User login
Strategies to Manage Metabolic Health During the Holidays
Interventions during holidays and school vacations can help prevent children and adults gaining weight, according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Obesity Reviews.
Evidence suggests that certain times of the year, such as the Christmas holidays and summer vacations, are associated with weight gain. In adults, up to 50% of the total annual weight gain occurs during December.
In 2023, the United Nations Children’s Fund reported that more than four million children younger than 5 years and nearly 50 million children and adolescents aged 5-19 years in Latin America and the Caribbean were affected by overweight. Among adults, more than 50% of individuals in every country in the region live with obesity.
These alarming figures call for urgent action from governments, healthcare professionals, and multidisciplinary teams to implement prevention strategies and promote further research.
Study Significance
Michelle Maree Haby de Sosa, PhD, an epidemiologist and researcher at the Department of Chemical-Biological and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico, led the study. She explained that the research team first conducted a narrative review on weight gain during the festive season. “We found that the 6 weeks between December and mid-January represent a critical period when people gain half the weight they put on all year. This highlights the importance of addressing obesity and overweight by promoting lifestyle changes and prevention strategies to tackle this public health issue.”
The researchers then conducted a systematic review of global interventions not only to publish findings but also to educate healthcare professionals and stakeholders. They searched databases such as Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SciELO, LILACS, and Cochrane, focusing on randomized controlled trials. These were supplemented with gray literature and references from relevant articles, as well as additional data requested from study authors.
Key Findings
The review included studies from the United States (10), the United Kingdom (one), and Chile (one). Of these, two had a low risk for bias, two moderate, seven high, and one critical.
Most interventions targeted school-aged children or adults. According to Haby de Sosa, achieving consistent results in adolescents was challenging due to the difficulty of changing behaviors in this age group. In contrast, interventions for school-aged children were implemented primarily during day camp visits, where participants were divided into control and intervention groups.
The interventions included nutrition classes, physical activity, and the provision of healthy meals, which resulted in less weight gain compared with control groups.
In children, the meta-analysis of four of seven studies conducted during summer vacations (six interventions) found a small but significant reduction in body mass index z-scores in the intervention group (−0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.01; P = .01; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).
Among adults, interventions also generally proved effective, despite variations in implementation. A meta-analysis of five studies involving 462 participants (234 intervention, 228 control) showed a slight reduction in body weight (−0.99 kg; 95% CI, −2.15 to 0.18; P = 0.10; I² = 89%).
Three key intervention areas were identified: Nutrition, physical activity, and psychological support including behavioral and cognitive elements. Strict diets were generally not a priority; instead, participants were advised to reduce consumption of high-calorie food and sugary beverages while increasing their intake of vegetables.
Promising Interventions
The study highlighted specific interventions for children and adults:
- Children: 6- to 8-week summer camps with daily physical activities such as sports and crafts, complemented by free, nutritious meals.
- Adults: Daily weight monitoring paired with nutrition counseling based on social cognitive theory. Interventions lasted 4 to 8 weeks, spanning mid-November to early January.
Expert Recommendations
Carlos Cristi-Montero, PhD, a researcher at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile, and an author of a Chilean intervention study, shared insights with this news organization.
He emphasized the importance of portion control for children. “During the holidays, families prepare calorie-rich dishes but often fail to consider portion sizes,” he noted. “Children are treated like adults, which contributes to excessive caloric intake. Our interventions focused on teaching people about portion control, the caloric content of their meals, and the risks of overweight and obesity, as well as the benefits of healthy eating.”
He also stressed the importance of evaluating not just weight but body composition, using tools like dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry to measure fat and muscle mass.
Cristi-Montero also highlighted the importance of physical activity: “We emphasize the value of exercise and staying active as key strategies to prevent weight gain.”
Steps for Successful Interventions
Educating teachers and parents to reinforce healthy behaviors is also vital, according to Cristi-Montero, as obesity impacts not only metabolic health but also academic performance and mental health.
Both Haby de Sosa and Cristi-Montero agreed that primary care professionals have an important role in driving effective interventions, alongside participation in research to refine prevention strategies. Multidisciplinary teams — including nutritionists, psychologists, exercise specialists, teachers, and parents — can play a part in preventing weight gain during holidays.
Future Directions
The University of Sonora research team is currently conducting a controlled trial in Hermosillo, Mexico, involving adult participants divided into intervention and control groups. Preliminary results, already published online, highlight the effectiveness of strategies such as nutrition education, physical activity, regular weight goals, and psychological support in promoting habit changes.
“Interventions to prevent weight gain during the holidays and summer vacations are necessary,” the authors concluded, emphasizing the need for further research to evaluate their effectiveness in the region.
Haby de Sosa or Cristi-Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Natalia Martínez Medina, disclosed the following: Consultant or advisor for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Speaker or a member of a speaker’s bureau for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Research funding from: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Contracted researcher for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Employee of: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former).
This story was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Interventions during holidays and school vacations can help prevent children and adults gaining weight, according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Obesity Reviews.
Evidence suggests that certain times of the year, such as the Christmas holidays and summer vacations, are associated with weight gain. In adults, up to 50% of the total annual weight gain occurs during December.
In 2023, the United Nations Children’s Fund reported that more than four million children younger than 5 years and nearly 50 million children and adolescents aged 5-19 years in Latin America and the Caribbean were affected by overweight. Among adults, more than 50% of individuals in every country in the region live with obesity.
These alarming figures call for urgent action from governments, healthcare professionals, and multidisciplinary teams to implement prevention strategies and promote further research.
Study Significance
Michelle Maree Haby de Sosa, PhD, an epidemiologist and researcher at the Department of Chemical-Biological and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico, led the study. She explained that the research team first conducted a narrative review on weight gain during the festive season. “We found that the 6 weeks between December and mid-January represent a critical period when people gain half the weight they put on all year. This highlights the importance of addressing obesity and overweight by promoting lifestyle changes and prevention strategies to tackle this public health issue.”
The researchers then conducted a systematic review of global interventions not only to publish findings but also to educate healthcare professionals and stakeholders. They searched databases such as Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SciELO, LILACS, and Cochrane, focusing on randomized controlled trials. These were supplemented with gray literature and references from relevant articles, as well as additional data requested from study authors.
Key Findings
The review included studies from the United States (10), the United Kingdom (one), and Chile (one). Of these, two had a low risk for bias, two moderate, seven high, and one critical.
Most interventions targeted school-aged children or adults. According to Haby de Sosa, achieving consistent results in adolescents was challenging due to the difficulty of changing behaviors in this age group. In contrast, interventions for school-aged children were implemented primarily during day camp visits, where participants were divided into control and intervention groups.
The interventions included nutrition classes, physical activity, and the provision of healthy meals, which resulted in less weight gain compared with control groups.
In children, the meta-analysis of four of seven studies conducted during summer vacations (six interventions) found a small but significant reduction in body mass index z-scores in the intervention group (−0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.01; P = .01; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).
Among adults, interventions also generally proved effective, despite variations in implementation. A meta-analysis of five studies involving 462 participants (234 intervention, 228 control) showed a slight reduction in body weight (−0.99 kg; 95% CI, −2.15 to 0.18; P = 0.10; I² = 89%).
Three key intervention areas were identified: Nutrition, physical activity, and psychological support including behavioral and cognitive elements. Strict diets were generally not a priority; instead, participants were advised to reduce consumption of high-calorie food and sugary beverages while increasing their intake of vegetables.
Promising Interventions
The study highlighted specific interventions for children and adults:
- Children: 6- to 8-week summer camps with daily physical activities such as sports and crafts, complemented by free, nutritious meals.
- Adults: Daily weight monitoring paired with nutrition counseling based on social cognitive theory. Interventions lasted 4 to 8 weeks, spanning mid-November to early January.
Expert Recommendations
Carlos Cristi-Montero, PhD, a researcher at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile, and an author of a Chilean intervention study, shared insights with this news organization.
