New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show significant spikes in pertussis cases compared with last year, especially in several urban areas including New York, Illinois, Florida, and Colorado. Cases are rising at the same time that rates of vaccination have been on the decline.

Notably, the current pertussis case count in Illinois as of September 21, 2024, was five times higher than the total cases in 2023 (1058 vs 50). New York City alone had reported 624 cases as of September 21, compared with 38 cases in 2023. 

Additional data from the CDC on vaccination coverage and exemptions of school-aged children showed an increase from 3.0% last year to 3.3% in 2024 of children who were exempted from recommended vaccination requirements. Although nearly 93% of kindergarteners in the United States received recommended vaccines (including Tdap), similar to last year, this number shows a steady decline from 94% in the 2021-2021 school year and 93% in the 2021-2022 school year, according to previous CDC reports.
 

What’s Happening in the Clinic

Clinical experience and the most recent CDC data point to under vaccination as a driver of the increased pertussis cases this year, David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the division of infectious disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, said in an interview.

Although the pertussis vaccination rates in infancy are still very good, clinicians are seeing a drop-off in school-aged children and adults, and the lingering anti-vaccine efforts from the COVID-19 pandemic period are undoubtedly playing a part, said Dr. Cennimo. “Unfortunately, pertussis is contagious, and the vaccine effectiveness wears off. Having decreased numbers of people protected results in more rapid spread,” he said. 

Dr. Cennimo agreed that the number of cases in the United States is underreported, and even higher than the data suggest. “I’m sure of it; the initial clinical presentation may be mistaken for a viral upper respiratory tract infection (common cold),” he told this news organization.

Many older children and adults with pertussis do not manifest the classic “whooping cough” seen in infants and young children, so making a clinical diagnosis can be difficult, he said. “One classical component of the illness is a prolonged cough. I have wondered if some people now reporting a lingering cough had pertussis that was missed,” Dr. Cennimo noted. 

“Clinicians should stress the value of boosters in a vaccine-preventable illness where we know immunity wanes overtime,” Dr. Cennimo said. “We have a great remedy in the Tdap vaccine, which we should all be getting very 10 years,” he said. 

He also emphasized that clinicians remind pregnant women of the current recommendations to receive the Tdap vaccine for every pregnancy. “Vaccination during pregnancy is the best way to protect both the pregnant person and the newborn. 

Even for the vaccine hesitant, this vaccine has a long track record of safety so should not be a significant concern,” he said.

The ultimate take-home message is not a new one, and applies to all illnesses, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Simply put, “Stay home if you are sick. Social distancing is not just for COVID-19,” he said.

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

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

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show significant spikes in pertussis cases compared with last year, especially in several urban areas including New York, Illinois, Florida, and Colorado. Cases are rising at the same time that rates of vaccination have been on the decline.

Notably, the current pertussis case count in Illinois as of September 21, 2024, was five times higher than the total cases in 2023 (1058 vs 50). New York City alone had reported 624 cases as of September 21, compared with 38 cases in 2023. 

Additional data from the CDC on vaccination coverage and exemptions of school-aged children showed an increase from 3.0% last year to 3.3% in 2024 of children who were exempted from recommended vaccination requirements. Although nearly 93% of kindergarteners in the United States received recommended vaccines (including Tdap), similar to last year, this number shows a steady decline from 94% in the 2021-2021 school year and 93% in the 2021-2022 school year, according to previous CDC reports.
 

What’s Happening in the Clinic

Clinical experience and the most recent CDC data point to under vaccination as a driver of the increased pertussis cases this year, David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the division of infectious disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, said in an interview.

Although the pertussis vaccination rates in infancy are still very good, clinicians are seeing a drop-off in school-aged children and adults, and the lingering anti-vaccine efforts from the COVID-19 pandemic period are undoubtedly playing a part, said Dr. Cennimo. “Unfortunately, pertussis is contagious, and the vaccine effectiveness wears off. Having decreased numbers of people protected results in more rapid spread,” he said. 

Dr. Cennimo agreed that the number of cases in the United States is underreported, and even higher than the data suggest. “I’m sure of it; the initial clinical presentation may be mistaken for a viral upper respiratory tract infection (common cold),” he told this news organization.

Many older children and adults with pertussis do not manifest the classic “whooping cough” seen in infants and young children, so making a clinical diagnosis can be difficult, he said. “One classical component of the illness is a prolonged cough. I have wondered if some people now reporting a lingering cough had pertussis that was missed,” Dr. Cennimo noted. 

“Clinicians should stress the value of boosters in a vaccine-preventable illness where we know immunity wanes overtime,” Dr. Cennimo said. “We have a great remedy in the Tdap vaccine, which we should all be getting very 10 years,” he said. 

He also emphasized that clinicians remind pregnant women of the current recommendations to receive the Tdap vaccine for every pregnancy. “Vaccination during pregnancy is the best way to protect both the pregnant person and the newborn. 

Even for the vaccine hesitant, this vaccine has a long track record of safety so should not be a significant concern,” he said.

The ultimate take-home message is not a new one, and applies to all illnesses, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Simply put, “Stay home if you are sick. Social distancing is not just for COVID-19,” he said.

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

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

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show significant spikes in pertussis cases compared with last year, especially in several urban areas including New York, Illinois, Florida, and Colorado. Cases are rising at the same time that rates of vaccination have been on the decline.

Notably, the current pertussis case count in Illinois as of September 21, 2024, was five times higher than the total cases in 2023 (1058 vs 50). New York City alone had reported 624 cases as of September 21, compared with 38 cases in 2023. 

