Laird Harrison

A week of antibiotics appears just as effective as 2 weeks in treating afebrile men with urinary tract infections (UTIs), researchers say.

Shortening the course of treatment could spare patients side effects from the medications and reduce the risk that bacteria will develop resistance to the drugs, said Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“You’d like to be on these drugs for as short [an] amount of time as gets the job done,” he told this news organization. The study was published online July 28 in JAMA.

Researchers have recently found that shorter courses of antimicrobials are effective in the treatment of other types of infection and for UTIs in women. However, UTIs in men are thought to be more complicated because the male urethra is longer.

To see whether reducing length of treatment could be effective in men as well, Dr. Drekonja and colleagues compared 7-day and 14-day regimens in men treated at U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers in Minnesota and Texas.

They recruited 272 men who had symptoms of UTI and were willing to participate. All the men received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin for 7 days. Half the men were randomly assigned to continue this treatment for an additional 7 days; the other half received placebo pills for an additional 7 days.

The average age of the men was 69 years. Urine samples were cultured from 87.9% of the men. In 60.7% of these samples, the researchers found more than 100,000 CFU/mL; in 16.3%, they found lower colony counts; and in 23.0%, they found no growth of bacteria. The most common organism they isolated was Escherchia coli.

Results for the two groups were similar. Symptoms resolved 14 days after completion of the course of treatment in 90.4% of those who received 14 days of antibiotics, versus 91.9% of those who received 7 days of antibiotics plus 7 days of placebo pills. At 1.5%, the difference between the two arms was within the predetermined boundary for noninferiority.

The percentage of those who experienced recurrence of symptoms within 28 days of stopping medication was also similar between the two groups. Among those who received 7 days of antibiotics, 10.3% experienced recurrence of symptoms, compared to 16.9% of those assigned to 14 days of antibiotics.

There was no significant difference in the resolution of UTI symptoms between the two groups by type of antibiotic, pretreatment bacteriuria count, or study site.

Adverse events were also similar in the two groups, occurring in 20.6% of the men who received 7 days of antibiotics, versus 24.3% of the men who received 14 days of treatment. In both groups, 8.8% of patients had diarrhea, which was the most common adverse event.

Clinicians should not worry that antibiotic resistance is more likely to develop or that symptoms will recur when patients don’t finish a prescribed course of treatment, Dr. Drekonja said. “That is an old piece of guidance that has persisted for such a long time,” he said. “And it makes all of us in the infectious disease field cringe.”

Rather, the current thinking is that the more antibiotics patients take, the more resistance bacteria will develop, he said.

The success of the 7-day regimen raises the question of whether an even shorter course would work equally well. It’s not clear how short a course of antibiotics will do the trick. Research in certain populations, such as patients with spinal cord injuries, has suggested that recurrences are more frequent with 3 days of antibiotics than with 14, “so there could be a floor that you do need to go beyond,” Dr. Drekonja said.

“We’re not really sure how much people need,” agreed Daniel Morgan, MD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which is why this study is important. “It really defined that 1 week is better than 2 weeks,” he said in an interview.

Another way that clinicians can reduce the use of antibiotics by men with UTIs is to consider alternative diagnoses and to culture urine samples when UTI seems like the most likely cause of their symptoms, said Dr. Morgan, who co-authored an accompanying editorial.

He pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a black box warning on fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, because they increase the risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture. Nitrofurantoin and amoxicillin-clavulanate are better alternatives for UTIs, he said.

Even some men with fevers and UTIs may need no more than 7 days of antibiotics, said Dr. Morgan. Dr. Drekonja said he generally prescribes at least 10 days antibiotics for these men.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review Program. Dr. Drekonja and Dr. Morgan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A week of antibiotics appears just as effective as 2 weeks in treating afebrile men with urinary tract infections (UTIs), researchers say.

Shortening the course of treatment could spare patients side effects from the medications and reduce the risk that bacteria will develop resistance to the drugs, said Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“You’d like to be on these drugs for as short [an] amount of time as gets the job done,” he told this news organization. The study was published online July 28 in JAMA.

Researchers have recently found that shorter courses of antimicrobials are effective in the treatment of other types of infection and for UTIs in women. However, UTIs in men are thought to be more complicated because the male urethra is longer.

To see whether reducing length of treatment could be effective in men as well, Dr. Drekonja and colleagues compared 7-day and 14-day regimens in men treated at U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers in Minnesota and Texas.

They recruited 272 men who had symptoms of UTI and were willing to participate. All the men received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin for 7 days. Half the men were randomly assigned to continue this treatment for an additional 7 days; the other half received placebo pills for an additional 7 days.

The average age of the men was 69 years. Urine samples were cultured from 87.9% of the men. In 60.7% of these samples, the researchers found more than 100,000 CFU/mL; in 16.3%, they found lower colony counts; and in 23.0%, they found no growth of bacteria. The most common organism they isolated was Escherchia coli.

Results for the two groups were similar. Symptoms resolved 14 days after completion of the course of treatment in 90.4% of those who received 14 days of antibiotics, versus 91.9% of those who received 7 days of antibiotics plus 7 days of placebo pills. At 1.5%, the difference between the two arms was within the predetermined boundary for noninferiority.

The percentage of those who experienced recurrence of symptoms within 28 days of stopping medication was also similar between the two groups. Among those who received 7 days of antibiotics, 10.3% experienced recurrence of symptoms, compared to 16.9% of those assigned to 14 days of antibiotics.

There was no significant difference in the resolution of UTI symptoms between the two groups by type of antibiotic, pretreatment bacteriuria count, or study site.

Adverse events were also similar in the two groups, occurring in 20.6% of the men who received 7 days of antibiotics, versus 24.3% of the men who received 14 days of treatment. In both groups, 8.8% of patients had diarrhea, which was the most common adverse event.

Clinicians should not worry that antibiotic resistance is more likely to develop or that symptoms will recur when patients don’t finish a prescribed course of treatment, Dr. Drekonja said. “That is an old piece of guidance that has persisted for such a long time,” he said. “And it makes all of us in the infectious disease field cringe.”

Rather, the current thinking is that the more antibiotics patients take, the more resistance bacteria will develop, he said.

The success of the 7-day regimen raises the question of whether an even shorter course would work equally well. It’s not clear how short a course of antibiotics will do the trick. Research in certain populations, such as patients with spinal cord injuries, has suggested that recurrences are more frequent with 3 days of antibiotics than with 14, “so there could be a floor that you do need to go beyond,” Dr. Drekonja said.

“We’re not really sure how much people need,” agreed Daniel Morgan, MD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which is why this study is important. “It really defined that 1 week is better than 2 weeks,” he said in an interview.

Another way that clinicians can reduce the use of antibiotics by men with UTIs is to consider alternative diagnoses and to culture urine samples when UTI seems like the most likely cause of their symptoms, said Dr. Morgan, who co-authored an accompanying editorial.

He pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a black box warning on fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, because they increase the risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture. Nitrofurantoin and amoxicillin-clavulanate are better alternatives for UTIs, he said.

Even some men with fevers and UTIs may need no more than 7 days of antibiotics, said Dr. Morgan. Dr. Drekonja said he generally prescribes at least 10 days antibiotics for these men.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review Program. Dr. Drekonja and Dr. Morgan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A week of antibiotics appears just as effective as 2 weeks in treating afebrile men with urinary tract infections (UTIs), researchers say.

Shortening the course of treatment could spare patients side effects from the medications and reduce the risk that bacteria will develop resistance to the drugs, said Dimitri Drekonja, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center.

“You’d like to be on these drugs for as short [an] amount of time as gets the job done,” he told this news organization. The study was published online July 28 in JAMA.

Researchers have recently found that shorter courses of antimicrobials are effective in the treatment of other types of infection and for UTIs in women. However, UTIs in men are thought to be more complicated because the male urethra is longer.

To see whether reducing length of treatment could be effective in men as well, Dr. Drekonja and colleagues compared 7-day and 14-day regimens in men treated at U.S. Veterans Affairs medical centers in Minnesota and Texas.

They recruited 272 men who had symptoms of UTI and were willing to participate. All the men received trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole or ciprofloxacin for 7 days. Half the men were randomly assigned to continue this treatment for an additional 7 days; the other half received placebo pills for an additional 7 days.

The average age of the men was 69 years. Urine samples were cultured from 87.9% of the men. In 60.7% of these samples, the researchers found more than 100,000 CFU/mL; in 16.3%, they found lower colony counts; and in 23.0%, they found no growth of bacteria. The most common organism they isolated was Escherchia coli.

Results for the two groups were similar. Symptoms resolved 14 days after completion of the course of treatment in 90.4% of those who received 14 days of antibiotics, versus 91.9% of those who received 7 days of antibiotics plus 7 days of placebo pills. At 1.5%, the difference between the two arms was within the predetermined boundary for noninferiority.

The percentage of those who experienced recurrence of symptoms within 28 days of stopping medication was also similar between the two groups. Among those who received 7 days of antibiotics, 10.3% experienced recurrence of symptoms, compared to 16.9% of those assigned to 14 days of antibiotics.

There was no significant difference in the resolution of UTI symptoms between the two groups by type of antibiotic, pretreatment bacteriuria count, or study site.

Adverse events were also similar in the two groups, occurring in 20.6% of the men who received 7 days of antibiotics, versus 24.3% of the men who received 14 days of treatment. In both groups, 8.8% of patients had diarrhea, which was the most common adverse event.

Clinicians should not worry that antibiotic resistance is more likely to develop or that symptoms will recur when patients don’t finish a prescribed course of treatment, Dr. Drekonja said. “That is an old piece of guidance that has persisted for such a long time,” he said. “And it makes all of us in the infectious disease field cringe.”

Rather, the current thinking is that the more antibiotics patients take, the more resistance bacteria will develop, he said.

The success of the 7-day regimen raises the question of whether an even shorter course would work equally well. It’s not clear how short a course of antibiotics will do the trick. Research in certain populations, such as patients with spinal cord injuries, has suggested that recurrences are more frequent with 3 days of antibiotics than with 14, “so there could be a floor that you do need to go beyond,” Dr. Drekonja said.

“We’re not really sure how much people need,” agreed Daniel Morgan, MD, a professor of epidemiology and public health and medicine at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which is why this study is important. “It really defined that 1 week is better than 2 weeks,” he said in an interview.

Another way that clinicians can reduce the use of antibiotics by men with UTIs is to consider alternative diagnoses and to culture urine samples when UTI seems like the most likely cause of their symptoms, said Dr. Morgan, who co-authored an accompanying editorial.