He emphasized the importance of portion control for children. “During the holidays, families prepare calorie-rich dishes but often fail to consider portion sizes,” he noted. “Children are treated like adults, which contributes to excessive caloric intake. Our interventions focused on teaching people about portion control, the caloric content of their meals, and the risks of overweight and obesity, as well as the benefits of healthy eating.”
He also stressed the importance of evaluating not just weight but body composition, using tools like dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry to measure fat and muscle mass.
Cristi-Montero also highlighted the importance of physical activity: “We emphasize the value of exercise and staying active as key strategies to prevent weight gain.”
Steps for Successful Interventions
Educating teachers and parents to reinforce healthy behaviors is also vital, according to Cristi-Montero, as obesity impacts not only metabolic health but also academic performance and mental health.
Both Haby de Sosa and Cristi-Montero agreed that primary care professionals have an important role in driving effective interventions, alongside participation in research to refine prevention strategies. Multidisciplinary teams — including nutritionists, psychologists, exercise specialists, teachers, and parents — can play a part in preventing weight gain during holidays.
Future Directions
The University of Sonora research team is currently conducting a controlled trial in Hermosillo, Mexico, involving adult participants divided into intervention and control groups. Preliminary results, already published online, highlight the effectiveness of strategies such as nutrition education, physical activity, regular weight goals, and psychological support in promoting habit changes.
“Interventions to prevent weight gain during the holidays and summer vacations are necessary,” the authors concluded, emphasizing the need for further research to evaluate their effectiveness in the region.
Haby de Sosa or Cristi-Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Natalia Martínez Medina, disclosed the following: Consultant or advisor for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Speaker or a member of a speaker’s bureau for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Research funding from: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Contracted researcher for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Employee of: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former).
This story was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Interventions during holidays and school vacations can help prevent children and adults gaining weight, according to a recent systematic review and meta-analysis published in Obesity Reviews.
Evidence suggests that certain times of the year, such as the Christmas holidays and summer vacations, are associated with weight gain. In adults, up to 50% of the total annual weight gain occurs during December.
In 2023, the United Nations Children’s Fund reported that more than four million children younger than 5 years and nearly 50 million children and adolescents aged 5-19 years in Latin America and the Caribbean were affected by overweight. Among adults, more than 50% of individuals in every country in the region live with obesity.
These alarming figures call for urgent action from governments, healthcare professionals, and multidisciplinary teams to implement prevention strategies and promote further research.
Study Significance
Michelle Maree Haby de Sosa, PhD, an epidemiologist and researcher at the Department of Chemical-Biological and Nutritional Sciences at the University of Sonora, Hermosillo, Mexico, led the study. She explained that the research team first conducted a narrative review on weight gain during the festive season. “We found that the 6 weeks between December and mid-January represent a critical period when people gain half the weight they put on all year. This highlights the importance of addressing obesity and overweight by promoting lifestyle changes and prevention strategies to tackle this public health issue.”
The researchers then conducted a systematic review of global interventions not only to publish findings but also to educate healthcare professionals and stakeholders. They searched databases such as Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SciELO, LILACS, and Cochrane, focusing on randomized controlled trials. These were supplemented with gray literature and references from relevant articles, as well as additional data requested from study authors.
Key Findings
The review included studies from the United States (10), the United Kingdom (one), and Chile (one). Of these, two had a low risk for bias, two moderate, seven high, and one critical.
Most interventions targeted school-aged children or adults. According to Haby de Sosa, achieving consistent results in adolescents was challenging due to the difficulty of changing behaviors in this age group. In contrast, interventions for school-aged children were implemented primarily during day camp visits, where participants were divided into control and intervention groups.
The interventions included nutrition classes, physical activity, and the provision of healthy meals, which resulted in less weight gain compared with control groups.
In children, the meta-analysis of four of seven studies conducted during summer vacations (six interventions) found a small but significant reduction in body mass index z-scores in the intervention group (−0.06; 95% CI, −0.10 to −0.01; P = .01; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence).
Among adults, interventions also generally proved effective, despite variations in implementation. A meta-analysis of five studies involving 462 participants (234 intervention, 228 control) showed a slight reduction in body weight (−0.99 kg; 95% CI, −2.15 to 0.18; P = 0.10; I² = 89%).
Three key intervention areas were identified: Nutrition, physical activity, and psychological support including behavioral and cognitive elements. Strict diets were generally not a priority; instead, participants were advised to reduce consumption of high-calorie food and sugary beverages while increasing their intake of vegetables.
Promising Interventions
The study highlighted specific interventions for children and adults:
- Children: 6- to 8-week summer camps with daily physical activities such as sports and crafts, complemented by free, nutritious meals.
- Adults: Daily weight monitoring paired with nutrition counseling based on social cognitive theory. Interventions lasted 4 to 8 weeks, spanning mid-November to early January.
Expert Recommendations
Carlos Cristi-Montero, PhD, a researcher at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Chile, and an author of a Chilean intervention study, shared insights with this news organization.
He emphasized the importance of portion control for children. “During the holidays, families prepare calorie-rich dishes but often fail to consider portion sizes,” he noted. “Children are treated like adults, which contributes to excessive caloric intake. Our interventions focused on teaching people about portion control, the caloric content of their meals, and the risks of overweight and obesity, as well as the benefits of healthy eating.”
He also stressed the importance of evaluating not just weight but body composition, using tools like dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry to measure fat and muscle mass.
Cristi-Montero also highlighted the importance of physical activity: “We emphasize the value of exercise and staying active as key strategies to prevent weight gain.”
Steps for Successful Interventions
Educating teachers and parents to reinforce healthy behaviors is also vital, according to Cristi-Montero, as obesity impacts not only metabolic health but also academic performance and mental health.
Both Haby de Sosa and Cristi-Montero agreed that primary care professionals have an important role in driving effective interventions, alongside participation in research to refine prevention strategies. Multidisciplinary teams — including nutritionists, psychologists, exercise specialists, teachers, and parents — can play a part in preventing weight gain during holidays.
Future Directions
The University of Sonora research team is currently conducting a controlled trial in Hermosillo, Mexico, involving adult participants divided into intervention and control groups. Preliminary results, already published online, highlight the effectiveness of strategies such as nutrition education, physical activity, regular weight goals, and psychological support in promoting habit changes.
“Interventions to prevent weight gain during the holidays and summer vacations are necessary,” the authors concluded, emphasizing the need for further research to evaluate their effectiveness in the region.
Haby de Sosa or Cristi-Montero declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.
Natalia Martínez Medina, disclosed the following: Consultant or advisor for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Speaker or a member of a speaker’s bureau for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Research funding from: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Contracted researcher for: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former). Employee of: AstraZeneca (former); Sanofi (former).
This story was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Allergic Contact Dermatitis: New Culprits
New allergens responsible for contact dermatitis emerge regularly. During the Dermatology Days of Paris 2024 conference, Angèle Soria, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, outlined four major categories driving this trend. Among them are (meth)acrylates found in nail cosmetics used in salons or do-it-yourself false nail kits that can be bought online.
Isothiazolinones
a preservative used in many cosmetics; (meth)acrylates; essential oils; and epoxy resins used in industry and leisure activities.
Around 15 years ago, parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, were identified as endocrine disruptors. In response, they were largely replaced by newer preservatives, notably MI. However, this led to a proliferation of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe between 2010 and 2013.
“About 10% of the population that we tested showed allergies to these preservatives, primarily found in cosmetics,” explained Soria. Since 2015, the use of MI in leave-on cosmetics has been prohibited in Europe and its concentration restricted in rinse-off products. However, cosmetics sold online from outside Europe may not comply with these regulations.
MI is also present in water-based paints to prevent mold. “A few years ago, we started seeing patients with facial angioedema, sometimes combined with asthma, caused by these isothiazolinone preservatives, including in patients who are not professional painters,” said Soria. More recently, attention has shifted to MI’s presence in household cleaning products. A 2020 Spanish study found MI in 76% of 34 analyzed cleaning products.
MI-based fungicides are also used to treat leather during transport, which can lead to contact allergies among professionals and consumers alike. Additionally, MI has been identified in children’s toys, including slime gels, and in florists’ gel cubes used to preserve flowers.