Additional data from the CDC on vaccination coverage and exemptions of school-aged children showed an increase from 3.0% last year to 3.3% in 2024 of children who were exempted from recommended vaccination requirements. Although nearly 93% of kindergarteners in the United States received recommended vaccines (including Tdap), similar to last year, this number shows a steady decline from 94% in the 2021-2021 school year and 93% in the 2021-2022 school year, according to previous CDC reports.
 

What’s Happening in the Clinic

Clinical experience and the most recent CDC data point to under vaccination as a driver of the increased pertussis cases this year, David J. Cennimo, MD, associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the division of infectious disease at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, said in an interview.

Although the pertussis vaccination rates in infancy are still very good, clinicians are seeing a drop-off in school-aged children and adults, and the lingering anti-vaccine efforts from the COVID-19 pandemic period are undoubtedly playing a part, said Dr. Cennimo. “Unfortunately, pertussis is contagious, and the vaccine effectiveness wears off. Having decreased numbers of people protected results in more rapid spread,” he said. 

Dr. Cennimo agreed that the number of cases in the United States is underreported, and even higher than the data suggest. “I’m sure of it; the initial clinical presentation may be mistaken for a viral upper respiratory tract infection (common cold),” he told this news organization.

Many older children and adults with pertussis do not manifest the classic “whooping cough” seen in infants and young children, so making a clinical diagnosis can be difficult, he said. “One classical component of the illness is a prolonged cough. I have wondered if some people now reporting a lingering cough had pertussis that was missed,” Dr. Cennimo noted. 

“Clinicians should stress the value of boosters in a vaccine-preventable illness where we know immunity wanes overtime,” Dr. Cennimo said. “We have a great remedy in the Tdap vaccine, which we should all be getting very 10 years,” he said. 

He also emphasized that clinicians remind pregnant women of the current recommendations to receive the Tdap vaccine for every pregnancy. “Vaccination during pregnancy is the best way to protect both the pregnant person and the newborn. 

Even for the vaccine hesitant, this vaccine has a long track record of safety so should not be a significant concern,” he said.

The ultimate take-home message is not a new one, and applies to all illnesses, Dr. Cennimo told this news organization. Simply put, “Stay home if you are sick. Social distancing is not just for COVID-19,” he said.

Dr. Cennimo had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

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

Hidden behind all of the new drugs and breakthroughs reported at the 2024 ECTRIMS meetings was one paper that caught my attention.

It was that, after several years of study, simvastatin had no benefit for multiple sclerosis.

Statins for MS (and for Alzheimer’s disease) have been bandied about for some time, with arguments based on theoretical ideas, and small studies, that they’d have a beneficial effect on the disease – maybe from anti-inflammatory and other properties. In addition, they offered the benefit of being widely available and comparatively inexpensive.

Because of those studies, 15-20 years ago I used them off label for MS in a handful of patients – sometimes as an adjunct to their current treatment (limited at that point to interferons and Copaxone), or in patients who couldn’t afford the FDA-approved drugs. Although not without their drawbacks, the statins are relatively well understood and tolerated.

At some point, for reasons I’ve long forgotten, they all came off of them (at least for MS purposes). Maybe for side effects, or lack of benefit, or because new medications, with much clearer efficacies, were rolling out.

Now it seems pretty clear that statins don’t work for MS.

So was it a bad idea to try? No. Without asking questions we don’t find answers. If they’d worked out it would have been great, another tool on the neurology workbench to reach for in the right situation. It might also have led us to new avenues in MS treatment.

But it didn’t, and that’s fine. Although they don’t get the attention, we learn as much (sometimes more) from negative studies as we do from positive ones. If we put people on every drug that initially showed promise for their conditions, my patients would have a pretty huge medication list. For Alzheimer’s disease alone I remember studies that once suggested ibuprofen, statins, estrogen, nicotine, and several vitamins might be effective (“might” being the key word). Today we’re looking at the PDE5 inhibitors and semaglutide. The jury is still out on them, but whichever way it goes we’ll still learn something.

The statins are good drugs. Their benefits in cardiac and cerebrovascular disease can’t be disputed (I’m sure someone would, but that’s not the point of this piece). But, like all drugs, they don’t work for everything.

Just like other sciences, everything we do now in medicine is based on both the successes and failures of what came before. We learn from both and keep moving forward.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Hidden behind all of the new drugs and breakthroughs reported at the 2024 ECTRIMS meetings was one paper that caught my attention.

It was that, after several years of study, simvastatin had no benefit for multiple sclerosis.

Statins for MS (and for Alzheimer’s disease) have been bandied about for some time, with arguments based on theoretical ideas, and small studies, that they’d have a beneficial effect on the disease – maybe from anti-inflammatory and other properties. In addition, they offered the benefit of being widely available and comparatively inexpensive.

Because of those studies, 15-20 years ago I used them off label for MS in a handful of patients – sometimes as an adjunct to their current treatment (limited at that point to interferons and Copaxone), or in patients who couldn’t afford the FDA-approved drugs. Although not without their drawbacks, the statins are relatively well understood and tolerated.

At some point, for reasons I’ve long forgotten, they all came off of them (at least for MS purposes). Maybe for side effects, or lack of benefit, or because new medications, with much clearer efficacies, were rolling out.

Now it seems pretty clear that statins don’t work for MS.

So was it a bad idea to try? No. Without asking questions we don’t find answers. If they’d worked out it would have been great, another tool on the neurology workbench to reach for in the right situation. It might also have led us to new avenues in MS treatment.

