In the editorial, Mr. Geller and Dr. Weinstock highlighted concerns about the cost and potential access issues associated with these newer technologies, given that the current cost of GEP testing exceeds $7,000.

The editorialists also emphasize that “going forward, the field should be advanced by tackling one of the more pressing, common, potentially morbid, and costly procedures – the prognostic use of sentinel lymph node biopsy.”

Of critical importance is “whether GEP can reduce morbidity and cost by safely reducing the number of SLNBs performed,” Mr. Geller and Dr. Weinstock write.

The funding for the administration and facilitation of the consensus development conference and the development of the manuscript was provided by Dermtech, in an unrestricted award overseen by the Melanoma Research Foundation and managed and executed at UPMC by the principal investigator. Several of the coauthors disclosed relationships with industry. Mr. Geller is a contributor to UptoDate for which he receives royalties. Dr. Weinstock receives consulting fees from AbbVie.

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