“We are therefore surrounded by these preservatives, which are no longer only in cosmetics,” warned the dermatologist.
(Meth)acrylates
Another major allergen category is (meth)acrylates, responsible for many cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Acrylates and their derivatives are widely used in everyday items. They are low–molecular weight monomers, sensitizing on contact with the skin. Their polymerized forms include materials like Plexiglas.
“We are currently witnessing an epidemic of contact dermatitis in the general population, mainly due to nail cosmetics, such as semipermanent nail polishes and at-home false nail kits,” reported Soria. Nail cosmetics account for 97% of new sensitization cases involving (meth)acrylates. These allergens often cause severe dermatitis, prompting the European Union to mandate labeling in 2020, warning that these products are “for professional use only” and can “cause allergic reactions.”
Beyond nail cosmetics, these allergens are also found in dental products (such as trays), ECG electrodes, prosthetics, glucose sensors, surgical adhesives, and some electronic devices like earbuds and phone screens. Notably, patients sensitized to acrylates via nail kits may experience reactions during dental treatments involving acrylates.
Investigating Essential Oil Use
Essential oils, distinct from vegetable oils like almond or argan, are another known allergen. Often considered risk-free due to their “natural” label, these products are widely used topically, orally, or via inhalation for various purposes, such as treating respiratory infections or creating relaxing atmospheres. However, essential oils contain fragrant molecules like terpenes, which can become highly allergenic over time, especially after repeated exposure.
Soria emphasized the importance of asking patients about their use of essential oils, especially tea tree and lavender oils, which are commonly used but rarely mentioned by patients unless prompted.
Epoxy Resins in Recreational Use
Epoxy resins are a growing cause of contact allergies, not just in professional settings such as aeronautics and construction work but also increasingly in recreational activities. Soria highlighted the case of a 12-year-old girl hospitalized for severe facial edema after engaging in resin crafts inspired by TikTok. For 6 months, she had been creating resin objects, such as bowls and cutting boards, using vinyl gloves and a Filtering FacePiece 2 mask under adult supervision.
“The growing popularity and online availability of epoxy resins mean that allergic reactions should now be considered even in nonprofessional contexts,” warned Soria.
Clinical Approach
When dermatologists suspect allergic contact dermatitis, the first step is to treat the condition with corticosteroid creams. This is followed by a detailed patient interview to identify suspected allergens in products they’ve used.
Patch testing is then conducted to confirm the allergen. Small chambers containing potential allergens are applied to the upper back for 48 hours without removal. Results are read 2-5 days later, with some cases requiring a 7-day follow-up.
The patient’s occupation is an important factor, as certain professions, such as hairdressing, healthcare, or beauty therapy, are known to trigger allergic contact dermatitis. Similarly, certain hobbies may also play a role.
A thorough approach ensures accurate diagnosis and targeted prevention strategies.
This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New allergens responsible for contact dermatitis emerge regularly. During the Dermatology Days of Paris 2024 conference, Angèle Soria, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, outlined four major categories driving this trend. Among them are (meth)acrylates found in nail cosmetics used in salons or do-it-yourself false nail kits that can be bought online.
Isothiazolinones
a preservative used in many cosmetics; (meth)acrylates; essential oils; and epoxy resins used in industry and leisure activities.
Around 15 years ago, parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, were identified as endocrine disruptors. In response, they were largely replaced by newer preservatives, notably MI. However, this led to a proliferation of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe between 2010 and 2013.
“About 10% of the population that we tested showed allergies to these preservatives, primarily found in cosmetics,” explained Soria. Since 2015, the use of MI in leave-on cosmetics has been prohibited in Europe and its concentration restricted in rinse-off products. However, cosmetics sold online from outside Europe may not comply with these regulations.
MI is also present in water-based paints to prevent mold. “A few years ago, we started seeing patients with facial angioedema, sometimes combined with asthma, caused by these isothiazolinone preservatives, including in patients who are not professional painters,” said Soria. More recently, attention has shifted to MI’s presence in household cleaning products. A 2020 Spanish study found MI in 76% of 34 analyzed cleaning products.
MI-based fungicides are also used to treat leather during transport, which can lead to contact allergies among professionals and consumers alike. Additionally, MI has been identified in children’s toys, including slime gels, and in florists’ gel cubes used to preserve flowers.
“We are therefore surrounded by these preservatives, which are no longer only in cosmetics,” warned the dermatologist.
(Meth)acrylates
Another major allergen category is (meth)acrylates, responsible for many cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Acrylates and their derivatives are widely used in everyday items. They are low–molecular weight monomers, sensitizing on contact with the skin. Their polymerized forms include materials like Plexiglas.
“We are currently witnessing an epidemic of contact dermatitis in the general population, mainly due to nail cosmetics, such as semipermanent nail polishes and at-home false nail kits,” reported Soria. Nail cosmetics account for 97% of new sensitization cases involving (meth)acrylates. These allergens often cause severe dermatitis, prompting the European Union to mandate labeling in 2020, warning that these products are “for professional use only” and can “cause allergic reactions.”
Beyond nail cosmetics, these allergens are also found in dental products (such as trays), ECG electrodes, prosthetics, glucose sensors, surgical adhesives, and some electronic devices like earbuds and phone screens. Notably, patients sensitized to acrylates via nail kits may experience reactions during dental treatments involving acrylates.
Investigating Essential Oil Use
Essential oils, distinct from vegetable oils like almond or argan, are another known allergen. Often considered risk-free due to their “natural” label, these products are widely used topically, orally, or via inhalation for various purposes, such as treating respiratory infections or creating relaxing atmospheres. However, essential oils contain fragrant molecules like terpenes, which can become highly allergenic over time, especially after repeated exposure.
Soria emphasized the importance of asking patients about their use of essential oils, especially tea tree and lavender oils, which are commonly used but rarely mentioned by patients unless prompted.
Epoxy Resins in Recreational Use
Epoxy resins are a growing cause of contact allergies, not just in professional settings such as aeronautics and construction work but also increasingly in recreational activities. Soria highlighted the case of a 12-year-old girl hospitalized for severe facial edema after engaging in resin crafts inspired by TikTok. For 6 months, she had been creating resin objects, such as bowls and cutting boards, using vinyl gloves and a Filtering FacePiece 2 mask under adult supervision.
“The growing popularity and online availability of epoxy resins mean that allergic reactions should now be considered even in nonprofessional contexts,” warned Soria.
Clinical Approach
When dermatologists suspect allergic contact dermatitis, the first step is to treat the condition with corticosteroid creams. This is followed by a detailed patient interview to identify suspected allergens in products they’ve used.
Patch testing is then conducted to confirm the allergen. Small chambers containing potential allergens are applied to the upper back for 48 hours without removal. Results are read 2-5 days later, with some cases requiring a 7-day follow-up.
The patient’s occupation is an important factor, as certain professions, such as hairdressing, healthcare, or beauty therapy, are known to trigger allergic contact dermatitis. Similarly, certain hobbies may also play a role.
A thorough approach ensures accurate diagnosis and targeted prevention strategies.
This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
New allergens responsible for contact dermatitis emerge regularly. During the Dermatology Days of Paris 2024 conference, Angèle Soria, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Tenon Hospital in Paris, France, outlined four major categories driving this trend. Among them are (meth)acrylates found in nail cosmetics used in salons or do-it-yourself false nail kits that can be bought online.
Isothiazolinones
a preservative used in many cosmetics; (meth)acrylates; essential oils; and epoxy resins used in industry and leisure activities.
Around 15 years ago, parabens, commonly used as preservatives in cosmetics, were identified as endocrine disruptors. In response, they were largely replaced by newer preservatives, notably MI. However, this led to a proliferation of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe between 2010 and 2013.
“About 10% of the population that we tested showed allergies to these preservatives, primarily found in cosmetics,” explained Soria. Since 2015, the use of MI in leave-on cosmetics has been prohibited in Europe and its concentration restricted in rinse-off products. However, cosmetics sold online from outside Europe may not comply with these regulations.