But it didn’t, and that’s fine. Although they don’t get the attention, we learn as much (sometimes more) from negative studies as we do from positive ones. If we put people on every drug that initially showed promise for their conditions, my patients would have a pretty huge medication list. For Alzheimer’s disease alone I remember studies that once suggested ibuprofen, statins, estrogen, nicotine, and several vitamins might be effective (“might” being the key word). Today we’re looking at the PDE5 inhibitors and semaglutide. The jury is still out on them, but whichever way it goes we’ll still learn something.

The statins are good drugs. Their benefits in cardiac and cerebrovascular disease can’t be disputed (I’m sure someone would, but that’s not the point of this piece). But, like all drugs, they don’t work for everything.

Just like other sciences, everything we do now in medicine is based on both the successes and failures of what came before. We learn from both and keep moving forward.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Hidden behind all of the new drugs and breakthroughs reported at the 2024 ECTRIMS meetings was one paper that caught my attention.

It was that, after several years of study, simvastatin had no benefit for multiple sclerosis.

Statins for MS (and for Alzheimer’s disease) have been bandied about for some time, with arguments based on theoretical ideas, and small studies, that they’d have a beneficial effect on the disease – maybe from anti-inflammatory and other properties. In addition, they offered the benefit of being widely available and comparatively inexpensive.

Because of those studies, 15-20 years ago I used them off label for MS in a handful of patients – sometimes as an adjunct to their current treatment (limited at that point to interferons and Copaxone), or in patients who couldn’t afford the FDA-approved drugs. Although not without their drawbacks, the statins are relatively well understood and tolerated.

At some point, for reasons I’ve long forgotten, they all came off of them (at least for MS purposes). Maybe for side effects, or lack of benefit, or because new medications, with much clearer efficacies, were rolling out.

Now it seems pretty clear that statins don’t work for MS.

So was it a bad idea to try? No. Without asking questions we don’t find answers. If they’d worked out it would have been great, another tool on the neurology workbench to reach for in the right situation. It might also have led us to new avenues in MS treatment.

But it didn’t, and that’s fine. Although they don’t get the attention, we learn as much (sometimes more) from negative studies as we do from positive ones. If we put people on every drug that initially showed promise for their conditions, my patients would have a pretty huge medication list. For Alzheimer’s disease alone I remember studies that once suggested ibuprofen, statins, estrogen, nicotine, and several vitamins might be effective (“might” being the key word). Today we’re looking at the PDE5 inhibitors and semaglutide. The jury is still out on them, but whichever way it goes we’ll still learn something.

The statins are good drugs. Their benefits in cardiac and cerebrovascular disease can’t be disputed (I’m sure someone would, but that’s not the point of this piece). But, like all drugs, they don’t work for everything.

Just like other sciences, everything we do now in medicine is based on both the successes and failures of what came before. We learn from both and keep moving forward.
 

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Arizona.

To the Editor:

Gonococcal infections, which are caused by the sexually transmitted, gram-negative diplococcus Neisseria gonorrhoeae, are a current and increasing threat to public health. Between 2012 and 2021, the rate of gonococcal infection in the United States increased 137.8% in men and 64.9% in women,¹ with an estimated 1.5 million new gonococcal infections occurring each year in the United States as of 2021.²Neisseria gonorrhoeae is the second most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI), and patients with gonococcal infection frequently are coinfected with Chlamydia trachomatis, which is the most common bacterial STI. Uncomplicated gonococcal infection (also known as gonorrhea) most commonly causes asymptomatic cervicovaginal infection in women and symptomatic urethral infection in men.² Other uncomplicated manifestations include rectal infection, which can be asymptomatic or manifest with anal pruritus, anal discharge, or tenesmus, and oropharyngeal infection, which can be asymptomatic or manifest with throat pain. If uncomplicated gonococcal infections are left untreated or are incompletely treated, serious complications including septic arthritis, myositis, osteomyelitis, myocarditis, endocarditis, and meningitis might occur.^2-5 Ascending, locally invasive infections can cause epididymitis or pelvic inflammatory disease, which is an important cause of infertility in women.^2,3 Gonococcal conjunctivitis also can occur, particularly when neonates are exposed to bacteria during vaginal delivery. Although rare, gonococcal bacteria can disseminate widely, with an estimated 0.5% to 3% of uncomplicated gonococcal infections progressing to disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI).^3-6 Because DGI can mimic other systemic conditions, including a variety of bacterial and viral infections as well as inflammatory conditions, it can be difficult to diagnose without a high index of clinical suspicion. We present a case of DGI diagnosed based on dermatologic expertise and pharyngeal molecular testing.

A 30-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a rash on the extremeities as well as emesis, fever, sore throat, and severe arthralgia in the wrists, hands, knees, and feet of 2 days’ duration. The patient also had experienced several months of dysuria. He reported daily use of the recreational drug ketamine, multiple new male sexual partners, and unprotected oral and receptive anal sex in recent months. He denied any history of STIs. Physical examination demonstrated tender edematous wrists and fingers, papulovesicles on erythematous bases on the palms, and purpuric macules scattered on the legs (Figure 1). The patient also had tonsillar edema with notable white tonsillar exudate.