He pointed out that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued a black box warning on fluoroquinolones, including ciprofloxacin, because they increase the risk for tendinitis and tendon rupture. Nitrofurantoin and amoxicillin-clavulanate are better alternatives for UTIs, he said.

Even some men with fevers and UTIs may need no more than 7 days of antibiotics, said Dr. Morgan. Dr. Drekonja said he generally prescribes at least 10 days antibiotics for these men.

The study was funded by the VA Merit Review Program. Dr. Drekonja and Dr. Morgan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.

In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.

None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.

The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.

“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.

That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.

The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.

“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.

For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.

In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.

A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.

In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).

For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.

“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.

That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.

But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.

If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.

That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.

But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.

In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.

Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.

In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.

None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.

The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.

“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.

That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.

The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.

“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.

For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.

In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.

A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.

In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).

For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.

“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.

That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.

But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.

If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.

That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.

But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.

In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.

Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

People whose immune systems are compromised by therapy or disease may benefit from additional doses of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers say.

In a study involving 101 people with solid-organ transplants, there was a significant boost in antibodies after the patients received third doses of the Pfizer vaccine, said Nassim Kamar, MD, PhD, professor of nephrology at Toulouse University Hospital, France.

None of the transplant patients had antibodies against the virus before their first dose of the vaccine, and only 4% produced antibodies after the first dose. That proportion rose to 40% after the second dose and to 68% after the third dose.

The effect is so strong that Dr. Kamar and colleagues at Toulouse University Hospital routinely administer three doses of mRNA vaccines to patients with solid-organ transplant without testing them for antibodies.

“When we observed that the second dose was not sufficient to have an immune response, the Francophone Society of Transplantation asked the National Health Authority to allow the third dose,” he told this news organization.

That agency on April 11 approved third doses of mRNA vaccines not only for people with solid-organ transplants but also for those with recent bone marrow transplants, those undergoing dialysis, and those with autoimmune diseases who were receiving strong immunosuppressive treatment, such as anti-CD20 or antimetabolites. Contrary to their procedure for people with solid-organ transplants, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital test these patients for antibodies and administer third doses of vaccine only to those who test negative or have very low titers.

The researchers’ findings, published on June 23 as a letter to the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, come as other researchers document more and more categories of patients whose responses to the vaccines typically fall short.

A study at the University of Pittsburgh that was published as a preprint on MedRxiv compared people with various health conditions to healthy health care workers. People with HIV who were taking antivirals against that virus responded almost as well as did the health care workers, said John Mellors, MD, chief of infectious diseases at the university. But people whose immune systems were compromised for other reasons fared less well.

“The areas of concern are hematological malignancy and solid-organ transplants, with the most nonresponsive groups being those who have had lung transplantation,” he said in an interview.

For patients with liver disease, mixed news came from the International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021 annual meeting.

In a study involving patients with liver disease who had received the Pfizer vaccine at Hadassah University Medical Center in Jerusalem, antibody titers were lower in patients who had received liver transplants or who had advanced liver fibrosis, as reported by this news organization.

A multicenter study in China that was presented at the ILC meeting and that was also published in the Journal of Hepatology, provided a more optimistic picture. Among patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease who were immunized against SARS-CoV-2 with the Sinopharm vaccine, 95.5% had neutralizing antibodies; the median neutralizing antibody titer was 32.

In the Toulouse University Hospital study, for the 40 patients who were seropositive after the second dose, antibody titers increased from 36 before the third dose to 2,676 a month after the third dose, a statistically significant result (P < .001).

For patients whose immune systems are compromised for reasons other than having received a transplant, clinicians at Toulouse University Hospital use a titer of 14 as the threshold below which they administer a third dose of mRNA vaccines. But Dr. Kamar acknowledged that the threshold is arbitrary and that the assays for antibodies with different vaccines in different populations can’t be compared head to head.

“We can’t tell you simply on the basis of the amount of antibody in your laboratory report how protected you are,” agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., who is a spokesperson for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Not enough research has been done to establish that relationship, and results vary from one laboratory to another, he said.

That doesn’t mean that antibody tests don’t help, Dr. Schaffner said. On the basis of views of other experts he has consulted, Dr. Schaffner recommends that people who are immunocompromised undergo an antibody test. If the test is positive – meaning they have some antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, however low the titers – patients can take fewer precautions than before they were vaccinated.

But they should still be more cautious than people with healthy immune systems, he said. “Would I be going to large indoor gatherings without a mask? No. Would I be outside without a mask? Yes. Would I gather with three other people who are vaccinated to play a game of bridge? Yes. You have to titrate things a little and use some common sense,” he added.

If the results are negative, such patients may still be protected. Much research remains to be done on T-cell immunity, a second line of defense against the virus. And the current assays often produce false negative results. But to be on the safe side, people with this result should assume that their vaccine is not protecting them, Dr. Schaffner said.

That suggestion contradicts the Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

The studies so far suggest that vaccines are safe for people whose immune systems are compromised, Dr. Schaffner and Dr. Kamar agreed. Dr. Kamar is aware of only two case reports of transplant patients rejecting their transplants after vaccination. One of these was his own patient, and the rejection occurred after her second dose. She has not needed dialysis, although her kidney function was impaired.

But the FDA has not approved additional doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine to treat patients who are immunocompromised, and Dr. Kamar has not heard of any other national regulatory agencies that have.

In the United States, it may be difficult for anyone to obtain a third dose of vaccine outside of a clinical trial, Dr. Schaffner said, because vaccinators are likely to check databases and deny vaccination to anyone who has already received the recommended number.

Dr. Kamar, Dr. Mellors, and Dr. Schaffner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the health of patients with liver disease worldwide, researchers say.

Not only does liver disease make people more vulnerable to the virus that causes COVID-19, precautions to prevent its spread have delayed health care and worsened alcohol abuse.

At this year’s virtual International Liver Congress (ILC) 2021, experts from around the world documented this toll on their patients.

Surgeons have seen a surge in patients needing transplants because of alcoholic liver disease, the campaign to snuff out hepatitis C slowed down, and procedures such as endoscopy and ultrasound exams postponed, said Mario Mondelli, MD, PhD, a professor and consultant physician of infectious diseases at the University of Pavia, Italy.

“We were able to ensure only emergency treatments, not routine surveillance,” he said in an interview.

Of 1,994 people with chronic liver disease who responded to a survey through the Global Liver Registry, 11% reported that the pandemic had affected their liver health.

This proportion was not statistically different for the 165 patients (8.2%) who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with those who had not. But many of those who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 reported that it severely affected them. They reported worse overall heath, more mental illness, and greater need for supportive service than those who evaded the virus. Thirty-three respondents (20.8%) were hospitalized.

The global effort to eradicate hepatitis C slowed as a result of the pandemic. Already in 2019, the United States was behind the World Health Organization schedule for eliminating this virus. In 2020, it slipped further, with 25% fewer patients starting treatment for hepatitis C than in 2019, according to researchers at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Similar delays in eliminating hepatitis C occurred around the world, Dr. Mondelli said, noting that the majority of countries will not be able to reach the WHO objectives.

One striking result of the pandemic was an uptick of patients needing liver transplants as a result of alcoholic liver disease, said George Cholankeril, MD, a liver transplant surgeon at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston.

Before the pandemic, he and his colleagues had noted an increase in the number of people needing liver transplants because of alcohol abuse. During the pandemic, that trend accelerated.

They defined the pre-COVID era as June 1, 2019, to Feb. 29, 2020, and the COVID era as after April 1, 2020. In the COVID era, alcoholic liver disease accounted for 40% of patients whom the hospital put on its list for liver transplant. Hepatitis C and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease combined accounted for only 36%.

The change has resulted in part from the effectiveness of hepatitis C treatments, which have reduced the number of patients with livers damaged by that virus. But the change also resulted from the increased severity of illness in the patients with alcoholic liver disease, Dr. Cholankeril said in an interview. Overall, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease scores – which are used to predict survival – worsened for patients with alcoholic liver disease but remained the same for patients with nonalcoholic liver disease.

In the pre-COVID era, patients with alcoholic liver disease had a 10% higher chance for undergoing transplant, compared with patients with nonalcoholic liver disease. In the COVID era, they had a 50% higher chance, a statistically significant change (P < .001).

The finding parallels those of other studies that have shown a spike in consults for alcohol-related gastrointestinal and liver diseases, as reported by this news organization.

“We feel that the increase in alcoholic hepatitis is possibly from binge drinking and alcoholic consumption during the pandemic,” said Dr. Cholankeril. “Anecdotally, I can’t tell you how many patients say that the video meetings for Alcoholic Anonymous just don’t work. It’s not the same as in person. They don’t feel that they’re getting the support that they need.”

In Europe, fewer of the people who need liver transplants may be receiving them, said Dr. Mondelli.

“There are several papers indicating, particularly in Italy, in France, and in the United Kingdom, that during the pandemic, the offer for organs significantly declined,” he said.

Other studies have shown increases in mortality from liver disease during the pandemic, Dr. Mondelli said. The same is true of myocardial infarction, cancer, and most other life-threatening illnesses, he pointed out.

“Because of the enormous tsunami that has affected hospital services during the peaks of the pandemic, there has been an increase in deceased patients from a variety of other diseases, not only liver disease,” he said.

But Dr. Mondelli also added that physicians had improved in their ability to safely care for their patients while protecting themselves over the course of the pandemic.

Dr. Mondelli and Dr. Cholankeril have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Intermittent calorie restriction offers only modest advantages over a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), researchers say.

The intermittent diet offers more benefit for liver stiffness and LDL cholesterol, and might be easier to maintain, said Magnus Holmer, MD, head of the hepatology unit at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

But the intermittent diet also has drawbacks and the differences between the two were slight, he said in an interview.

“They were more or less identically effective in reducing liver steatosis in NAFLD and also reducing body weight,” he said. “And from this, we can say that the composition of macronutrients such as fat or sugar seems to be less important than how many calories you eat.”

Dr. Holmer and colleagues presented their findings at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published them in JHEP Reports

While previous studies have shown that dieting can effectively treat NAFLD, researchers have debated whether popular LCHF diets might cause more harm than good.

At the same time, intermittent-calorie restriction diets have also been gaining in popularity, particularly the 5:2 diet in which participants eat normally for 5 days a week and restrict their calories the other 2 days.
 

How do the two diets compare?