MI is also present in water-based paints to prevent mold. “A few years ago, we started seeing patients with facial angioedema, sometimes combined with asthma, caused by these isothiazolinone preservatives, including in patients who are not professional painters,” said Soria. More recently, attention has shifted to MI’s presence in household cleaning products. A 2020 Spanish study found MI in 76% of 34 analyzed cleaning products.
MI-based fungicides are also used to treat leather during transport, which can lead to contact allergies among professionals and consumers alike. Additionally, MI has been identified in children’s toys, including slime gels, and in florists’ gel cubes used to preserve flowers.
“We are therefore surrounded by these preservatives, which are no longer only in cosmetics,” warned the dermatologist.
(Meth)acrylates
Another major allergen category is (meth)acrylates, responsible for many cases of allergic contact dermatitis. Acrylates and their derivatives are widely used in everyday items. They are low–molecular weight monomers, sensitizing on contact with the skin. Their polymerized forms include materials like Plexiglas.
“We are currently witnessing an epidemic of contact dermatitis in the general population, mainly due to nail cosmetics, such as semipermanent nail polishes and at-home false nail kits,” reported Soria. Nail cosmetics account for 97% of new sensitization cases involving (meth)acrylates. These allergens often cause severe dermatitis, prompting the European Union to mandate labeling in 2020, warning that these products are “for professional use only” and can “cause allergic reactions.”
Beyond nail cosmetics, these allergens are also found in dental products (such as trays), ECG electrodes, prosthetics, glucose sensors, surgical adhesives, and some electronic devices like earbuds and phone screens. Notably, patients sensitized to acrylates via nail kits may experience reactions during dental treatments involving acrylates.
Investigating Essential Oil Use
Essential oils, distinct from vegetable oils like almond or argan, are another known allergen. Often considered risk-free due to their “natural” label, these products are widely used topically, orally, or via inhalation for various purposes, such as treating respiratory infections or creating relaxing atmospheres. However, essential oils contain fragrant molecules like terpenes, which can become highly allergenic over time, especially after repeated exposure.
Soria emphasized the importance of asking patients about their use of essential oils, especially tea tree and lavender oils, which are commonly used but rarely mentioned by patients unless prompted.
Epoxy Resins in Recreational Use
Epoxy resins are a growing cause of contact allergies, not just in professional settings such as aeronautics and construction work but also increasingly in recreational activities. Soria highlighted the case of a 12-year-old girl hospitalized for severe facial edema after engaging in resin crafts inspired by TikTok. For 6 months, she had been creating resin objects, such as bowls and cutting boards, using vinyl gloves and a Filtering FacePiece 2 mask under adult supervision.
“The growing popularity and online availability of epoxy resins mean that allergic reactions should now be considered even in nonprofessional contexts,” warned Soria.
Clinical Approach
When dermatologists suspect allergic contact dermatitis, the first step is to treat the condition with corticosteroid creams. This is followed by a detailed patient interview to identify suspected allergens in products they’ve used.
Patch testing is then conducted to confirm the allergen. Small chambers containing potential allergens are applied to the upper back for 48 hours without removal. Results are read 2-5 days later, with some cases requiring a 7-day follow-up.
The patient’s occupation is an important factor, as certain professions, such as hairdressing, healthcare, or beauty therapy, are known to trigger allergic contact dermatitis. Similarly, certain hobbies may also play a role.
A thorough approach ensures accurate diagnosis and targeted prevention strategies.
This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Skin Cancer Risk Elevated Among Blood, Marrow Transplant Survivors
TOPLINE:
with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
- Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
- The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).
TAKEAWAY:
- The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
- A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
- Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
- The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.
IN PRACTICE:
In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
- Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
- The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).
TAKEAWAY:
- The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
- A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
- Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
- The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.
IN PRACTICE:
In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
with a cumulative incidence of 27.4% over 30 years, according to the results of a cohort study.
METHODOLOGY:
- The retrospective cohort study included 3880 BMT survivors (median age, 44 years; 55.8% men; 4.9% Black, 12.1 Hispanic, and 74.7% non-Hispanic White individuals) who underwent transplant between 1974 to 2014.
- Participants completed the BMT Survivor Study survey and were followed up for a median of 9.5 years.
- The primary outcomes were the development of subsequent cutaneous malignant neoplasms (BCC, SCC, or melanoma).
TAKEAWAY:
- The 30-year cumulative incidence of any cutaneous malignant neoplasm was 27.4% — 18% for BCC, 9.8% for SCC, and 3.7% for melanoma.
- A higher risk for skin cancer was reported for patients aged 50 years or more (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 2.23; 95% CI, 1.83-2.71), and men (SHR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18-1.65).
- Allogeneic BMT with chronic graft-vs-host disease (cGVHD) increased the risk for skin cancer (SHR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47), compared with autologous BMT, while post-BMT immunosuppression increased risk for all types (overall SHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.26-1.86).
- The risk for any skin cancer was significantly lower in Black individuals (SHR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.05-0.37), Hispanic individuals (SHR, 0.29; 95%CI, 0.20-0.62), and patients of other races or who were multiracial (SHR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.13-0.37) than in non-Hispanic White patients.
IN PRACTICE:
In the study, “risk factors for post-BMT cutaneous malignant neoplasms included pretransplant treatment with a monoclonal antibody, cGVHD, and posttransplant immunosuppression,” the authors wrote, adding that the findings “could inform targeted surveillance of BMT survivors.” Most BMT survivors, “do not undergo routine dermatologic surveillance, highlighting the need to understand risk factors and incorporate risk-informed dermatologic surveillance into survivorship care plans.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kristy K. Broman, MD, MPH, University of Alabama at Birmingham, and was published online on December 18 in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Limitations included self-reported data and possible underreporting of melanoma cases in the SEER database. Additionally, the study did not capture other risk factors for cutaneous malignant neoplasms such as skin phototype, ultraviolet light exposure, or family history. The duration of posttransplant immunosuppression was not collected, and surveys were administered at variable intervals, though all were completed more than 2 years post BMT.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Broman received grants from NCI, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the American College of Surgeons. Another author reported receiving grants outside this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Protein Problem: The Unsolved Mystery of AI Drug Dev
The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?
Short answer: No. At least not yet.
The longer answer goes something like this:
A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.
“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”
This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.
Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.
“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.
“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.
Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.
It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.
AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.
New Windows into Protein Dynamics
A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”
Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.
“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”
To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.
“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.
A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.
Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery
Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.
Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.
Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.
“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.
PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.
“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.
This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.
The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.
PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.
“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.
Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.
“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”
And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT
Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.
First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.
“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”
Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.
“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?
Short answer: No. At least not yet.
The longer answer goes something like this:
A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.
“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”
This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.
Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.
“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.
“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.
Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.
It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.
AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.
New Windows into Protein Dynamics
A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”
Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.
“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”
To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.
“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.
A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.
Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery
Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.
Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.
Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.
“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.
PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.
“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.
This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.
The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.
PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.
“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.
Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.
“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”
And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT
Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.
First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.
“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”
Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.
“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The question has been lingering for years in medical science circles. Since 2020, when the artificial intelligence (AI) model AlphaFold made it possible to predict protein structures, would the technology open the drug discovery floodgates?
Short answer: No. At least not yet.
The longer answer goes something like this:
A drug target (such as a mutation) is like a lock. The right drug (a protein designed to bind to the mutation, stopping its activity) is the key. But proteins are fidgety and flexible.
“They’re basically molecular springs,” said Gabriel Monteiro da Silva, PhD, a computational chemistry research scientist at Genesis Therapeutics. “Your key can bend and alter the shape of the lock, and if you don’t account for that, your key might fail.”
This is the protein problem in drug development. Another issue making this challenge so vexing is that proteins don’t act in isolation. Their interactions with other proteins, ribonucleic acid, and DNA can affect how they bind to molecules and the shapes they adopt.
Newer versions of AlphaFold, such as AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 (the code for which was recently revealed for academic use), can predict many interactions among proteins and between proteins and other molecules. But these tools still have weak points scientists are trying to overcome or work around.
“Those kinds of dynamics and multiple conformations are still quite challenging for the AI models to predict,” said James Zou, PhD, associate professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University in California.