To the Editor:

Gonococcal infections, which are caused by the sexually transmitted, gram-negative diplococcus Neisseria gonorrhoeae, are a current and increasing threat to public health. Between 2012 and 2021, the rate of gonococcal infection in the United States increased 137.8% in men and 64.9% in women,¹ with an estimated 1.5 million new gonococcal infections occurring each year in the United States as of 2021.²Neisseria gonorrhoeae is the second most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI), and patients with gonococcal infection frequently are coinfected with Chlamydia trachomatis, which is the most common bacterial STI. Uncomplicated gonococcal infection (also known as gonorrhea) most commonly causes asymptomatic cervicovaginal infection in women and symptomatic urethral infection in men.² Other uncomplicated manifestations include rectal infection, which can be asymptomatic or manifest with anal pruritus, anal discharge, or tenesmus, and oropharyngeal infection, which can be asymptomatic or manifest with throat pain. If uncomplicated gonococcal infections are left untreated or are incompletely treated, serious complications including septic arthritis, myositis, osteomyelitis, myocarditis, endocarditis, and meningitis might occur.^2-5 Ascending, locally invasive infections can cause epididymitis or pelvic inflammatory disease, which is an important cause of infertility in women.^2,3 Gonococcal conjunctivitis also can occur, particularly when neonates are exposed to bacteria during vaginal delivery. Although rare, gonococcal bacteria can disseminate widely, with an estimated 0.5% to 3% of uncomplicated gonococcal infections progressing to disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI).^3-6 Because DGI can mimic other systemic conditions, including a variety of bacterial and viral infections as well as inflammatory conditions, it can be difficult to diagnose without a high index of clinical suspicion. We present a case of DGI diagnosed based on dermatologic expertise and pharyngeal molecular testing.

A 30-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a rash on the extremeities as well as emesis, fever, sore throat, and severe arthralgia in the wrists, hands, knees, and feet of 2 days’ duration. The patient also had experienced several months of dysuria. He reported daily use of the recreational drug ketamine, multiple new male sexual partners, and unprotected oral and receptive anal sex in recent months. He denied any history of STIs. Physical examination demonstrated tender edematous wrists and fingers, papulovesicles on erythematous bases on the palms, and purpuric macules scattered on the legs (Figure 1). The patient also had tonsillar edema with notable white tonsillar exudate.

To the Editor:

Gonococcal infections, which are caused by the sexually transmitted, gram-negative diplococcus Neisseria gonorrhoeae, are a current and increasing threat to public health. Between 2012 and 2021, the rate of gonococcal infection in the United States increased 137.8% in men and 64.9% in women,¹ with an estimated 1.5 million new gonococcal infections occurring each year in the United States as of 2021.²Neisseria gonorrhoeae is the second most common bacterial sexually transmitted infection (STI), and patients with gonococcal infection frequently are coinfected with Chlamydia trachomatis, which is the most common bacterial STI. Uncomplicated gonococcal infection (also known as gonorrhea) most commonly causes asymptomatic cervicovaginal infection in women and symptomatic urethral infection in men.² Other uncomplicated manifestations include rectal infection, which can be asymptomatic or manifest with anal pruritus, anal discharge, or tenesmus, and oropharyngeal infection, which can be asymptomatic or manifest with throat pain. If uncomplicated gonococcal infections are left untreated or are incompletely treated, serious complications including septic arthritis, myositis, osteomyelitis, myocarditis, endocarditis, and meningitis might occur.^2-5 Ascending, locally invasive infections can cause epididymitis or pelvic inflammatory disease, which is an important cause of infertility in women.^2,3 Gonococcal conjunctivitis also can occur, particularly when neonates are exposed to bacteria during vaginal delivery. Although rare, gonococcal bacteria can disseminate widely, with an estimated 0.5% to 3% of uncomplicated gonococcal infections progressing to disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI).^3-6 Because DGI can mimic other systemic conditions, including a variety of bacterial and viral infections as well as inflammatory conditions, it can be difficult to diagnose without a high index of clinical suspicion. We present a case of DGI diagnosed based on dermatologic expertise and pharyngeal molecular testing.

A 30-year-old man presented to the emergency department with a rash on the extremeities as well as emesis, fever, sore throat, and severe arthralgia in the wrists, hands, knees, and feet of 2 days’ duration. The patient also had experienced several months of dysuria. He reported daily use of the recreational drug ketamine, multiple new male sexual partners, and unprotected oral and receptive anal sex in recent months. He denied any history of STIs. Physical examination demonstrated tender edematous wrists and fingers, papulovesicles on erythematous bases on the palms, and purpuric macules scattered on the legs (Figure 1). The patient also had tonsillar edema with notable white tonsillar exudate.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Pediatricians and other healthcare providers have a valuable role to play in screening parents for firearm ownership and offering counseling on safe storage practices, according to researchers who presented their findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2024 National Conference.

An estimated 4.6 million US homes with children have firearms that are loaded and unlocked, a risk factor for youth suicide, yet only about half of parents of suicidal children had been screened for gun ownership in the hospital even as most would be receptive to both firearm screening and counseling, found one study in Texas.

In another study in Colorado, nearly all firearm owners believed that securely storing guns reduces the risk for firearm injury or death, but owners were less likely than non-owners to believe suicide is preventable or that removing a gun from the home reduces the risk for injury or death.

“Previous studies have shown that when pediatricians discuss the importance of armed safe storage guidance with families, families are actually more likely to go home and store firearms safely — storing them locked, unloaded, and separate from the ammunition,” said study author Taylor Rosenbaum, MD, a former pediatric fellow at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston and now an assistant professor at Children’s Hospital University of Miami. “However, previous studies have also shown that pediatricians really are not discussing firearm safe storage with our patients and their families, and we see this both in the outpatient setting, but especially in the inpatient setting for youth suicides, which have risen since 2020 and now are the second leading cause of death for those who are 10-24 years old in the United States.”