To see if one was more effective than the other, the researchers recruited 74 people with NAFLD. They diagnosed the patients either by radiologic assessment or a combination of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) greater than 280 dB/m and obesity, or a CAP greater than 280 dB/m, elevated ALT, and overweight. Sixteen of the patients were being treated with statins.

The researchers randomly assigned 25 people to an LCHF diet, 25 to a 5:2 diet, and 24 to standard care. The groups were similar in diet, age, body mass index, liver stiffness, and most other criteria at baseline, although there were more women in the standard-care group.

At the start of the study, the participants in the standard-care group consulted with a hepatologist who advised them to avoid sweets and saturated fats, eat three meals a day, and avoid large portions.

The researchers asked women in the 5:2 diet to eat up to 500 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,000 kcal/day each of the other 5 days. They asked men in the group to eat up to 600 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,400 kcal/day the other 5 days.

They provided all the 5:2 participants with recipes that followed the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, an adaptation of the Mediterranean diet that emphasizes foods traditional in Nordic countries, particularly grains such as whole-grain rye, oats, and barley; fruits such as apples, pears, berries, and plums; root vegetables, cabbages, onions, peas, beans, fish, boiled potatoes, and dairy products; and the use of rapeseed (canola) oil. The calories provided in the recipes were composed of 45%-60% carbohydrates, 25% fat, and 10%-20% protein.

The researchers asked women in the LCHF diet to eat an average of 1,600 kcal/day and men to eat an average of 1,900 kcal/day. All the participants used recipes based on meat, fish, eggs, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and dairy fat. Participants avoided sugar, bread, pasta, rice, pies, potatoes, and fruit. The calories in the recipes were composed of 5%-10% carbohydrates, 50%-80% fat, and 15%-40% protein.

All the participants reported what they ate over the previous 3 days, both at the start of the study and after 12 weeks. Participants in the 5:2 and LCHF groups also received follow-up calls to report their past 24 hours of eating at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and also at week 6, when they visited a dietitian.

In addition, the researchers measured the participants’ linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake to verify that the participants’ diets were different among the groups.

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost a significant amount of liver fat, but the LCHF and 5:2 groups lost more than the standard care group. Liver stiffness decreased significantly in the 5:2 and standard care groups, but not in the LCHF group.

The differences in steatosis change between the standard care and LCHF groups was statistically significant (P = .001), as it was between the standard care and 5:2 groups (P = .029). The differences between the LCHF and 5:2 groups were not statistically significant for weight or steatosis, but they were statistically significant for liver stiffness.

In addition, the 5:2 group significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol, while the standard care group did not. In the LCHF group, levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol all increased.

The long-term implications of the cholesterol findings are unclear, Dr. Holmer said. He hopes to follow up on these patients after 18-24 months. But the initial cholesterol findings are perhaps enough to constitute a red flag for anyone with a history of cardiovascular disease.
 

Diet adherence

Only one person dropped out of the 5:2 group, compared with five in the LCHF group and four in the standard-care group. More people in the LCHF group reported adverse events, such as gastrointestinal upset.

“With LCHF, it’s a drastic change for most people,” Dr. Holmer said. “Many patients are a bit shocked when they realize how much fat they are supposed to eat for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner. They might eat bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.” The diet could be challenging for people who want to reduce their consumption of meat for environmental reasons.

The 5:2 group offers the advantage that people can choose what they want to eat as long as they adhere to the calorie restrictions, he pointed out. Still, he cautioned that the diet would not work well for people with insulin-dependent diabetes because of the difficulty of adjusting insulin levels on fasting days. He also recommended against this diet for people with cirrhosis because they need to eat frequent meals.
 

LCHF and 5:2 diets can work

But for most people the good news is that a variety of diets will work to treat NAFLD, Dr. Holmer said.

“I begin with saying to my patients that this can be completely cured, as long as you’re able to lose weight,” he said. “Then the next question is, how are they going to go ahead with that task? And if they’re already interested in some sort of specific diet, then I can, based on these findings, encourage that.”

Stephen Harrison, MD, a visiting professor of hepatology at Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, England, said that longer-term results will be important. For example, it will be interesting to see if the diets had effects on ballooning or inflammation.

Another limitation of the study is that it is relatively small in size, he said. He pointed out that people with NAFLD should increase their physical activity as well as eating less.

Still, Dr. Harrison greeted the findings enthusiastically, saying: “This is an important study.”

It’s useful to compare two popular diets head to head, and it’s also encouraging to get confirmation that either one can work, he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Stockholm County Council, the Dietary Science Foundation (Kostfonden), the Skandia Research Foundation, and the Åke Wiberg Foundation. Dr. Holmer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harrison is a consultant to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

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

Intermittent calorie restriction offers only modest advantages over a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), researchers say.

The intermittent diet offers more benefit for liver stiffness and LDL cholesterol, and might be easier to maintain, said Magnus Holmer, MD, head of the hepatology unit at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

But the intermittent diet also has drawbacks and the differences between the two were slight, he said in an interview.

“They were more or less identically effective in reducing liver steatosis in NAFLD and also reducing body weight,” he said. “And from this, we can say that the composition of macronutrients such as fat or sugar seems to be less important than how many calories you eat.”

Dr. Holmer and colleagues presented their findings at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published them in JHEP Reports

While previous studies have shown that dieting can effectively treat NAFLD, researchers have debated whether popular LCHF diets might cause more harm than good.

At the same time, intermittent-calorie restriction diets have also been gaining in popularity, particularly the 5:2 diet in which participants eat normally for 5 days a week and restrict their calories the other 2 days.
 

How do the two diets compare?

To see if one was more effective than the other, the researchers recruited 74 people with NAFLD. They diagnosed the patients either by radiologic assessment or a combination of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) greater than 280 dB/m and obesity, or a CAP greater than 280 dB/m, elevated ALT, and overweight. Sixteen of the patients were being treated with statins.

The researchers randomly assigned 25 people to an LCHF diet, 25 to a 5:2 diet, and 24 to standard care. The groups were similar in diet, age, body mass index, liver stiffness, and most other criteria at baseline, although there were more women in the standard-care group.

At the start of the study, the participants in the standard-care group consulted with a hepatologist who advised them to avoid sweets and saturated fats, eat three meals a day, and avoid large portions.

The researchers asked women in the 5:2 diet to eat up to 500 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,000 kcal/day each of the other 5 days. They asked men in the group to eat up to 600 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,400 kcal/day the other 5 days.

They provided all the 5:2 participants with recipes that followed the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, an adaptation of the Mediterranean diet that emphasizes foods traditional in Nordic countries, particularly grains such as whole-grain rye, oats, and barley; fruits such as apples, pears, berries, and plums; root vegetables, cabbages, onions, peas, beans, fish, boiled potatoes, and dairy products; and the use of rapeseed (canola) oil. The calories provided in the recipes were composed of 45%-60% carbohydrates, 25% fat, and 10%-20% protein.

The researchers asked women in the LCHF diet to eat an average of 1,600 kcal/day and men to eat an average of 1,900 kcal/day. All the participants used recipes based on meat, fish, eggs, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and dairy fat. Participants avoided sugar, bread, pasta, rice, pies, potatoes, and fruit. The calories in the recipes were composed of 5%-10% carbohydrates, 50%-80% fat, and 15%-40% protein.

All the participants reported what they ate over the previous 3 days, both at the start of the study and after 12 weeks. Participants in the 5:2 and LCHF groups also received follow-up calls to report their past 24 hours of eating at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and also at week 6, when they visited a dietitian.

In addition, the researchers measured the participants’ linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake to verify that the participants’ diets were different among the groups.

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost a significant amount of liver fat, but the LCHF and 5:2 groups lost more than the standard care group. Liver stiffness decreased significantly in the 5:2 and standard care groups, but not in the LCHF group.

The differences in steatosis change between the standard care and LCHF groups was statistically significant (P = .001), as it was between the standard care and 5:2 groups (P = .029). The differences between the LCHF and 5:2 groups were not statistically significant for weight or steatosis, but they were statistically significant for liver stiffness.

In addition, the 5:2 group significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol, while the standard care group did not. In the LCHF group, levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol all increased.

The long-term implications of the cholesterol findings are unclear, Dr. Holmer said. He hopes to follow up on these patients after 18-24 months. But the initial cholesterol findings are perhaps enough to constitute a red flag for anyone with a history of cardiovascular disease.
 

Diet adherence

Only one person dropped out of the 5:2 group, compared with five in the LCHF group and four in the standard-care group. More people in the LCHF group reported adverse events, such as gastrointestinal upset.

“With LCHF, it’s a drastic change for most people,” Dr. Holmer said. “Many patients are a bit shocked when they realize how much fat they are supposed to eat for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner. They might eat bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.” The diet could be challenging for people who want to reduce their consumption of meat for environmental reasons.

The 5:2 group offers the advantage that people can choose what they want to eat as long as they adhere to the calorie restrictions, he pointed out. Still, he cautioned that the diet would not work well for people with insulin-dependent diabetes because of the difficulty of adjusting insulin levels on fasting days. He also recommended against this diet for people with cirrhosis because they need to eat frequent meals.
 

LCHF and 5:2 diets can work

But for most people the good news is that a variety of diets will work to treat NAFLD, Dr. Holmer said.

“I begin with saying to my patients that this can be completely cured, as long as you’re able to lose weight,” he said. “Then the next question is, how are they going to go ahead with that task? And if they’re already interested in some sort of specific diet, then I can, based on these findings, encourage that.”

Stephen Harrison, MD, a visiting professor of hepatology at Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, England, said that longer-term results will be important. For example, it will be interesting to see if the diets had effects on ballooning or inflammation.

Another limitation of the study is that it is relatively small in size, he said. He pointed out that people with NAFLD should increase their physical activity as well as eating less.

Still, Dr. Harrison greeted the findings enthusiastically, saying: “This is an important study.”

It’s useful to compare two popular diets head to head, and it’s also encouraging to get confirmation that either one can work, he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Stockholm County Council, the Dietary Science Foundation (Kostfonden), the Skandia Research Foundation, and the Åke Wiberg Foundation. Dr. Holmer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harrison is a consultant to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

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

Intermittent calorie restriction offers only modest advantages over a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet for treating nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), researchers say.

The intermittent diet offers more benefit for liver stiffness and LDL cholesterol, and might be easier to maintain, said Magnus Holmer, MD, head of the hepatology unit at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.

But the intermittent diet also has drawbacks and the differences between the two were slight, he said in an interview.