“We’re finding more and more that the only way we can make these structures useful for drug discovery is if we incorporate dynamics, if we incorporate more physics into the model,” said Monteiro da Silva.
Monteiro da Silva spent 3 years during his PhD at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, running physics-based simulations in the lab, trying to understand why proteins carrying certain mutations are drug resistant. His results showed how “the changing landscape of shapes that a protein can take” prevented the drug from binding.
It took him 3 years to model just four mutations.
AI can do better — and the struggle is fascinating. By developing models that build on the predictive power of AlphaFold, scientists are uncovering new details about protein activity — insights that can lead to new therapeutics and reveal why existing ones stop working — much faster than they could with traditional methods or AlphaFold alone.
New Windows into Protein Dynamics
A notable step, “but that’s just the starting point,” said Pedro Beltrao, PhD, an associate professor at Institute of Molecular Systems Biology, ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “It’s still very difficult, given a pocket, to actually design the drug or figure out what the pocket binds.”
Going back to the lock-and-key analogy: While he was at Brown, with a team of researchers in the Rubenstein Group, Monteiro da Silva helped create a model to better understand how mutations affect “the shape and dynamics of the lock.” They manipulated the amino acid sequences of proteins, guiding their evolution. This enabled them to use AlphaFold to predict “protein ensembles” and how frequently those ensembles appear. Each ensemble represents the many different shapes a protein can take under given conditions.
“Essentially, it tries to find the most common shapes that a protein will take over an arbitrary amount of time,” Monteiro da Silva said. “If we can predict these ensembles at scale and fast, then we can screen many mutations that cause resistance and develop drugs that will not be affected by that resistance.”
To evaluate their method, the researchers focused on ABL1, a well-studied kinase that causes leukemia. ABL1 can be drugged – unless it carries or develops a mutation that causes drug resistance. Currently there are no drugs that work against proteins carrying those mutations, according to Monteiro da Silva. The researchers used their hybrid AI-meets-physics method to investigate how drugs bind to different ABL1 mutations, screening 100 mutations in just 1 month.
“It’s not going to be perfect for every one of them. But if we have 100 and we get 20 with good accuracy, that’s better than doing four over 3 years,” Monteiro da Silva said.
A forthcoming paper will make their model publicly available in “an easy-to-use graphical interface” that they hope clinicians and medicinal chemists will try out. It can also complement other AI-based tools that dig into protein dynamics, according to Monteiro da Silva.
Complementary Tools to Speed Up Discovery
Another aspect of the protein problem is scale. One protein can interact with hundreds of other proteins, which in turn may interact with hundreds more, all of which comprise the human interactome.
Feixiong Cheng, PhD, helped build PIONEER, a deep learning model that predicts the three-dimensional (3D) structure of interactions between proteins across the interactome.
Most disease mutations disrupt specific interactions between proteins, making their affinity stronger or weaker, explained Cheng. To treat a disease without causing major side effects, scientists need a precise understanding of those interactions.
“From the drug discovery perspective, we cannot just focus on single proteins. We have to understand the protein environment, in particular how the protein interacts with other proteins,” said Cheng, director of Cleveland Clinic Genome Center, Cleveland.
PIONEER helps by blending AlphaFold’s protein structure predictions with next-generation sequencing, a type of genomic research that identifies mutations in the human genome. The model predicts the 3D structure of the places where proteins interact — the binding sites, or interfaces — across the interactome.
“We tell you not only that a binds b, but where on a and where on b the two proteins interact,” said Haiyuan Yu, PhD, director of the Center for Innovative Proteomics, Cornell University, and co-creator of PIONEER.
This can help scientists understand “why a mutation, protein, or even network is a good target for therapeutic discovery,” Cheng said.
The researchers validated PIONEER’s predictions in the lab, testing the impacts of roughly 3000 mutations on 7000 pairs of interacting proteins. Based on their findings, they plan to develop and test treatments for lung and endometrial cancer.
PIONEER can also help scientists home in on how a mutation causes a disease, such as by showing recurrent mutations.
“If you find cancer mutations hitting an interface again and again and again, it means that this is likely to be driving cancer progression,” said Beltrao.
Beltrao’s lab and others have looked for recurrent mutations by using AlphaFold Multimer and AlphaFold 3 to directly model protein interactions. It’s a much slower approach (Pioneer is more than 5000 faster than AlphaFold Multimer, according to Cheng). But it could allow scientists to model interfaces that are not shown by PIONEER.
“You will need many different things to try to come up with a structural modeling of the interactome, and all these will have limitations,” said Beltrao. “Their method is a very good step forward, and there’ll be other approaches that are complementary, to continue to add details.”
And It Wouldn’t be an AI Mission Without ChatGPT
Large language models, such as ChatGPT, are another way that scientists are adding details to protein structure predictions. Zou used GPT-4 to “fine tune” a protein language model, called evolutionary scale modeling (ESM-2), which predicts protein structures directly from a protein sequence.
First, they trained ChatGPT on thousands of papers and studies containing information about the functions, biophysical properties, and disease relevance of different mutations. Next, they used the trained model to “teach” ESM-2, boosting its ability “to predict which mutations are likely to have larger effects or smaller effects,” Zou said. The same could be done for a model like AlphaFold, according to Zou.
“They are quite complementary in that the large language model contains a lot more information about the functions and the biophysics of different mutations and proteins as captured in text,” he said, whereas “you can’t give AlphaFold a piece of paper.”
Exactly how AlphaFold makes its predictions is another mystery. “It will somehow learn protein dynamics phenomenologically,” said Monteiro da Silva. He and others are trying to understand how that happens, in hopes of creating even more accurate predictive models. But for the time being, AI-based methods still need assistance from physics.
“The dream is that we achieve a state where we rely on just the fast methods, and they’re accurate enough,” he said. “But we’re so far from that.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Does Marijuana Harm Your Lungs? The Unclear Truth
During a recent walk with my 6-year-old, he told me he smelled marijuana. His comment speaks to its increased (and more open) use since legalization in our state. The macho, misguided part of my dad psyche was proud of his “street cred” but the thinking part of my brain was concerned. He seemed a little young for a talk about drugs.
I was able to provide a simple, watered-down list of reasons why he shouldn’t smoke marijuana or anything else. The “drugs are bad” aphorism sufficed for my 6-year-old but wasn’t worthy of an academic pulmonologist.
I retired from the military 2 years ago, so marijuana (I’m using the terms “marijuana” and “cannabis” interchangeably here) knowledge wasn’t required for regular practice. I recall one 60-year-old patient who reported smoking four joints a day for years. He had marked emphysema on CT, severe obstruction on spirometry, and he was functionally limited. Buttressed by scattered reports of acute lung injury caused by dabbing or marijuana vaping, this anecdotal “n of 1” led to a predictably pedantic conclusion: Smoking marijuana is bad for the lungs and preaching cessation is worth my time and effort.
I now work in an inner-city hospital. My 6-year-old could identify the smell permeating the hallways and clinic rooms. I’ve reverted to counseling cessation using little more than my “drugs are bad” speech. When I came across a recent review in Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, I recognized the opportunity to read and do better. This summary is based heavily on that review.
Spoiler alert: The data aren’t great. By federal law, marijuana has been illegal in the United States since 1970, so neither funding nor recruitment has come easy. There’s lots of observational data that depend on self-report and are confounded by cigarette use. A lack of regulation results in variations in composition and concentration. In summary, though, smoking marijuana is associated with changes to the bronchial tree and respiratory symptoms, similar to those seen with chronic bronchitis. These symptoms improve with cessation.
The relationship between marijuana and airflow obstruction and lung function is complicated. A mix of contradictory data shows a reduction in the ratio of the forced expiratory volume in the first 1 second to the forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC), an increase in FVC, and changes in conductance.
Biologic plausibility, essential to bolster causality but easy to manufacture, seems intuitive for the airway changes (decreased FEV1/FVC and conductance). The increase in FVC, explained by either the anti-inflammatory properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or the impact from deep inhalations typical of marijuana use, is more difficult to understand. Regardless, I came away from the review less confident about marijuana’s impact on lung structure and function.