University of Miami

Firearm Safety Is a Necessary Conversation

The leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1-19 years is actually firearms, which are also the most fatal method for suicide. While only 4% of all suicide attempts in youth are fatal, 90% of those attempted with a firearm are fatal, Dr. Rosenbaum said. In addition, she said, 80% of the guns used in attempted suicide by children and teens belonged to a family member, and an estimated 70% of firearm-related suicides in youth can be prevented with safe storage of guns.

“This really gives us, as pediatricians, something actionable to do during these hospitalizations” for suicidal ideation or attempts, Dr. Rosenbaum said. “We know that when pediatricians discuss the importance of firearm safe storage guidance with families, they’re more likely to store their firearm safely,” Dr. Rosenbaum said. “We also know that families are not being screened for firearm ownership, that caregivers of youth who are in the hospital for suicidal thoughts or actions want their healthcare team to be screening for firearms, to be giving them information on how to safely secure their firearms, and to be providing free firearm blocks.”

Nathan Boonstra, MD, a general pediatrician at Blank Children’s Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa, said these findings are encouraging in terms of the opportunity pediatricians have.

“There is so much politicization around even basic firearm safety that pediatricians might shy away from the topic, but this research is reassuring that parents are receptive to our advice on safe gun storage,” said Dr. Boonstra, who was not involved in any of this presented research. “It’s especially important for pediatricians to address home firearms when their patient has a history of suicidal ideation or an attempt.”
 

Reducing the Risk

The Colorado findings similarly reinforce the opportunity physicians have to help caregivers reduce suicide risk, according to Maya Haasz, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

“Only 60% of firearm owners believed that removing firearms from the home in times of mental health crisis can decrease the risk of suicide,” she said. “These findings are really concerning, but what we found on the flip side was that 93% of firearm owners actually believe that secure storage can overall decrease the risk for firearm injury and death. So overall, we are underestimating the risk for suicide in our community, and we’re also underestimating our ability to prevent it.”

University of Colorado

Survey Results

Dr. Rosenbaum’s team conducted the survey in Houston with caregivers whose children were 8-21 years old and hospitalized for suicidal ideation or attempts at a large children’s hospital and two nearby community hospitals between June 2023 and May 2024. The respondents were 46% White and 23% Black, and 47% of the population were Hispanic, all but three of whom were not gun owners.

Among 244 potential participants, only 150 were eligible and approached, and 100 of these completed the surveys, including 26% firearm owners and 68% non-owners. Most of the youth (74%) were aged 14-17 years, and about three in four respondents were their mothers. Only half of the respondents (51%) said the healthcare provider had asked them whether they owned a gun.

One of the key findings Dr. Rosenbaum highlighted was the receptiveness of firearm-owning caregivers to advice from healthcare providers about ownership. If the healthcare team advised parents not to have any guns in the home for the safety of their child with self-arm, 58% of the firearm owners would follow the advice and 27% would consider it, with none saying they would be offended by it.

Among the firearm owners, 81% said their guns were safely secured where they did not believe their child could access it, which meant one in five youth had unsecured access to firearms. Most of the gun owners (77%), like the non-owners (70%), were “not at all worried” about their child getting ahold of a gun in the home, though 11.5% of the firearm owners were “very worried” about it. Interestingly, more gun owners (19%) were very worried about their children accessing a gun outside their home, a concern shared by 37% of non-owners. Nearly twice as many gun owners (46%) as non-owners (25%) were not at all worried about their child getting a gun outside the home.

The vast majority of respondents — 88% of gun owners and 91% of non-owners — felt it was “very important for the healthcare team to ask parents of children with suicidal ideation/attempts about firearms in the home.” Similarly, high proportions believed it was important for the healthcare team to counsel those parents on safe gun storage. Although only 69% of firearm owners believed it was important to distribute firearm locks in the hospital, 81% would be interested in receiving a free one. Significantly more of the non-owners (80%; P = .02) believed free lock distribution was important, and 72% of non-owners would also be interested in one.

About half the respondents (55%) preferred to hear firearm counseling one-on-one from a provider, whereas 31% would like written information and 27% would be interested in a video. In terms of what information parents preferred to receive, a little over half of owners (54%) and non-owners (56%) were interested in how or when (50% and 40%, respectively) to discuss the topic with their child. Only about a third (35% owners and 37% non-owners) wanted information on how to discuss the topic with the parents of their child’s friends.

The survey’s biggest limitations after its small size were the selection bias of those willing to complete the survey and potential response bias from the self-reported data.

The study of Colorado caregivers, just published in Pediatrics, surveyed 512 Colorado caregivers in April-May 2023 to learn about their beliefs and perceptions regarding firearms, firearm storage and risk, and youth suicide (2024 Oct 1;154[4]:e2024066930. doi: 10.1542/peds.2024-066930). Just over half the respondents (52%) had grown up in a household with firearms, and 44% currently lived in a household with a gun. The sample was 43% men and 88% White, predominantly non-Hispanic (75%), with 11% living in rural areas and 19% who currently or previously served in the military. Most (79%) had a child age 12 or younger in the home.

Only about one in four caregivers (24%) correctly answered that suicide is the leading cause of firearm death in Colorado, with similar rates of correct responses among both firearm owners and non-firearm owners. Both groups were also similarly likely (64% overall) to be concerned about youth suicide in their community, though those from homes with firearms were less likely to be concerned about youth suicide in their own family (28%) than those from homes without firearms (39%; P = .013).