“They were more or less identically effective in reducing liver steatosis in NAFLD and also reducing body weight,” he said. “And from this, we can say that the composition of macronutrients such as fat or sugar seems to be less important than how many calories you eat.”

Dr. Holmer and colleagues presented their findings at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver and published them in JHEP Reports

While previous studies have shown that dieting can effectively treat NAFLD, researchers have debated whether popular LCHF diets might cause more harm than good.

At the same time, intermittent-calorie restriction diets have also been gaining in popularity, particularly the 5:2 diet in which participants eat normally for 5 days a week and restrict their calories the other 2 days.
 

How do the two diets compare?

To see if one was more effective than the other, the researchers recruited 74 people with NAFLD. They diagnosed the patients either by radiologic assessment or a combination of controlled attenuation parameter (CAP) greater than 280 dB/m and obesity, or a CAP greater than 280 dB/m, elevated ALT, and overweight. Sixteen of the patients were being treated with statins.

The researchers randomly assigned 25 people to an LCHF diet, 25 to a 5:2 diet, and 24 to standard care. The groups were similar in diet, age, body mass index, liver stiffness, and most other criteria at baseline, although there were more women in the standard-care group.

At the start of the study, the participants in the standard-care group consulted with a hepatologist who advised them to avoid sweets and saturated fats, eat three meals a day, and avoid large portions.

The researchers asked women in the 5:2 diet to eat up to 500 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,000 kcal/day each of the other 5 days. They asked men in the group to eat up to 600 kcal/day each of 2 days per week and up to 2,400 kcal/day the other 5 days.

They provided all the 5:2 participants with recipes that followed the Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, an adaptation of the Mediterranean diet that emphasizes foods traditional in Nordic countries, particularly grains such as whole-grain rye, oats, and barley; fruits such as apples, pears, berries, and plums; root vegetables, cabbages, onions, peas, beans, fish, boiled potatoes, and dairy products; and the use of rapeseed (canola) oil. The calories provided in the recipes were composed of 45%-60% carbohydrates, 25% fat, and 10%-20% protein.

The researchers asked women in the LCHF diet to eat an average of 1,600 kcal/day and men to eat an average of 1,900 kcal/day. All the participants used recipes based on meat, fish, eggs, low-carbohydrate vegetables, and dairy fat. Participants avoided sugar, bread, pasta, rice, pies, potatoes, and fruit. The calories in the recipes were composed of 5%-10% carbohydrates, 50%-80% fat, and 15%-40% protein.

All the participants reported what they ate over the previous 3 days, both at the start of the study and after 12 weeks. Participants in the 5:2 and LCHF groups also received follow-up calls to report their past 24 hours of eating at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and also at week 6, when they visited a dietitian.

In addition, the researchers measured the participants’ linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acid intake to verify that the participants’ diets were different among the groups.

After 12 weeks, all three groups lost a significant amount of liver fat, but the LCHF and 5:2 groups lost more than the standard care group. Liver stiffness decreased significantly in the 5:2 and standard care groups, but not in the LCHF group.

The differences in steatosis change between the standard care and LCHF groups was statistically significant (P = .001), as it was between the standard care and 5:2 groups (P = .029). The differences between the LCHF and 5:2 groups were not statistically significant for weight or steatosis, but they were statistically significant for liver stiffness.

In addition, the 5:2 group significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol, while the standard care group did not. In the LCHF group, levels of LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and total cholesterol all increased.

The long-term implications of the cholesterol findings are unclear, Dr. Holmer said. He hopes to follow up on these patients after 18-24 months. But the initial cholesterol findings are perhaps enough to constitute a red flag for anyone with a history of cardiovascular disease.
 

Diet adherence

Only one person dropped out of the 5:2 group, compared with five in the LCHF group and four in the standard-care group. More people in the LCHF group reported adverse events, such as gastrointestinal upset.

“With LCHF, it’s a drastic change for most people,” Dr. Holmer said. “Many patients are a bit shocked when they realize how much fat they are supposed to eat for breakfast, for lunch, and for dinner. They might eat bacon and eggs for breakfast every day.” The diet could be challenging for people who want to reduce their consumption of meat for environmental reasons.

The 5:2 group offers the advantage that people can choose what they want to eat as long as they adhere to the calorie restrictions, he pointed out. Still, he cautioned that the diet would not work well for people with insulin-dependent diabetes because of the difficulty of adjusting insulin levels on fasting days. He also recommended against this diet for people with cirrhosis because they need to eat frequent meals.
 

LCHF and 5:2 diets can work

But for most people the good news is that a variety of diets will work to treat NAFLD, Dr. Holmer said.

“I begin with saying to my patients that this can be completely cured, as long as you’re able to lose weight,” he said. “Then the next question is, how are they going to go ahead with that task? And if they’re already interested in some sort of specific diet, then I can, based on these findings, encourage that.”

Stephen Harrison, MD, a visiting professor of hepatology at Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, England, said that longer-term results will be important. For example, it will be interesting to see if the diets had effects on ballooning or inflammation.

Another limitation of the study is that it is relatively small in size, he said. He pointed out that people with NAFLD should increase their physical activity as well as eating less.

Still, Dr. Harrison greeted the findings enthusiastically, saying: “This is an important study.”

It’s useful to compare two popular diets head to head, and it’s also encouraging to get confirmation that either one can work, he added.

The study was supported by grants from the Stockholm County Council, the Dietary Science Foundation (Kostfonden), the Skandia Research Foundation, and the Åke Wiberg Foundation. Dr. Holmer has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Harrison is a consultant to Madrigal Pharmaceuticals.

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

Patients who have received liver transplants or have advanced liver fibrosis may not get adequate protection against COVID-19 from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, researchers say.

Physicians should test these patients and consider administering a third vaccine dose for those with low levels of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said Rifaat Safadi, MD, director of the Liver Unit in the Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases at Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

“If they are not responding, if the serology is going down to zero over the next year, you should revaccinate them or boost them,” Dr. Safadi said in an interview.

The suggestion contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of vaccination against the virus and has not approved a three-dose regimen or booster of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But Dr. Safadi said he is more convinced by the data, which he presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, than by the FDA’s recommendation.

“I’m not sure how scientific this recommendation is,” he said.

Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have proven highly effective in clinical trials and real-world studies. But some vaccinated people have sickened and even died from breakthrough infections, despite receiving Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which have produced the most impressive results.

Few researchers have explored whether patients with weakened immune systems achieve the same level of protection as the general population. Fibrosis impairs the immune function of the liver, and people with transplants take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of the transplant.
 

New data on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Safadi and his colleagues measured antibodies (immunoglobulins) to the spike protein in the virus (S IgG) in vaccinated people who had liver transplants and in other vaccinated people whose liver fibrosis they had assessed with blood tests and biopsies.

About 32 of 90 people who received liver transplants at Hadassah University Medical Center and had received the Pfizer vaccine had an anti–S IgG less than 19 AU/mL, the researchers’ cutoff for a “good” antibody response to the vaccine.

Five other vaccinated people with liver transplants were diagnosed with COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine, one after the first dose and four after the second dose. Altogether, this added up to a 41.1% failure rate of the vaccine, Dr. Safadi said.

To determine the effectiveness of the vaccine in a larger population, Dr. Safadi and colleagues measured the S IgG levels in 719 employees of Hadassah University Medical Center who had received their second doses of the vaccine at least 7 days before (72% had received it 14 days before).

Of these, 708 (98.5%) had titers greater than 19 AU/mL.

Another eight (1.1%) had titers less than 12 AU/mL, which the researchers defined as a negative response. All eight had suppressed immune systems: two had kidney transplants, one had rheumatoid arthritis, two had lymphoma, two had metabolic syndrome, and one had both multiple sclerosis and metabolic syndrome.

The remaining three (0.4%) had S IgG titers from 12 to 19 AU/mL. Of this group, one person each had hemodialysis and cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cryoglobulinemia, and metabolic syndrome.

Of those patients with S IgG titers greater than 19 AU/mL, Fibrosis-4 (Fib-4) scores were available for 501 (the Fib-4 score is a measure of liver fibrosis based on levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and age). Those with higher Fib-4 scores had lower mean S IgG levels. Of those with Fib-4 scores less than 1.3, 68.0% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL, and of those with Fib-4 scores greater than 2, 44.2% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL. The difference was statistically significant (P = .002).

The researchers found a similar correlation when they measured liver health by biopsy for 140 vaccinated people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They found that lower NAFLD activity scores corresponded to higher S IgG titers. Using FibroScan, they also found a trend toward lower S IgG titers with higher fibrosis kilopascals.

In addition, Dr. Safadi and colleagues noted that older age and male sex correlated with lower S IgG titers.
 

Differing opinions on value of antibody titers, third doses

The virus is likely to remain a threat for a year or more to come, and antibody tests may give some indication of who is likely to have the longest-lasting protection, Dr. Safadi said.

“I believe that stronger responders will maintain longer, while the weaker responders will maintain shorter and maybe will need a third shot at some time,” he added.

Pauline Vetter, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Geneva University Hospitals, questioned whether antibody titers can be used to estimate an individual’s level of resistance to the virus. There is some evidence that higher titers correlate with better protection, but it’s not clear to what degree, she said.

“There’s no definitive cutoff,” Dr. Vetter said in an interview. “I can’t say if you have more than a titer of 5, then you’re protected or you’re more protected – or if you have less, then you’re not protected.”

Testing to see whether a person has any S IgG antibodies at all following a vaccination might be worthwhile, she said. She noted that people who know that they did not have an antibody response may be more careful.

Dr. Vetter concluded that not enough is yet known to recommend a third dose or booster for people whose immunity is suppressed.

“There might be a benefit in these populations. But the question is, when and in which situations?” she said.

Dr. Vetter and Dr. Safadi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Patients who have received liver transplants or have advanced liver fibrosis may not get adequate protection against COVID-19 from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, researchers say.

Physicians should test these patients and consider administering a third vaccine dose for those with low levels of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said Rifaat Safadi, MD, director of the Liver Unit in the Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases at Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

“If they are not responding, if the serology is going down to zero over the next year, you should revaccinate them or boost them,” Dr. Safadi said in an interview.

The suggestion contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of vaccination against the virus and has not approved a three-dose regimen or booster of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But Dr. Safadi said he is more convinced by the data, which he presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, than by the FDA’s recommendation.

“I’m not sure how scientific this recommendation is,” he said.

Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have proven highly effective in clinical trials and real-world studies. But some vaccinated people have sickened and even died from breakthrough infections, despite receiving Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which have produced the most impressive results.