The Seminars review also explores marijuana’s association with lung cancer, emphysema, and other structural changes seen on CT of the chest. There’s certainly noise here but the data at present are underwhelming.
This all speaks to the general misconception I’ve had, perhaps shared by others, that the well-defined effects on the lung from tobacco abuse can be extrapolated to marijuana. In the past, I’d even gone so far as to equate a pack-year (smoking one pack of cigarettes per day for a year) to a joint-year (smoking one joint per day for a year), a rather dramatic oversimplification. While both are attempts to quantify exposure, the latter connotes far less information. The content of a joint can vary considerably in ways that the content of cigarettes does not, and there have been no formal studies of the comparative impact on the lung.
Final Thoughts
The nuance here matters for several reasons. Legalization means an increase in use and presumably more open reporting by patients. In a vacuum, it seems reasonable to council cessation to reduce symptoms and because additional harms can be assumed, given what we know about smoke inhalation in general. Will cessation drive patients to an increase in tobacco use where harm is better established?
Given its mixed effects on lung function, is it worth spending behavior change capital, the most precious of patient commodities, on marijuana counseling? Marijuana has numerous effects outside the lung that haven’t been touched on here. How should those be incorporated into our guidance? Legalization and regulation provide the opportunity to obtain the better data that are sorely needed.
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He has disclosed the relevant financial relationships with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During a recent walk with my 6-year-old, he told me he smelled marijuana. His comment speaks to its increased (and more open) use since legalization in our state. The macho, misguided part of my dad psyche was proud of his “street cred” but the thinking part of my brain was concerned. He seemed a little young for a talk about drugs.
I was able to provide a simple, watered-down list of reasons why he shouldn’t smoke marijuana or anything else. The “drugs are bad” aphorism sufficed for my 6-year-old but wasn’t worthy of an academic pulmonologist.
I retired from the military 2 years ago, so marijuana (I’m using the terms “marijuana” and “cannabis” interchangeably here) knowledge wasn’t required for regular practice. I recall one 60-year-old patient who reported smoking four joints a day for years. He had marked emphysema on CT, severe obstruction on spirometry, and he was functionally limited. Buttressed by scattered reports of acute lung injury caused by dabbing or marijuana vaping, this anecdotal “n of 1” led to a predictably pedantic conclusion: Smoking marijuana is bad for the lungs and preaching cessation is worth my time and effort.
I now work in an inner-city hospital. My 6-year-old could identify the smell permeating the hallways and clinic rooms. I’ve reverted to counseling cessation using little more than my “drugs are bad” speech. When I came across a recent review in Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, I recognized the opportunity to read and do better. This summary is based heavily on that review.
Spoiler alert: The data aren’t great. By federal law, marijuana has been illegal in the United States since 1970, so neither funding nor recruitment has come easy. There’s lots of observational data that depend on self-report and are confounded by cigarette use. A lack of regulation results in variations in composition and concentration. In summary, though, smoking marijuana is associated with changes to the bronchial tree and respiratory symptoms, similar to those seen with chronic bronchitis. These symptoms improve with cessation.
The relationship between marijuana and airflow obstruction and lung function is complicated. A mix of contradictory data shows a reduction in the ratio of the forced expiratory volume in the first 1 second to the forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC), an increase in FVC, and changes in conductance.
Biologic plausibility, essential to bolster causality but easy to manufacture, seems intuitive for the airway changes (decreased FEV1/FVC and conductance). The increase in FVC, explained by either the anti-inflammatory properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or the impact from deep inhalations typical of marijuana use, is more difficult to understand. Regardless, I came away from the review less confident about marijuana’s impact on lung structure and function.
The Seminars review also explores marijuana’s association with lung cancer, emphysema, and other structural changes seen on CT of the chest. There’s certainly noise here but the data at present are underwhelming.
This all speaks to the general misconception I’ve had, perhaps shared by others, that the well-defined effects on the lung from tobacco abuse can be extrapolated to marijuana. In the past, I’d even gone so far as to equate a pack-year (smoking one pack of cigarettes per day for a year) to a joint-year (smoking one joint per day for a year), a rather dramatic oversimplification. While both are attempts to quantify exposure, the latter connotes far less information. The content of a joint can vary considerably in ways that the content of cigarettes does not, and there have been no formal studies of the comparative impact on the lung.
Final Thoughts
The nuance here matters for several reasons. Legalization means an increase in use and presumably more open reporting by patients. In a vacuum, it seems reasonable to council cessation to reduce symptoms and because additional harms can be assumed, given what we know about smoke inhalation in general. Will cessation drive patients to an increase in tobacco use where harm is better established?
Given its mixed effects on lung function, is it worth spending behavior change capital, the most precious of patient commodities, on marijuana counseling? Marijuana has numerous effects outside the lung that haven’t been touched on here. How should those be incorporated into our guidance? Legalization and regulation provide the opportunity to obtain the better data that are sorely needed.
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He has disclosed the relevant financial relationships with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
During a recent walk with my 6-year-old, he told me he smelled marijuana. His comment speaks to its increased (and more open) use since legalization in our state. The macho, misguided part of my dad psyche was proud of his “street cred” but the thinking part of my brain was concerned. He seemed a little young for a talk about drugs.
I was able to provide a simple, watered-down list of reasons why he shouldn’t smoke marijuana or anything else. The “drugs are bad” aphorism sufficed for my 6-year-old but wasn’t worthy of an academic pulmonologist.
I retired from the military 2 years ago, so marijuana (I’m using the terms “marijuana” and “cannabis” interchangeably here) knowledge wasn’t required for regular practice. I recall one 60-year-old patient who reported smoking four joints a day for years. He had marked emphysema on CT, severe obstruction on spirometry, and he was functionally limited. Buttressed by scattered reports of acute lung injury caused by dabbing or marijuana vaping, this anecdotal “n of 1” led to a predictably pedantic conclusion: Smoking marijuana is bad for the lungs and preaching cessation is worth my time and effort.
I now work in an inner-city hospital. My 6-year-old could identify the smell permeating the hallways and clinic rooms. I’ve reverted to counseling cessation using little more than my “drugs are bad” speech. When I came across a recent review in Seminars in Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, I recognized the opportunity to read and do better. This summary is based heavily on that review.
Spoiler alert: The data aren’t great. By federal law, marijuana has been illegal in the United States since 1970, so neither funding nor recruitment has come easy. There’s lots of observational data that depend on self-report and are confounded by cigarette use. A lack of regulation results in variations in composition and concentration. In summary, though, smoking marijuana is associated with changes to the bronchial tree and respiratory symptoms, similar to those seen with chronic bronchitis. These symptoms improve with cessation.
The relationship between marijuana and airflow obstruction and lung function is complicated. A mix of contradictory data shows a reduction in the ratio of the forced expiratory volume in the first 1 second to the forced vital capacity (FEV1/FVC), an increase in FVC, and changes in conductance.
Biologic plausibility, essential to bolster causality but easy to manufacture, seems intuitive for the airway changes (decreased FEV1/FVC and conductance). The increase in FVC, explained by either the anti-inflammatory properties of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) or the impact from deep inhalations typical of marijuana use, is more difficult to understand. Regardless, I came away from the review less confident about marijuana’s impact on lung structure and function.
The Seminars review also explores marijuana’s association with lung cancer, emphysema, and other structural changes seen on CT of the chest. There’s certainly noise here but the data at present are underwhelming.
This all speaks to the general misconception I’ve had, perhaps shared by others, that the well-defined effects on the lung from tobacco abuse can be extrapolated to marijuana. In the past, I’d even gone so far as to equate a pack-year (smoking one pack of cigarettes per day for a year) to a joint-year (smoking one joint per day for a year), a rather dramatic oversimplification. While both are attempts to quantify exposure, the latter connotes far less information. The content of a joint can vary considerably in ways that the content of cigarettes does not, and there have been no formal studies of the comparative impact on the lung.