In addition, caregivers from homes with versus without firearms were considerably less likely to believe suicide can be prevented (48% vs 69%) and were less likely to believe that temporarily removing a firearm from the home reduces the risk for gun injury or death (60% vs 78%; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Firearm owners were also much less likely than non-owners to believe keeping a gun in the home makes it more dangerous (7% vs 29%) and over twice as likely to think keeping a firearm makes their home safer (52% vs 22%; P < .001). The vast majority of respondents (89%) believed secure storage of guns reduces the risk for injury or death, though the response was higher for firearm owners (93%) than for non-owners (86%; P < .001).

“Our finding that most firearm owners believe that secure firearm storage is protective against firearm injury is a promising messaging strategy,” the authors wrote. “It presents a preventive education opportunity for adults living with children who have mental health concerns, who may benefit most from secure in-home storage and/or temporary and voluntary storage of firearms away from home.”
 

Firearm Injuries

A separate study at the AAP conference underscored the devastating impact of firearm injuries even among those who survive, whether self-inflicted or not, and the potential for reducing healthcare treatment and costs from effective prevention efforts. A national analysis of pediatric inpatient data from 2017 to 2020 calculated how much greater the burden of healthcare treatment and costs is for firearm injuries of any kind compared with penetrating traumas and blunt traumas.

“As a surgical resident, I have seen these patients who make it into the trauma bed that we are then faced to care for,” said Colleen Nofi, DO, PhD, MBA, a general surgery resident at Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health in New York. “Anecdotally, we understand that the devastation and injury caused by bullets far outweighs the injuries caused by other trauma mechanisms,” but the actual calculation of the burden hasn’t been studied.

Northwell Health

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Pediatricians and other healthcare providers have a valuable role to play in screening parents for firearm ownership and offering counseling on safe storage practices, according to researchers who presented their findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2024 National Conference.

An estimated 4.6 million US homes with children have firearms that are loaded and unlocked, a risk factor for youth suicide, yet only about half of parents of suicidal children had been screened for gun ownership in the hospital even as most would be receptive to both firearm screening and counseling, found one study in Texas.

In another study in Colorado, nearly all firearm owners believed that securely storing guns reduces the risk for firearm injury or death, but owners were less likely than non-owners to believe suicide is preventable or that removing a gun from the home reduces the risk for injury or death.

“Previous studies have shown that when pediatricians discuss the importance of armed safe storage guidance with families, families are actually more likely to go home and store firearms safely — storing them locked, unloaded, and separate from the ammunition,” said study author Taylor Rosenbaum, MD, a former pediatric fellow at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston and now an assistant professor at Children’s Hospital University of Miami. “However, previous studies have also shown that pediatricians really are not discussing firearm safe storage with our patients and their families, and we see this both in the outpatient setting, but especially in the inpatient setting for youth suicides, which have risen since 2020 and now are the second leading cause of death for those who are 10-24 years old in the United States.”

University of Miami

Firearm Safety Is a Necessary Conversation

The leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1-19 years is actually firearms, which are also the most fatal method for suicide. While only 4% of all suicide attempts in youth are fatal, 90% of those attempted with a firearm are fatal, Dr. Rosenbaum said. In addition, she said, 80% of the guns used in attempted suicide by children and teens belonged to a family member, and an estimated 70% of firearm-related suicides in youth can be prevented with safe storage of guns.

“This really gives us, as pediatricians, something actionable to do during these hospitalizations” for suicidal ideation or attempts, Dr. Rosenbaum said. “We know that when pediatricians discuss the importance of firearm safe storage guidance with families, they’re more likely to store their firearm safely,” Dr. Rosenbaum said. “We also know that families are not being screened for firearm ownership, that caregivers of youth who are in the hospital for suicidal thoughts or actions want their healthcare team to be screening for firearms, to be giving them information on how to safely secure their firearms, and to be providing free firearm blocks.”

Nathan Boonstra, MD, a general pediatrician at Blank Children’s Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa, said these findings are encouraging in terms of the opportunity pediatricians have.

“There is so much politicization around even basic firearm safety that pediatricians might shy away from the topic, but this research is reassuring that parents are receptive to our advice on safe gun storage,” said Dr. Boonstra, who was not involved in any of this presented research. “It’s especially important for pediatricians to address home firearms when their patient has a history of suicidal ideation or an attempt.”
 

Reducing the Risk

The Colorado findings similarly reinforce the opportunity physicians have to help caregivers reduce suicide risk, according to Maya Haasz, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

“Only 60% of firearm owners believed that removing firearms from the home in times of mental health crisis can decrease the risk of suicide,” she said. “These findings are really concerning, but what we found on the flip side was that 93% of firearm owners actually believe that secure storage can overall decrease the risk for firearm injury and death. So overall, we are underestimating the risk for suicide in our community, and we’re also underestimating our ability to prevent it.”

University of Colorado

Survey Results

Dr. Rosenbaum’s team conducted the survey in Houston with caregivers whose children were 8-21 years old and hospitalized for suicidal ideation or attempts at a large children’s hospital and two nearby community hospitals between June 2023 and May 2024. The respondents were 46% White and 23% Black, and 47% of the population were Hispanic, all but three of whom were not gun owners.

Among 244 potential participants, only 150 were eligible and approached, and 100 of these completed the surveys, including 26% firearm owners and 68% non-owners. Most of the youth (74%) were aged 14-17 years, and about three in four respondents were their mothers. Only half of the respondents (51%) said the healthcare provider had asked them whether they owned a gun.