Few researchers have explored whether patients with weakened immune systems achieve the same level of protection as the general population. Fibrosis impairs the immune function of the liver, and people with transplants take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of the transplant.
 

New data on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Safadi and his colleagues measured antibodies (immunoglobulins) to the spike protein in the virus (S IgG) in vaccinated people who had liver transplants and in other vaccinated people whose liver fibrosis they had assessed with blood tests and biopsies.

About 32 of 90 people who received liver transplants at Hadassah University Medical Center and had received the Pfizer vaccine had an anti–S IgG less than 19 AU/mL, the researchers’ cutoff for a “good” antibody response to the vaccine.

Five other vaccinated people with liver transplants were diagnosed with COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine, one after the first dose and four after the second dose. Altogether, this added up to a 41.1% failure rate of the vaccine, Dr. Safadi said.

To determine the effectiveness of the vaccine in a larger population, Dr. Safadi and colleagues measured the S IgG levels in 719 employees of Hadassah University Medical Center who had received their second doses of the vaccine at least 7 days before (72% had received it 14 days before).

Of these, 708 (98.5%) had titers greater than 19 AU/mL.

Another eight (1.1%) had titers less than 12 AU/mL, which the researchers defined as a negative response. All eight had suppressed immune systems: two had kidney transplants, one had rheumatoid arthritis, two had lymphoma, two had metabolic syndrome, and one had both multiple sclerosis and metabolic syndrome.

The remaining three (0.4%) had S IgG titers from 12 to 19 AU/mL. Of this group, one person each had hemodialysis and cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cryoglobulinemia, and metabolic syndrome.

Of those patients with S IgG titers greater than 19 AU/mL, Fibrosis-4 (Fib-4) scores were available for 501 (the Fib-4 score is a measure of liver fibrosis based on levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and age). Those with higher Fib-4 scores had lower mean S IgG levels. Of those with Fib-4 scores less than 1.3, 68.0% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL, and of those with Fib-4 scores greater than 2, 44.2% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL. The difference was statistically significant (P = .002).

The researchers found a similar correlation when they measured liver health by biopsy for 140 vaccinated people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They found that lower NAFLD activity scores corresponded to higher S IgG titers. Using FibroScan, they also found a trend toward lower S IgG titers with higher fibrosis kilopascals.

In addition, Dr. Safadi and colleagues noted that older age and male sex correlated with lower S IgG titers.
 

Differing opinions on value of antibody titers, third doses

The virus is likely to remain a threat for a year or more to come, and antibody tests may give some indication of who is likely to have the longest-lasting protection, Dr. Safadi said.

“I believe that stronger responders will maintain longer, while the weaker responders will maintain shorter and maybe will need a third shot at some time,” he added.

Pauline Vetter, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Geneva University Hospitals, questioned whether antibody titers can be used to estimate an individual’s level of resistance to the virus. There is some evidence that higher titers correlate with better protection, but it’s not clear to what degree, she said.

“There’s no definitive cutoff,” Dr. Vetter said in an interview. “I can’t say if you have more than a titer of 5, then you’re protected or you’re more protected – or if you have less, then you’re not protected.”

Testing to see whether a person has any S IgG antibodies at all following a vaccination might be worthwhile, she said. She noted that people who know that they did not have an antibody response may be more careful.

Dr. Vetter concluded that not enough is yet known to recommend a third dose or booster for people whose immunity is suppressed.

“There might be a benefit in these populations. But the question is, when and in which situations?” she said.

Dr. Vetter and Dr. Safadi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Patients who have received liver transplants or have advanced liver fibrosis may not get adequate protection against COVID-19 from two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, researchers say.

Physicians should test these patients and consider administering a third vaccine dose for those with low levels of antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, said Rifaat Safadi, MD, director of the Liver Unit in the Institute of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases at Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem.

“If they are not responding, if the serology is going down to zero over the next year, you should revaccinate them or boost them,” Dr. Safadi said in an interview.

The suggestion contradicts the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which issued a recommendation on May 19 against using antibody tests to check the effectiveness of vaccination against the virus and has not approved a three-dose regimen or booster of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.

But Dr. Safadi said he is more convinced by the data, which he presented at the meeting sponsored by the European Association for the Study of the Liver, than by the FDA’s recommendation.

“I’m not sure how scientific this recommendation is,” he said.

Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have proven highly effective in clinical trials and real-world studies. But some vaccinated people have sickened and even died from breakthrough infections, despite receiving Pfizer’s and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines, which have produced the most impressive results.

Few researchers have explored whether patients with weakened immune systems achieve the same level of protection as the general population. Fibrosis impairs the immune function of the liver, and people with transplants take immunosuppressant drugs to prevent rejection of the transplant.
 

New data on vaccine efficacy in the immunocompromised

To address this knowledge gap, Dr. Safadi and his colleagues measured antibodies (immunoglobulins) to the spike protein in the virus (S IgG) in vaccinated people who had liver transplants and in other vaccinated people whose liver fibrosis they had assessed with blood tests and biopsies.

About 32 of 90 people who received liver transplants at Hadassah University Medical Center and had received the Pfizer vaccine had an anti–S IgG less than 19 AU/mL, the researchers’ cutoff for a “good” antibody response to the vaccine.

Five other vaccinated people with liver transplants were diagnosed with COVID-19 after receiving the vaccine, one after the first dose and four after the second dose. Altogether, this added up to a 41.1% failure rate of the vaccine, Dr. Safadi said.

To determine the effectiveness of the vaccine in a larger population, Dr. Safadi and colleagues measured the S IgG levels in 719 employees of Hadassah University Medical Center who had received their second doses of the vaccine at least 7 days before (72% had received it 14 days before).

Of these, 708 (98.5%) had titers greater than 19 AU/mL.

Another eight (1.1%) had titers less than 12 AU/mL, which the researchers defined as a negative response. All eight had suppressed immune systems: two had kidney transplants, one had rheumatoid arthritis, two had lymphoma, two had metabolic syndrome, and one had both multiple sclerosis and metabolic syndrome.

The remaining three (0.4%) had S IgG titers from 12 to 19 AU/mL. Of this group, one person each had hemodialysis and cardiovascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis, cryoglobulinemia, and metabolic syndrome.

Of those patients with S IgG titers greater than 19 AU/mL, Fibrosis-4 (Fib-4) scores were available for 501 (the Fib-4 score is a measure of liver fibrosis based on levels of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase, platelet counts, and age). Those with higher Fib-4 scores had lower mean S IgG levels. Of those with Fib-4 scores less than 1.3, 68.0% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL, and of those with Fib-4 scores greater than 2, 44.2% had S IgG titers greater than 200 AU/mL. The difference was statistically significant (P = .002).

The researchers found a similar correlation when they measured liver health by biopsy for 140 vaccinated people with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). They found that lower NAFLD activity scores corresponded to higher S IgG titers. Using FibroScan, they also found a trend toward lower S IgG titers with higher fibrosis kilopascals.

In addition, Dr. Safadi and colleagues noted that older age and male sex correlated with lower S IgG titers.
 

Differing opinions on value of antibody titers, third doses

The virus is likely to remain a threat for a year or more to come, and antibody tests may give some indication of who is likely to have the longest-lasting protection, Dr. Safadi said.

“I believe that stronger responders will maintain longer, while the weaker responders will maintain shorter and maybe will need a third shot at some time,” he added.

Pauline Vetter, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Geneva University Hospitals, questioned whether antibody titers can be used to estimate an individual’s level of resistance to the virus. There is some evidence that higher titers correlate with better protection, but it’s not clear to what degree, she said.

“There’s no definitive cutoff,” Dr. Vetter said in an interview. “I can’t say if you have more than a titer of 5, then you’re protected or you’re more protected – or if you have less, then you’re not protected.”

Testing to see whether a person has any S IgG antibodies at all following a vaccination might be worthwhile, she said. She noted that people who know that they did not have an antibody response may be more careful.

Dr. Vetter concluded that not enough is yet known to recommend a third dose or booster for people whose immunity is suppressed.

“There might be a benefit in these populations. But the question is, when and in which situations?” she said.

Dr. Vetter and Dr. Safadi have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Allergic conjunctivitis harms quality of life for children and their parents, apparently causing greater day-to-day worries than potentially blinding diseases, researchers report.

Parents worry especially that treatments might not be effective, according to Shi-yao Zhang, MD, and colleagues from Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. “This finding suggests that more communication with parents regarding treatment and prognosis is needed,” they write in an article published online June 10 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

One of the most prevalent eye disorders in children, allergic conjunctivitis is often chronic, leading patients to ask repeatedly for help from physicians. It can take an emotional toll and can cause children to miss school.

“With any sign of a slightly pink eye [or a] runny nose, which are very common with allergies, children are being sent home, because everyone’s concerned about COVID,” said Yi Ning J. Strube, MD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and pediatrics at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, whose commentary appears in the same issue of JAMA Ophthalmology.

Adolescents are also sometimes accused of smoking cannabis because of their red eyes, she said.

However, little research has examined the effects of allergic conjunctivitis on the quality of life of children and their guardians, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write. To fill that gap, the researchers administered the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) to 92 children with allergic conjunctivitis and their parents. The children were aged 5 to 18 years.

The researchers administered the same questionnaire to 96 healthy children of the same ages, along with their parents. These participants served as a control group.

On a scale of 0 to 100, in which a higher score signifies a better quality of life, the median total PedsQL score was 69.6 for children with allergic conjunctivitis versus 96.7 for the control group.

Subscores of physical, emotional, social, and especially school functioning were all significantly lower for the children with allergic conjunctivitis than for the control persons. “Because children generally spend most of their time in the school environment, this outcome raises an issue regarding whether children have a poorer performance in their education,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues write.

Dr. Strube recommends that physicians educate their patients about allergic conjunctivitis using handouts or high-quality websites. She often refers patients and their families to the allergic conjunctivitis webpage of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

She tells parents to have their child “take a shower and wash their hair when they get home before they rub their pollen-filled hair on their pillowcase and make their allergy symptoms worse.”

Parents and schools should try to filter pollen and other allergens from indoor air, she added.

Parents of the children with allergic conjunctivitis in the study also reported lower quality of life; they scored 68.8, versus 96.5 for parents of children in the control group. The differences for both parents and children were statistically significant (P < .001). Overall, the parents’ quality-of-life scores correlated with their children’s (correlation coefficient, r = 0.59; P < .001).