Final Thoughts
The nuance here matters for several reasons. Legalization means an increase in use and presumably more open reporting by patients. In a vacuum, it seems reasonable to council cessation to reduce symptoms and because additional harms can be assumed, given what we know about smoke inhalation in general. Will cessation drive patients to an increase in tobacco use where harm is better established?
Given its mixed effects on lung function, is it worth spending behavior change capital, the most precious of patient commodities, on marijuana counseling? Marijuana has numerous effects outside the lung that haven’t been touched on here. How should those be incorporated into our guidance? Legalization and regulation provide the opportunity to obtain the better data that are sorely needed.
Aaron B. Holley, MD, is a professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Maryland, and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington, DC. He has disclosed the relevant financial relationships with Metapharm, CHEST College, and WebMD.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Carfentanil-Involved Drug Overdoses Soar From 2023 to 2024
The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.
Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024.
Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.
Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.
“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.
The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline
IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.
The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.
To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024.
The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.
From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs.
IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.
Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.
“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.
Regional Differences
When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.
Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).
In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024.
The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.
The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.”
The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.
No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.
Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024.
Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.
Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.
“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.
The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline
IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.
The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.
To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024.
The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.
From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs.
IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.
Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.
“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.
Regional Differences
When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.
Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).
In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024.
The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.
The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.”
The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.
No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The number of drug overdose deaths involving illegally manufactured fentanyl and fentanyl analogs (IMFs) dropped in the United States during the latter portion of 2023. But a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggests that an increase in overdoses involving the potent fentanyl analog carfentanil threatens to undo that progress.
Overdose deaths from carfentanil rose by more than 700% in the past year, increasing from 29 between January and June 2023 to 238 in that same period in 2024.
Carfentanil is used as a tranquilizing agent for elephants and other large mammals and is 100 times more potent than fentanyl. Just 2 mg can be lethal to humans, and a carfentanil-related overdose can require more than three shots of naloxone to reverse.
Prior to this resurgence of carfentanil, the drug “had largely disappeared after carfentanil-involved overdose death outbreaks in 2016-2017,” study authors noted, when carfentanil overdose deaths topped 1200, other data showed.
“Educational and response efforts that can rapidly adapt to the potential for increased distribution of drugs more potent than fentanyl, such as carfentanil, are needed and might avert or mitigate new increases in overdose deaths,” the authors wrote.
The findings were published online in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Carfentanil May Stall Overdose Decline
IMFs such as carfentanil were first detected in the United States illegal drug supply in 2013. A little more than a decade later, IMFs have replaced heroin as the most common opioid in the United States.
The introduction of IMFs led to a sharp rise in overdose deaths, but provisional data suggest these fatalities are on the decline. A recent re-emergence of carfentanil could stall that downward trend.
To investigate further, researchers used data from the CDC’s State Unintentional Drug Overdose Reporting System to analyze detection of IMFs and carfentanil between January 2021 and June 2024.
The database houses information on drug overdoses obtained from death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, and postmortem toxicology reports from 49 states and the District of Columbia.
From January 2021 to December 2023, more than 251,000 people died from drug overdoses with unintentional and undetermined intent, 75% of which involved IMFs.
IMF-linked deaths peaked at 16,814 in the second quarter of 2023, then declined by nearly 16% to 14,299 deaths by the end of that year.
Investigators could only speculate on the reasons for the decline in overdoses. It is possible that drug users are mixing fentanyl with other drugs, such as xylazine, which may reduce the danger of fatal overdose. It’s also possible that overdose prevention programs are partially responsible for the decline.
“Continued and expanded implementation of these programs, including naloxone distribution and increasing access to treatments for substance use disorders, might result in sustained and continued declines in drug overdose deaths,” they wrote.
Regional Differences
When researchers analyzed the results by region, they found that IMFs were detected in 81.5% of overdose deaths in the Northeast, 75% in the Midwest, and 75% in the Southern regions during the study period. These percentages were relatively stable until summer 2023, when declines in IMF-linked overdoses were noteworthy.
Specifically, deaths caused by IMFs decreased 11% in the Northeast (8245 to 7323), 16% in the Midwest (7160 to 6008), and 10.5% in the South (13,492 to 12,077).
In the West, however, overdoses linked to IMFs increased by 66.5% between 2021 and the second quarter of 2024.
The researchers speculated that the surge in the western United States could be caused by fentanyl entering the drug markets in that region later than in other areas, “likely because of challenges of mixing fentanyl into the black tar heroin that was more common in the West,” they wrote.
The findings suggested that, despite overall declines in overdose deaths reported nationwide, “recent sharp increases in overdose deaths with carfentanil detected, although rare, highlight the ever-changing illegal drug supply and threaten progress in reducing overdose deaths.”
The report authors encouraged expanding education programs for the public about the dangers of carfentanil and other IMFs, as well as harm reduction strategies, including using fentanyl test strips or drug-checking services.
No study funding information was available. There were no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE MMWR
Smoking Cessation Offers Benefits at Any Age
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of.
The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline.
The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives.
We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.
Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?
They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference.
I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking.
There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.
Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of.
The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline.
The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives.
We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.
Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?
They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference.
I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking.
There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.
Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
I would like to briefly talk about a very interesting paper and one that probably has about as much to inform the doctor-patient relationship as any paper you can think of.
The title itself gives you a little bit of that answer before I even discuss the outcome. The paper is “The Benefits of Quitting Smoking at Different Ages,” recently published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
I’m not going to even begin to attempt to explore the statistics of the analysis, but I think the conclusions are both fascinating and important. I will read the first sentence of the results and then just comment on some of the others because there’s just so much data here and I really want to focus on the punchline.
The results section said that, compared with people who never smoked, those who smoke currently, aged 35, 45, 55, 65, or 75, (those were all the groups they looked at), and who have smoked throughout adulthood until that age will lose an average of 9.1, 8.3, 7.3, 5.9, and 4.4 years of life, respectively — obviously, it’s a lot — if they continue to smoke for the rest of their lives.
We know that. It’s terrible. That’s why people should never smoke. Period. End of story. There’s no social value. There’s no health value of smoking. It’s a deadly recreational activity for multiple illnesses, and obviously, cancer is prominent among them.
Here’s the conclusion of the paper that I think is interesting. That doctor, whether it’s a primary care doctor, an oncologist, an ob/gyn, or a family doctor, is seeing Mr Smith or Mrs Jones in the office today, whether they know that patient well or not very well, and they’re still smoking. However, if the person we’re describing here quits smoking at these ages, how much life do they add back, compared with if they continued?
They may say: “Oh, I’ve been smoking all my life. What difference does it make? The die is cast.” Wrong! If you’ve been smoking your whole adult life — so let’s just say that you started at age 18, age 20, age 15, or even age 12 — but you quit smoking at the age of 35, you’re going to add 8 years of life on average. If you quit smoking when you’re 65, having smoked your whole adult life, you will add 1.7 years of life. That’s 1.7 years to be with your family, to be with your grandchildren, and enjoy life. If you ask, “Oh, what difference does it make?” It makes a big difference.
I’ll share another statistic and I’ll be done. I think this is really an interesting one. The chances of gaining at least a year of life among those who quit smoking at the age of 65 was 23.4%. There is a 1 out of 4 chance that you’re going to live an additional year if you stop at age 65. Even if you stop smoking at age 75, you have a 14% chance of living at least an additional year longer than you would have if you didn’t stop smoking.
There is much to think about here, much to consider, and much to discuss potentially with patients.
Dr. Markman is Professor of Medical Oncology and Therapeutics Research, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center; President, Medicine & Science, City of Hope Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix. He reported conflicts of interest with GlaxoSmithKline and AstraZeneca.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Novel Telecare Approach Transforms Alcohol Use Screening and Treatment in Primary Care Setting
TOPLINE:
A new telephone-based program implemented in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) demonstrates effectiveness in reducing unhealthy alcohol use among diverse adult patients screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers implemented a screening and team-based telephonic program within a large FQHC system in Texas in which adult patients were routinely screened using AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions.
- The team-based, telecare-centered program was designed to follow-up positive screening results with full AUDIT assessments and to provide a two-session brief intervention for all patients. Patients with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 received the brief intervention along with a referral for additional support or an assessment for pharmacotherapy prescription.