One of the key findings Dr. Rosenbaum highlighted was the receptiveness of firearm-owning caregivers to advice from healthcare providers about ownership. If the healthcare team advised parents not to have any guns in the home for the safety of their child with self-arm, 58% of the firearm owners would follow the advice and 27% would consider it, with none saying they would be offended by it.

Among the firearm owners, 81% said their guns were safely secured where they did not believe their child could access it, which meant one in five youth had unsecured access to firearms. Most of the gun owners (77%), like the non-owners (70%), were “not at all worried” about their child getting ahold of a gun in the home, though 11.5% of the firearm owners were “very worried” about it. Interestingly, more gun owners (19%) were very worried about their children accessing a gun outside their home, a concern shared by 37% of non-owners. Nearly twice as many gun owners (46%) as non-owners (25%) were not at all worried about their child getting a gun outside the home.

The vast majority of respondents — 88% of gun owners and 91% of non-owners — felt it was “very important for the healthcare team to ask parents of children with suicidal ideation/attempts about firearms in the home.” Similarly, high proportions believed it was important for the healthcare team to counsel those parents on safe gun storage. Although only 69% of firearm owners believed it was important to distribute firearm locks in the hospital, 81% would be interested in receiving a free one. Significantly more of the non-owners (80%; P = .02) believed free lock distribution was important, and 72% of non-owners would also be interested in one.

About half the respondents (55%) preferred to hear firearm counseling one-on-one from a provider, whereas 31% would like written information and 27% would be interested in a video. In terms of what information parents preferred to receive, a little over half of owners (54%) and non-owners (56%) were interested in how or when (50% and 40%, respectively) to discuss the topic with their child. Only about a third (35% owners and 37% non-owners) wanted information on how to discuss the topic with the parents of their child’s friends.

The survey’s biggest limitations after its small size were the selection bias of those willing to complete the survey and potential response bias from the self-reported data.

The study of Colorado caregivers, just published in Pediatrics, surveyed 512 Colorado caregivers in April-May 2023 to learn about their beliefs and perceptions regarding firearms, firearm storage and risk, and youth suicide (2024 Oct 1;154[4]:e2024066930. doi: 10.1542/peds.2024-066930). Just over half the respondents (52%) had grown up in a household with firearms, and 44% currently lived in a household with a gun. The sample was 43% men and 88% White, predominantly non-Hispanic (75%), with 11% living in rural areas and 19% who currently or previously served in the military. Most (79%) had a child age 12 or younger in the home.

Only about one in four caregivers (24%) correctly answered that suicide is the leading cause of firearm death in Colorado, with similar rates of correct responses among both firearm owners and non-firearm owners. Both groups were also similarly likely (64% overall) to be concerned about youth suicide in their community, though those from homes with firearms were less likely to be concerned about youth suicide in their own family (28%) than those from homes without firearms (39%; P = .013).

In addition, caregivers from homes with versus without firearms were considerably less likely to believe suicide can be prevented (48% vs 69%) and were less likely to believe that temporarily removing a firearm from the home reduces the risk for gun injury or death (60% vs 78%; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Firearm owners were also much less likely than non-owners to believe keeping a gun in the home makes it more dangerous (7% vs 29%) and over twice as likely to think keeping a firearm makes their home safer (52% vs 22%; P < .001). The vast majority of respondents (89%) believed secure storage of guns reduces the risk for injury or death, though the response was higher for firearm owners (93%) than for non-owners (86%; P < .001).

“Our finding that most firearm owners believe that secure firearm storage is protective against firearm injury is a promising messaging strategy,” the authors wrote. “It presents a preventive education opportunity for adults living with children who have mental health concerns, who may benefit most from secure in-home storage and/or temporary and voluntary storage of firearms away from home.”
 

Firearm Injuries

A separate study at the AAP conference underscored the devastating impact of firearm injuries even among those who survive, whether self-inflicted or not, and the potential for reducing healthcare treatment and costs from effective prevention efforts. A national analysis of pediatric inpatient data from 2017 to 2020 calculated how much greater the burden of healthcare treatment and costs is for firearm injuries of any kind compared with penetrating traumas and blunt traumas.

“As a surgical resident, I have seen these patients who make it into the trauma bed that we are then faced to care for,” said Colleen Nofi, DO, PhD, MBA, a general surgery resident at Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health in New York. “Anecdotally, we understand that the devastation and injury caused by bullets far outweighs the injuries caused by other trauma mechanisms,” but the actual calculation of the burden hasn’t been studied.

Northwell Health

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — Pediatricians and other healthcare providers have a valuable role to play in screening parents for firearm ownership and offering counseling on safe storage practices, according to researchers who presented their findings at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2024 National Conference.

An estimated 4.6 million US homes with children have firearms that are loaded and unlocked, a risk factor for youth suicide, yet only about half of parents of suicidal children had been screened for gun ownership in the hospital even as most would be receptive to both firearm screening and counseling, found one study in Texas.

In another study in Colorado, nearly all firearm owners believed that securely storing guns reduces the risk for firearm injury or death, but owners were less likely than non-owners to believe suicide is preventable or that removing a gun from the home reduces the risk for injury or death.

“Previous studies have shown that when pediatricians discuss the importance of armed safe storage guidance with families, families are actually more likely to go home and store firearms safely — storing them locked, unloaded, and separate from the ammunition,” said study author Taylor Rosenbaum, MD, a former pediatric fellow at Baylor College of Medicine/Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston and now an assistant professor at Children’s Hospital University of Miami. “However, previous studies have also shown that pediatricians really are not discussing firearm safe storage with our patients and their families, and we see this both in the outpatient setting, but especially in the inpatient setting for youth suicides, which have risen since 2020 and now are the second leading cause of death for those who are 10-24 years old in the United States.”