Children with vernal or atopic keratoconjunctivitis scored 3.3 points lower on health-related quality of life than those with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Children with higher corneal fluorescein staining scores also had lower quality-of-life scores. Parents whose children had higher corneal fluorescein staining scores and also those who had multiple consultations with health care practitioners also reported lower quality of life.

The quality-of-life scores of the children with allergic conjunctivitis were lower than scores in previous studies for children with vision-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma and congenital cataract. This may be because glaucoma and cataracts do not typically cause discomfort even if they impair the patient’s vision, said Dr. Strube.

She pointed out one potential flaw in the study: In the cohort with allergic conjunctivitis, 83.7% were boys, compared to 42.7% of the control group. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis affects more boys than girls, and not controlling for this factor could have confounded the data, Dr. Strube said.

It could also be useful to replicate the study in other countries to see whether geographic or cultural factors affected the results, she said. “A lot of these big centers around the world, including in China, have poor air quality, so that may be contributing to patients’ symptoms,” she said. “With regards to reported health quality of life and impact on education, results from different parts of the world may be different, due to parenting styles and education styles,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Strube reported receiving personal fees from Santen Canada Advisory Board Consultant outside the submitted work.

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

Allergic conjunctivitis harms quality of life for children and their parents, apparently causing greater day-to-day worries than potentially blinding diseases, researchers report.

Parents worry especially that treatments might not be effective, according to Shi-yao Zhang, MD, and colleagues from Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. “This finding suggests that more communication with parents regarding treatment and prognosis is needed,” they write in an article published online June 10 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

One of the most prevalent eye disorders in children, allergic conjunctivitis is often chronic, leading patients to ask repeatedly for help from physicians. It can take an emotional toll and can cause children to miss school.

“With any sign of a slightly pink eye [or a] runny nose, which are very common with allergies, children are being sent home, because everyone’s concerned about COVID,” said Yi Ning J. Strube, MD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and pediatrics at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, whose commentary appears in the same issue of JAMA Ophthalmology.

Adolescents are also sometimes accused of smoking cannabis because of their red eyes, she said.

However, little research has examined the effects of allergic conjunctivitis on the quality of life of children and their guardians, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write. To fill that gap, the researchers administered the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) to 92 children with allergic conjunctivitis and their parents. The children were aged 5 to 18 years.

The researchers administered the same questionnaire to 96 healthy children of the same ages, along with their parents. These participants served as a control group.

On a scale of 0 to 100, in which a higher score signifies a better quality of life, the median total PedsQL score was 69.6 for children with allergic conjunctivitis versus 96.7 for the control group.

Subscores of physical, emotional, social, and especially school functioning were all significantly lower for the children with allergic conjunctivitis than for the control persons. “Because children generally spend most of their time in the school environment, this outcome raises an issue regarding whether children have a poorer performance in their education,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues write.

Dr. Strube recommends that physicians educate their patients about allergic conjunctivitis using handouts or high-quality websites. She often refers patients and their families to the allergic conjunctivitis webpage of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

She tells parents to have their child “take a shower and wash their hair when they get home before they rub their pollen-filled hair on their pillowcase and make their allergy symptoms worse.”

Parents and schools should try to filter pollen and other allergens from indoor air, she added.

Parents of the children with allergic conjunctivitis in the study also reported lower quality of life; they scored 68.8, versus 96.5 for parents of children in the control group. The differences for both parents and children were statistically significant (P < .001). Overall, the parents’ quality-of-life scores correlated with their children’s (correlation coefficient, r = 0.59; P < .001).

Children with vernal or atopic keratoconjunctivitis scored 3.3 points lower on health-related quality of life than those with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Children with higher corneal fluorescein staining scores also had lower quality-of-life scores. Parents whose children had higher corneal fluorescein staining scores and also those who had multiple consultations with health care practitioners also reported lower quality of life.

The quality-of-life scores of the children with allergic conjunctivitis were lower than scores in previous studies for children with vision-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma and congenital cataract. This may be because glaucoma and cataracts do not typically cause discomfort even if they impair the patient’s vision, said Dr. Strube.

She pointed out one potential flaw in the study: In the cohort with allergic conjunctivitis, 83.7% were boys, compared to 42.7% of the control group. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis affects more boys than girls, and not controlling for this factor could have confounded the data, Dr. Strube said.

It could also be useful to replicate the study in other countries to see whether geographic or cultural factors affected the results, she said. “A lot of these big centers around the world, including in China, have poor air quality, so that may be contributing to patients’ symptoms,” she said. “With regards to reported health quality of life and impact on education, results from different parts of the world may be different, due to parenting styles and education styles,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Strube reported receiving personal fees from Santen Canada Advisory Board Consultant outside the submitted work.

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

Allergic conjunctivitis harms quality of life for children and their parents, apparently causing greater day-to-day worries than potentially blinding diseases, researchers report.

Parents worry especially that treatments might not be effective, according to Shi-yao Zhang, MD, and colleagues from Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. “This finding suggests that more communication with parents regarding treatment and prognosis is needed,” they write in an article published online June 10 in JAMA Ophthalmology.

One of the most prevalent eye disorders in children, allergic conjunctivitis is often chronic, leading patients to ask repeatedly for help from physicians. It can take an emotional toll and can cause children to miss school.

“With any sign of a slightly pink eye [or a] runny nose, which are very common with allergies, children are being sent home, because everyone’s concerned about COVID,” said Yi Ning J. Strube, MD, an associate professor of ophthalmology and pediatrics at Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada, whose commentary appears in the same issue of JAMA Ophthalmology.

Adolescents are also sometimes accused of smoking cannabis because of their red eyes, she said.

However, little research has examined the effects of allergic conjunctivitis on the quality of life of children and their guardians, Dr. Zhang and colleagues write. To fill that gap, the researchers administered the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) to 92 children with allergic conjunctivitis and their parents. The children were aged 5 to 18 years.

The researchers administered the same questionnaire to 96 healthy children of the same ages, along with their parents. These participants served as a control group.

On a scale of 0 to 100, in which a higher score signifies a better quality of life, the median total PedsQL score was 69.6 for children with allergic conjunctivitis versus 96.7 for the control group.

Subscores of physical, emotional, social, and especially school functioning were all significantly lower for the children with allergic conjunctivitis than for the control persons. “Because children generally spend most of their time in the school environment, this outcome raises an issue regarding whether children have a poorer performance in their education,” Dr. Zhang and colleagues write.

Dr. Strube recommends that physicians educate their patients about allergic conjunctivitis using handouts or high-quality websites. She often refers patients and their families to the allergic conjunctivitis webpage of the American Academy of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus.

She tells parents to have their child “take a shower and wash their hair when they get home before they rub their pollen-filled hair on their pillowcase and make their allergy symptoms worse.”

Parents and schools should try to filter pollen and other allergens from indoor air, she added.

Parents of the children with allergic conjunctivitis in the study also reported lower quality of life; they scored 68.8, versus 96.5 for parents of children in the control group. The differences for both parents and children were statistically significant (P < .001). Overall, the parents’ quality-of-life scores correlated with their children’s (correlation coefficient, r = 0.59; P < .001).

Children with vernal or atopic keratoconjunctivitis scored 3.3 points lower on health-related quality of life than those with seasonal allergic conjunctivitis.

Children with higher corneal fluorescein staining scores also had lower quality-of-life scores. Parents whose children had higher corneal fluorescein staining scores and also those who had multiple consultations with health care practitioners also reported lower quality of life.

The quality-of-life scores of the children with allergic conjunctivitis were lower than scores in previous studies for children with vision-threatening diseases, such as glaucoma and congenital cataract. This may be because glaucoma and cataracts do not typically cause discomfort even if they impair the patient’s vision, said Dr. Strube.

She pointed out one potential flaw in the study: In the cohort with allergic conjunctivitis, 83.7% were boys, compared to 42.7% of the control group. Vernal keratoconjunctivitis affects more boys than girls, and not controlling for this factor could have confounded the data, Dr. Strube said.

It could also be useful to replicate the study in other countries to see whether geographic or cultural factors affected the results, she said. “A lot of these big centers around the world, including in China, have poor air quality, so that may be contributing to patients’ symptoms,” she said. “With regards to reported health quality of life and impact on education, results from different parts of the world may be different, due to parenting styles and education styles,” she said.

The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Science Foundation of Guangdong Province. Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Strube reported receiving personal fees from Santen Canada Advisory Board Consultant outside the submitted work.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Graduates of international medical schools died from COVID-19 in disproportionate numbers in the United States in 2020, researchers report.

“I’ve always felt that international medical graduates [IMGs] in America are largely invisible,” said senior author Abraham Verghese, MD, MFA, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford (Calif.) University. “Everyone is aware that there are foreign doctors, but very few are aware of how many there are and also how vital they are to providing health care in America.”

IMGs made up 25% of all U.S. physicians in 2020 but accounted for 45% of those whose deaths had been attributed to COVID-19 through Nov. 23, 2020, Deendayal Dinakarpandian, MD, PhD, clinical associate professor of medicine at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues report in JAMA Network Open.

IMGs are more likely to work in places where the incidence of COVID-19 is high and in facilities with fewer resources, Dr. Verghese said in an interview. “So, it’s not surprising that they were on the front lines when this thing came along,” he said.

To see whether their vulnerability affected their risk for death, Dr. Dinakarpandian and colleagues collected data from Nov. 23, 2020, from three sources of information regarding deaths among physicians: MedPage Today, which used investigative and voluntary reporting; Medscape, which used voluntary reporting of verifiable information; and a collaboration of The Guardian and Kaiser Health News, which used investigative reporting.

The Medscape project was launched on April 1, 2020. The MedPage Today and The Guardian/Kaiser Health News projects were launched on April 8, 2020.

Dr. Verghese and colleagues researched obituaries and news articles referenced by the three projects to verify their data. They used DocInfo to ascertain the deceased physicians’ medical schools.

After eliminating duplications from the lists, the researchers counted 132 physician deaths in 28 states. Of these, 59 physicians had graduated from medical schools outside the United States, a death toll 1.8 times higher than the proportion of IMGs among U.S. physicians (95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.21; P < .001).

New York, New Jersey, and Florida accounted for 66% of the deaths among IMGs but for only 45% of the deaths among U.S. medical school graduates.

Within each state, the proportion of IMGs among deceased physicians was not statistically different from their proportion among physicians in those states, with the exception of New York.

Two-thirds of the physicians’ deaths occurred in states where IMGs make up a larger proportion of physicians than in the nation as a whole. In these states, the incidence of COVID-19 was high at the start of the pandemic.