- The researchers screened 3959 patients between March 2021 and May 2023, of whom 412 patients with positive results were successfully contacted and had their AUDIT completed (mean age, 46 years; 32% women; 86% Hispanic/Latino; 65% preferred Spanish).
- Of these, 29 patients had full AUDIT scores ranging from 0 to 3, 252 had scores between 4 and 12, and 131 had scores > 12.
- Follow-up AUDIT assessments conducted at 3-6 months were completed for 251 patients (26% women; 90% Hispanic/Latino), and those with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 were offered additional treatment options, including telecare services, in-person appointments with the addiction medicine clinic, and/or pharmacotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the patients with an initial AUDIT score > 12, 19 received pharmacotherapy and 13 had at least one appointment with the addiction medicine service.
- For patients who completed the initial and final follow-ups, the mean change in AUDIT score was −4.1 (95% CI, −3.4 to −4.7).
- Spanish-speaking patients demonstrated a greater reduction in AUDIT scores than English-speaking patients.
- The mean reduction in the AUDIT score at the 3- to 6-month follow-up was larger in those with initial AUDIT scores > 12 than in those with initial AUDIT scores ≤ 12 (7.99 vs 2.25).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our intervention was delivered outside of traditional office visits and did not disrupt clinic flow or add burden to the practice’s providers, who already face significant challenges in serving this high-needs population,” the authors wrote. “We believe this program offers a template for delivering evidence-based, equitable preventive care for unhealthy alcohol use in a diverse patient population.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The lack of systematic tracking for the unsuccessful attempts at establishing contact limited the understanding of the variations in screening positivity and the subsequent engagement in the program. Program staffing and constraints in the budget limited the ability to reach all potentially interested participants. The absence of a control group made it difficult to attribute the observed reductions in the AUDIT scores solely to the intervention. The data on follow-up were collected from only 61% participants, raising the possibility that those who were not reached may have had different outcomes than those who were successfully contacted.
DISCLOSURES:
The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas provided funding for this program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A new telephone-based program implemented in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) demonstrates effectiveness in reducing unhealthy alcohol use among diverse adult patients screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers implemented a screening and team-based telephonic program within a large FQHC system in Texas in which adult patients were routinely screened using AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions.
- The team-based, telecare-centered program was designed to follow-up positive screening results with full AUDIT assessments and to provide a two-session brief intervention for all patients. Patients with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 received the brief intervention along with a referral for additional support or an assessment for pharmacotherapy prescription.
- The researchers screened 3959 patients between March 2021 and May 2023, of whom 412 patients with positive results were successfully contacted and had their AUDIT completed (mean age, 46 years; 32% women; 86% Hispanic/Latino; 65% preferred Spanish).
- Of these, 29 patients had full AUDIT scores ranging from 0 to 3, 252 had scores between 4 and 12, and 131 had scores > 12.
- Follow-up AUDIT assessments conducted at 3-6 months were completed for 251 patients (26% women; 90% Hispanic/Latino), and those with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 were offered additional treatment options, including telecare services, in-person appointments with the addiction medicine clinic, and/or pharmacotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the patients with an initial AUDIT score > 12, 19 received pharmacotherapy and 13 had at least one appointment with the addiction medicine service.
- For patients who completed the initial and final follow-ups, the mean change in AUDIT score was −4.1 (95% CI, −3.4 to −4.7).
- Spanish-speaking patients demonstrated a greater reduction in AUDIT scores than English-speaking patients.
- The mean reduction in the AUDIT score at the 3- to 6-month follow-up was larger in those with initial AUDIT scores > 12 than in those with initial AUDIT scores ≤ 12 (7.99 vs 2.25).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our intervention was delivered outside of traditional office visits and did not disrupt clinic flow or add burden to the practice’s providers, who already face significant challenges in serving this high-needs population,” the authors wrote. “We believe this program offers a template for delivering evidence-based, equitable preventive care for unhealthy alcohol use in a diverse patient population.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The lack of systematic tracking for the unsuccessful attempts at establishing contact limited the understanding of the variations in screening positivity and the subsequent engagement in the program. Program staffing and constraints in the budget limited the ability to reach all potentially interested participants. The absence of a control group made it difficult to attribute the observed reductions in the AUDIT scores solely to the intervention. The data on follow-up were collected from only 61% participants, raising the possibility that those who were not reached may have had different outcomes than those who were successfully contacted.
DISCLOSURES:
The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas provided funding for this program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A new telephone-based program implemented in a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) demonstrates effectiveness in reducing unhealthy alcohol use among diverse adult patients screened using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers implemented a screening and team-based telephonic program within a large FQHC system in Texas in which adult patients were routinely screened using AUDIT-Consumption (AUDIT-C) questions.
- The team-based, telecare-centered program was designed to follow-up positive screening results with full AUDIT assessments and to provide a two-session brief intervention for all patients. Patients with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 received the brief intervention along with a referral for additional support or an assessment for pharmacotherapy prescription.
- The researchers screened 3959 patients between March 2021 and May 2023, of whom 412 patients with positive results were successfully contacted and had their AUDIT completed (mean age, 46 years; 32% women; 86% Hispanic/Latino; 65% preferred Spanish).
- Of these, 29 patients had full AUDIT scores ranging from 0 to 3, 252 had scores between 4 and 12, and 131 had scores > 12.
- Follow-up AUDIT assessments conducted at 3-6 months were completed for 251 patients (26% women; 90% Hispanic/Latino), and those with AUDIT scores ≥ 12 were offered additional treatment options, including telecare services, in-person appointments with the addiction medicine clinic, and/or pharmacotherapy.
TAKEAWAY:
- Among the patients with an initial AUDIT score > 12, 19 received pharmacotherapy and 13 had at least one appointment with the addiction medicine service.
- For patients who completed the initial and final follow-ups, the mean change in AUDIT score was −4.1 (95% CI, −3.4 to −4.7).
- Spanish-speaking patients demonstrated a greater reduction in AUDIT scores than English-speaking patients.
- The mean reduction in the AUDIT score at the 3- to 6-month follow-up was larger in those with initial AUDIT scores > 12 than in those with initial AUDIT scores ≤ 12 (7.99 vs 2.25).
IN PRACTICE:
“Our intervention was delivered outside of traditional office visits and did not disrupt clinic flow or add burden to the practice’s providers, who already face significant challenges in serving this high-needs population,” the authors wrote. “We believe this program offers a template for delivering evidence-based, equitable preventive care for unhealthy alcohol use in a diverse patient population.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Michael Pignone, MD, MPH, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina. It was published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The lack of systematic tracking for the unsuccessful attempts at establishing contact limited the understanding of the variations in screening positivity and the subsequent engagement in the program. Program staffing and constraints in the budget limited the ability to reach all potentially interested participants. The absence of a control group made it difficult to attribute the observed reductions in the AUDIT scores solely to the intervention. The data on follow-up were collected from only 61% participants, raising the possibility that those who were not reached may have had different outcomes than those who were successfully contacted.
DISCLOSURES:
The Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas provided funding for this program. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FDA Approves Ustekinumab Biosimilar Steqeyma, the Seventh of Its Kind
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.
This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.
Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.
“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.
The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.
The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.
This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.
Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.
“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.
The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.
The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.
This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.
Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.
“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.
The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.
The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Infants Exposed to Minoxidil May Develop Hypertrichosis
OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.
A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.
According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.
Mechanism of Transmission Unclear
In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.
The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.
Regulatory Changes and Precautions
In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.
The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.
Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.
This story was translated from Univadis Spain using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.
A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.
According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.
Mechanism of Transmission Unclear
In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.
The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.
Regulatory Changes and Precautions
In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.
The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.
Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.
This story was translated from Univadis Spain using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.
A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.
According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.
Mechanism of Transmission Unclear
In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.
The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.
Regulatory Changes and Precautions
In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.
The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.
Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.
This story was translated from Univadis Spain using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE SPANISH PHARMACOVIGILANCE CONGRESS 2024