In New York, IMGs accounted for 60% of physician deaths, which was 1.62 times higher (95% CI, 1.26-2.09; P = .005) than the 37% among New York physicians overall.

Physicians who were trained abroad frequently can’t get into the most prestigious residency programs or into the highest paid specialties and are more likely to serve in primary care, Dr. Verghese said. Overall, 60% of the physicians who died of COVID-19 worked in primary care.

IMGs often staff hospitals serving low-income communities and communities of color, which were hardest hit by the pandemic and where personal protective equipment was hard to obtain, said Dr. Verghese.

In addition to these risks, IMGs sometimes endure racism, said Dr. Verghese, who obtained his medical degree at Madras Medical College, Chennai, India. “We’ve actually seen in the COVID era, in keeping with the sort of political tone that was set in Washington, that there’s been a lot more abuses of both foreign physicians and foreign looking physicians – even if they’re not foreign trained – and nurses by patients who have been given license. And I want to acknowledge the heroism of all these physicians.”

The study was partially funded by the Presence Center at Stanford. Dr. Verghese is a regular contributor to Medscape. He served on the advisory board for Gilead Sciences, serves as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Leigh Bureau, and receives royalties from Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster.

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

Genetic biomarkers for atopic dermatitis (AD) vary from one ethnic group to another, with a mutation in the interleukin-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) gene particularly important in Korean patients, researchers say.

The finding moves researchers another step forward in the effort to figure out which patients are most at risk for the disease and who will respond best to which treatments.

“Because atopic dermatitis is considered a complex trait, we think if there is any method to detect AD gene variations simultaneously, it could be possible to prevent the development of AD and then the atopic march,” said Eung Ho Choi, MD, PhD, a dermatology professor at Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.

He presented the finding at the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis (ISAD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Atopic dermatitis is not caused by a single genetic mutation. But genetic factors play an important role, with about 75% concordance between monozygotic twins versus only 23% for dizygotic twins.

“Genetic biomarkers are needed in predicting the occurrence, severity, and treatment response,” as well as determining the prognosis of atopic dermatitis “and applying it to precision medicine,” Dr. Choi said.

Researchers have identified multiple genetic variations related to atopic dermatitis. One of the most significant genetic contributions found so far is the filaggrin gene variation, which can produce a defective skin barrier, Dr. Choi said. Others are involved in the immune response.

Although variations in the filaggrin gene (FLG ) are the most reliable genetic predictor of atopic dermatitis in Korean patients, they are less common in Korean patients than in Northwestern Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese patients. In Korean patients, the most common reported mutations of this gene are 3321delA and K4022X, Dr. Choi said.

To find out what other gene variants are important in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis, Dr. Choi and his colleagues developed the reverse blot hybridization assay (REBA) to detect skin barrier variations in the FLG, SPINK5 and KLK7 genes, and genes involved in immune response variations, KDR, IL-5RA, IL-9, DEFB1 (Defensin Beta 1), IL-12RB1 (interleukin-12 receptor subunit beta 1), and IL-12RB2.

They compared the prevalence of these variations in 279 Koreans with atopic dermatitis to the prevalence in 224 healthy people without atopic dermatitis and found that the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis increased with the number of these variants: People with three or four variants had a 3.75 times greater risk of AD, and those with 5 or more variants had a 10.3 times greater risk. The number of variants did not correlate to the severity of the disease, however.

The filaggrin variation was present in 13.9% of those with atopic dermatitis. About a quarter (28%) of the patients with AD who had this variation had impetigo, 15% had eczema herpeticum, and 5% had prurigo nodularis. By comparison, 14% of the patients with AD who did not have this variation had impetigo, and 5% had eczema herpeticum, but 19% had prurigo nodularis.

In a separate study, Dr. Choi and his colleagues identified a mutation in IL-17RA, present in 8.1% of 332 patients with AD compared with 3.3% of 245 controls. The patients with IL-17RA mutations all had extrinsic AD.

The variation was associated with longer disease duration, more frequent keratosis pilaris, higher blood eosinophil counts, higher serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, higher house dust mite allergen-specific IgE levels, and a greater need for systemic treatment than patients without the IL-17RA mutation.

Such findings are important for progress in treating atopic dermatitis because the mechanism differs among patients, said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Excellence in Eczema and professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“It’s not one size fits all in atopic dermatitis, and we need better biomarkers that will be able to tell us which treatment will work best for each patient,” she said in an interview.

In addition to genetic biomarkers, she and her colleagues are analyzing proteins involved in inflammation. They are using adhesive tape strips to harvest these markers, a less invasive approach than skin biopsies.

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

Genetic biomarkers for atopic dermatitis (AD) vary from one ethnic group to another, with a mutation in the interleukin-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) gene particularly important in Korean patients, researchers say.

The finding moves researchers another step forward in the effort to figure out which patients are most at risk for the disease and who will respond best to which treatments.

“Because atopic dermatitis is considered a complex trait, we think if there is any method to detect AD gene variations simultaneously, it could be possible to prevent the development of AD and then the atopic march,” said Eung Ho Choi, MD, PhD, a dermatology professor at Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.

He presented the finding at the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis (ISAD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Atopic dermatitis is not caused by a single genetic mutation. But genetic factors play an important role, with about 75% concordance between monozygotic twins versus only 23% for dizygotic twins.

“Genetic biomarkers are needed in predicting the occurrence, severity, and treatment response,” as well as determining the prognosis of atopic dermatitis “and applying it to precision medicine,” Dr. Choi said.

Researchers have identified multiple genetic variations related to atopic dermatitis. One of the most significant genetic contributions found so far is the filaggrin gene variation, which can produce a defective skin barrier, Dr. Choi said. Others are involved in the immune response.

Although variations in the filaggrin gene (FLG ) are the most reliable genetic predictor of atopic dermatitis in Korean patients, they are less common in Korean patients than in Northwestern Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese patients. In Korean patients, the most common reported mutations of this gene are 3321delA and K4022X, Dr. Choi said.

To find out what other gene variants are important in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis, Dr. Choi and his colleagues developed the reverse blot hybridization assay (REBA) to detect skin barrier variations in the FLG, SPINK5 and KLK7 genes, and genes involved in immune response variations, KDR, IL-5RA, IL-9, DEFB1 (Defensin Beta 1), IL-12RB1 (interleukin-12 receptor subunit beta 1), and IL-12RB2.

They compared the prevalence of these variations in 279 Koreans with atopic dermatitis to the prevalence in 224 healthy people without atopic dermatitis and found that the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis increased with the number of these variants: People with three or four variants had a 3.75 times greater risk of AD, and those with 5 or more variants had a 10.3 times greater risk. The number of variants did not correlate to the severity of the disease, however.

The filaggrin variation was present in 13.9% of those with atopic dermatitis. About a quarter (28%) of the patients with AD who had this variation had impetigo, 15% had eczema herpeticum, and 5% had prurigo nodularis. By comparison, 14% of the patients with AD who did not have this variation had impetigo, and 5% had eczema herpeticum, but 19% had prurigo nodularis.

In a separate study, Dr. Choi and his colleagues identified a mutation in IL-17RA, present in 8.1% of 332 patients with AD compared with 3.3% of 245 controls. The patients with IL-17RA mutations all had extrinsic AD.

The variation was associated with longer disease duration, more frequent keratosis pilaris, higher blood eosinophil counts, higher serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, higher house dust mite allergen-specific IgE levels, and a greater need for systemic treatment than patients without the IL-17RA mutation.

Such findings are important for progress in treating atopic dermatitis because the mechanism differs among patients, said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Excellence in Eczema and professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“It’s not one size fits all in atopic dermatitis, and we need better biomarkers that will be able to tell us which treatment will work best for each patient,” she said in an interview.

In addition to genetic biomarkers, she and her colleagues are analyzing proteins involved in inflammation. They are using adhesive tape strips to harvest these markers, a less invasive approach than skin biopsies.

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

Genetic biomarkers for atopic dermatitis (AD) vary from one ethnic group to another, with a mutation in the interleukin-17 receptor A (IL-17RA) gene particularly important in Korean patients, researchers say.

The finding moves researchers another step forward in the effort to figure out which patients are most at risk for the disease and who will respond best to which treatments.

“Because atopic dermatitis is considered a complex trait, we think if there is any method to detect AD gene variations simultaneously, it could be possible to prevent the development of AD and then the atopic march,” said Eung Ho Choi, MD, PhD, a dermatology professor at Yonsei University, Wonju, South Korea.

He presented the finding at the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis (ISAD) 2021 Annual Meeting.

Atopic dermatitis is not caused by a single genetic mutation. But genetic factors play an important role, with about 75% concordance between monozygotic twins versus only 23% for dizygotic twins.

“Genetic biomarkers are needed in predicting the occurrence, severity, and treatment response,” as well as determining the prognosis of atopic dermatitis “and applying it to precision medicine,” Dr. Choi said.

Researchers have identified multiple genetic variations related to atopic dermatitis. One of the most significant genetic contributions found so far is the filaggrin gene variation, which can produce a defective skin barrier, Dr. Choi said. Others are involved in the immune response.

Although variations in the filaggrin gene (FLG ) are the most reliable genetic predictor of atopic dermatitis in Korean patients, they are less common in Korean patients than in Northwestern Europeans, Chinese, and Japanese patients. In Korean patients, the most common reported mutations of this gene are 3321delA and K4022X, Dr. Choi said.

To find out what other gene variants are important in Korean patients with atopic dermatitis, Dr. Choi and his colleagues developed the reverse blot hybridization assay (REBA) to detect skin barrier variations in the FLG, SPINK5 and KLK7 genes, and genes involved in immune response variations, KDR, IL-5RA, IL-9, DEFB1 (Defensin Beta 1), IL-12RB1 (interleukin-12 receptor subunit beta 1), and IL-12RB2.

They compared the prevalence of these variations in 279 Koreans with atopic dermatitis to the prevalence in 224 healthy people without atopic dermatitis and found that the odds ratio for atopic dermatitis increased with the number of these variants: People with three or four variants had a 3.75 times greater risk of AD, and those with 5 or more variants had a 10.3 times greater risk. The number of variants did not correlate to the severity of the disease, however.

The filaggrin variation was present in 13.9% of those with atopic dermatitis. About a quarter (28%) of the patients with AD who had this variation had impetigo, 15% had eczema herpeticum, and 5% had prurigo nodularis. By comparison, 14% of the patients with AD who did not have this variation had impetigo, and 5% had eczema herpeticum, but 19% had prurigo nodularis.

In a separate study, Dr. Choi and his colleagues identified a mutation in IL-17RA, present in 8.1% of 332 patients with AD compared with 3.3% of 245 controls. The patients with IL-17RA mutations all had extrinsic AD.

The variation was associated with longer disease duration, more frequent keratosis pilaris, higher blood eosinophil counts, higher serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels, higher house dust mite allergen-specific IgE levels, and a greater need for systemic treatment than patients without the IL-17RA mutation.

Such findings are important for progress in treating atopic dermatitis because the mechanism differs among patients, said Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, director of the Center for Excellence in Eczema and professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“It’s not one size fits all in atopic dermatitis, and we need better biomarkers that will be able to tell us which treatment will work best for each patient,” she said in an interview.

In addition to genetic biomarkers, she and her colleagues are analyzing proteins involved in inflammation. They are using adhesive tape strips to harvest these markers, a less invasive approach than skin biopsies.

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

Bringing pharmacists, allergists, and dermatologists together to discuss patient care can improve outcomes for children with atopic dermatitis, researchers say.

“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.

Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.

The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.

“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.

He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.

To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.

• Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
• In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
• Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
• Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
• Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.

The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.

Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”

In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.

Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.

Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”

Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.

However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”

Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.

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

Bringing pharmacists, allergists, and dermatologists together to discuss patient care can improve outcomes for children with atopic dermatitis, researchers say.

“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.

Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.

The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.

“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.

He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.

To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.

• Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
• In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
• Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
• Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
• Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.

The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.

Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”

In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.

Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.

Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”

Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.

However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”

Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.

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

Bringing pharmacists, allergists, and dermatologists together to discuss patient care can improve outcomes for children with atopic dermatitis, researchers say.

“I think we really gained insight to how a more holistic approach benefited the patient,” Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said in an interview.

At the 2021 annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis, he and his colleagues described a pilot program to bring the specialists together at UCSD and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego.

Typically, children seeking care for atopic dermatitis see allergists and dermatologists separately for 10- to 15-minute appointments. The specialists sometimes prescribe treatments that conflict or are redundant with each other and may give contradictory instructions.

Instead, Dr. Eichenfield and colleagues designed a program bringing patients in for initial assessments lasting 1-1.5 hours. Patients typically started with visits to a clinical pharmacist, who assessed what medications had been prescribed and how much the patients were actually taking.

The patients then proceeded to separate appointments with an allergist and a dermatologist for evaluations. These specialists then met face to face to develop a treatment plan. At least one of the specialists would then present the plan to the patient and the patient’s family.

“We had a rich set of educational materials that were developed and put online that helped with shared decision-making and increased comfort level with appropriate skin care and medication,” Dr. Eichenfield said.

He and his colleagues assigned a physician assistant trained in both pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy to coordinate the clinic. They designed combined pediatric dermatology and pediatric allergy fellowships for two fellows. “So, part of this program ended up allowing specially trained individuals who overlapped in fields that traditionally were separate,” said Dr. Eichenfield.

To see how well the approach worked, the researchers followed the progress of 23 patients who were already receiving treatment at one or both of the institutions.

• Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores decreased from visit 1 to visit 2 by a mean of 15.36 (P < .001), which correlates to a 56.36% average decrease.
• In 20 patients (89.96%), in EASI scores improved 50%.
• Thirteen patients (56.54%) achieved 75% improvement in EASI scores.
• Body surface area scores improved by a mean of 23.21% (P = .002).
• Validated Investigator Global Assessment scores decreased in 56.52% of patients to a clinically significant level.

The study did not include any control group, nor did the researchers report any details on how long the patients had been treated before the multidisciplinary program started or how their prescriptions changed.

Patients benefited from the comprehensive assessment of their symptoms, said Dr. Eichenfield, also chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital. “Some had significant environmental allergies that might not have been a contributing factor to their atopic dermatitis,” he explained. “The complexities of comorbidities and atopic dermatitis influence the patient, even if one disease state isn’t necessarily directly causative of the other.”

In surveys, patients said they especially appreciated the increased time spent with their specialists. “No one’s ever spent an hour teaching us about eczema,” some commented. The approach motivated patients to take their home treatment more effectively, Dr. Eichenfield believed.

Primary care physicians did not participate in the multidisciplinary program, but the specialists communicated with them and shared electronic medical records with them, he said.

Without a control group, it is hard to say how much difference the multidisciplinary approach made, Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, associate professor of dermatology and director of clinical research and contact dermatitis at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

“What it does show is that there is significant improvement in a variety of endpoints within this multidisciplinary approach,” Dr. Silverberg said in an interview. “And so I have no doubt that this is valid and that a multidisciplinary approach would really improve, holistically, many aspects of patient care.”

Dr. Silverberg ran a multidisciplinary program at Northwestern University, Chicago, which included sleep medicine, endocrinology, gastroenterology, and other specialties as well as dermatology, allergy, and pharmacy.

However, Dr. Silverberg pointed out, a multidisciplinary approach is more expensive than standard care because when specialists spend more time with each patient, they see fewer patients per day. “So many health care systems or academic institutions are not as open as they should be to this kind of interdisciplinary care, which is why it’s so important to have outcome measures showing that this approach actually works.”

Dr. Eichenfield and Dr. Silverberg had no relevant disclosures.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted its first-ever approval of an artificial intelligence device to help find colon lesions during colonoscopy.

The GI Genius (Cosmo Artificial Intelligence) identifies areas of the colon where a colorectal polyp or tumor might be located. Clinicians then follow up with a closer examination and possible treatment.

“With the FDA’s authorization of this device today, clinicians now have a tool that could help improve their ability to detect gastrointestinal lesions they may have missed otherwise,” said Courtney H. Lias, PhD, acting director of the FDA’s gastrorenal, ob.gyn., general hospital, and urology devices office, in a media release.

The GI Genius consists of both hardware and software designed to work with an endoscope. It uses machine learning to recognize possible polyps during a colonoscopy. It marks these areas with green squares on the video generated by the endoscope’s camera and emits a short, low-volume sound. Clinicians decide if a lesion is truly present and whether to sample or remove such a lesion.

The device does not diagnose the lesions or recommend treatments and is not intended to take the place of laboratory sampling

The FDA based its approval on a trial in which 700 people aged 40-80 years underwent colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening, surveillance, follow-up from positive results of a fecal occult blood test, or gastrointestinal symptoms of possible colon cancer.

Of these participants, 263 were being screened or surveilled every 3 years or more. The researchers randomly divided patients into a group of 136 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy with the GI Genius, and 127 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy without the GI Genius.

Using the GI Genius, clinicians identified adenomas or carcinomas that were later confirmed through lab results in 55.1% of patients. Without the GI Genius, the clinicians identified such lesions in 42.0% of patients.

The patients examined with the GI Genius received more biopsies, including slightly more that were not adenomas. But the biopsies did not lead to any adverse events such as perforations, infections, bleeding, or further biopsies.

More information on the GI Genius is available on the FDA website.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted its first-ever approval of an artificial intelligence device to help find colon lesions during colonoscopy.

The GI Genius (Cosmo Artificial Intelligence) identifies areas of the colon where a colorectal polyp or tumor might be located. Clinicians then follow up with a closer examination and possible treatment.

“With the FDA’s authorization of this device today, clinicians now have a tool that could help improve their ability to detect gastrointestinal lesions they may have missed otherwise,” said Courtney H. Lias, PhD, acting director of the FDA’s gastrorenal, ob.gyn., general hospital, and urology devices office, in a media release.

The GI Genius consists of both hardware and software designed to work with an endoscope. It uses machine learning to recognize possible polyps during a colonoscopy. It marks these areas with green squares on the video generated by the endoscope’s camera and emits a short, low-volume sound. Clinicians decide if a lesion is truly present and whether to sample or remove such a lesion.

The device does not diagnose the lesions or recommend treatments and is not intended to take the place of laboratory sampling

The FDA based its approval on a trial in which 700 people aged 40-80 years underwent colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening, surveillance, follow-up from positive results of a fecal occult blood test, or gastrointestinal symptoms of possible colon cancer.

Of these participants, 263 were being screened or surveilled every 3 years or more. The researchers randomly divided patients into a group of 136 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy with the GI Genius, and 127 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy without the GI Genius.

Using the GI Genius, clinicians identified adenomas or carcinomas that were later confirmed through lab results in 55.1% of patients. Without the GI Genius, the clinicians identified such lesions in 42.0% of patients.

The patients examined with the GI Genius received more biopsies, including slightly more that were not adenomas. But the biopsies did not lead to any adverse events such as perforations, infections, bleeding, or further biopsies.

More information on the GI Genius is available on the FDA website.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted its first-ever approval of an artificial intelligence device to help find colon lesions during colonoscopy.

The GI Genius (Cosmo Artificial Intelligence) identifies areas of the colon where a colorectal polyp or tumor might be located. Clinicians then follow up with a closer examination and possible treatment.

“With the FDA’s authorization of this device today, clinicians now have a tool that could help improve their ability to detect gastrointestinal lesions they may have missed otherwise,” said Courtney H. Lias, PhD, acting director of the FDA’s gastrorenal, ob.gyn., general hospital, and urology devices office, in a media release.

The GI Genius consists of both hardware and software designed to work with an endoscope. It uses machine learning to recognize possible polyps during a colonoscopy. It marks these areas with green squares on the video generated by the endoscope’s camera and emits a short, low-volume sound. Clinicians decide if a lesion is truly present and whether to sample or remove such a lesion.

The device does not diagnose the lesions or recommend treatments and is not intended to take the place of laboratory sampling

The FDA based its approval on a trial in which 700 people aged 40-80 years underwent colonoscopies for colorectal cancer screening, surveillance, follow-up from positive results of a fecal occult blood test, or gastrointestinal symptoms of possible colon cancer.

Of these participants, 263 were being screened or surveilled every 3 years or more. The researchers randomly divided patients into a group of 136 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy with the GI Genius, and 127 who underwent white-light standard colonoscopy without the GI Genius.

Using the GI Genius, clinicians identified adenomas or carcinomas that were later confirmed through lab results in 55.1% of patients. Without the GI Genius, the clinicians identified such lesions in 42.0% of patients.

The patients examined with the GI Genius received more biopsies, including slightly more that were not adenomas. But the biopsies did not lead to any adverse events such as perforations, infections, bleeding, or further biopsies.

More information on the GI Genius is available on the FDA website.

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