University of Miami

Firearm Safety Is a Necessary Conversation

The leading cause of death among children and teens aged 1-19 years is actually firearms, which are also the most fatal method for suicide. While only 4% of all suicide attempts in youth are fatal, 90% of those attempted with a firearm are fatal, Dr. Rosenbaum said. In addition, she said, 80% of the guns used in attempted suicide by children and teens belonged to a family member, and an estimated 70% of firearm-related suicides in youth can be prevented with safe storage of guns.

“This really gives us, as pediatricians, something actionable to do during these hospitalizations” for suicidal ideation or attempts, Dr. Rosenbaum said. “We know that when pediatricians discuss the importance of firearm safe storage guidance with families, they’re more likely to store their firearm safely,” Dr. Rosenbaum said. “We also know that families are not being screened for firearm ownership, that caregivers of youth who are in the hospital for suicidal thoughts or actions want their healthcare team to be screening for firearms, to be giving them information on how to safely secure their firearms, and to be providing free firearm blocks.”

Nathan Boonstra, MD, a general pediatrician at Blank Children’s Hospital, Des Moines, Iowa, said these findings are encouraging in terms of the opportunity pediatricians have.

“There is so much politicization around even basic firearm safety that pediatricians might shy away from the topic, but this research is reassuring that parents are receptive to our advice on safe gun storage,” said Dr. Boonstra, who was not involved in any of this presented research. “It’s especially important for pediatricians to address home firearms when their patient has a history of suicidal ideation or an attempt.”
 

Reducing the Risk

The Colorado findings similarly reinforce the opportunity physicians have to help caregivers reduce suicide risk, according to Maya Haasz, MD, an associate professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

“Only 60% of firearm owners believed that removing firearms from the home in times of mental health crisis can decrease the risk of suicide,” she said. “These findings are really concerning, but what we found on the flip side was that 93% of firearm owners actually believe that secure storage can overall decrease the risk for firearm injury and death. So overall, we are underestimating the risk for suicide in our community, and we’re also underestimating our ability to prevent it.”

University of Colorado

Survey Results

Dr. Rosenbaum’s team conducted the survey in Houston with caregivers whose children were 8-21 years old and hospitalized for suicidal ideation or attempts at a large children’s hospital and two nearby community hospitals between June 2023 and May 2024. The respondents were 46% White and 23% Black, and 47% of the population were Hispanic, all but three of whom were not gun owners.

Among 244 potential participants, only 150 were eligible and approached, and 100 of these completed the surveys, including 26% firearm owners and 68% non-owners. Most of the youth (74%) were aged 14-17 years, and about three in four respondents were their mothers. Only half of the respondents (51%) said the healthcare provider had asked them whether they owned a gun.

One of the key findings Dr. Rosenbaum highlighted was the receptiveness of firearm-owning caregivers to advice from healthcare providers about ownership. If the healthcare team advised parents not to have any guns in the home for the safety of their child with self-arm, 58% of the firearm owners would follow the advice and 27% would consider it, with none saying they would be offended by it.

Among the firearm owners, 81% said their guns were safely secured where they did not believe their child could access it, which meant one in five youth had unsecured access to firearms. Most of the gun owners (77%), like the non-owners (70%), were “not at all worried” about their child getting ahold of a gun in the home, though 11.5% of the firearm owners were “very worried” about it. Interestingly, more gun owners (19%) were very worried about their children accessing a gun outside their home, a concern shared by 37% of non-owners. Nearly twice as many gun owners (46%) as non-owners (25%) were not at all worried about their child getting a gun outside the home.

The vast majority of respondents — 88% of gun owners and 91% of non-owners — felt it was “very important for the healthcare team to ask parents of children with suicidal ideation/attempts about firearms in the home.” Similarly, high proportions believed it was important for the healthcare team to counsel those parents on safe gun storage. Although only 69% of firearm owners believed it was important to distribute firearm locks in the hospital, 81% would be interested in receiving a free one. Significantly more of the non-owners (80%; P = .02) believed free lock distribution was important, and 72% of non-owners would also be interested in one.

About half the respondents (55%) preferred to hear firearm counseling one-on-one from a provider, whereas 31% would like written information and 27% would be interested in a video. In terms of what information parents preferred to receive, a little over half of owners (54%) and non-owners (56%) were interested in how or when (50% and 40%, respectively) to discuss the topic with their child. Only about a third (35% owners and 37% non-owners) wanted information on how to discuss the topic with the parents of their child’s friends.

The survey’s biggest limitations after its small size were the selection bias of those willing to complete the survey and potential response bias from the self-reported data.

The study of Colorado caregivers, just published in Pediatrics, surveyed 512 Colorado caregivers in April-May 2023 to learn about their beliefs and perceptions regarding firearms, firearm storage and risk, and youth suicide (2024 Oct 1;154[4]:e2024066930. doi: 10.1542/peds.2024-066930). Just over half the respondents (52%) had grown up in a household with firearms, and 44% currently lived in a household with a gun. The sample was 43% men and 88% White, predominantly non-Hispanic (75%), with 11% living in rural areas and 19% who currently or previously served in the military. Most (79%) had a child age 12 or younger in the home.

Only about one in four caregivers (24%) correctly answered that suicide is the leading cause of firearm death in Colorado, with similar rates of correct responses among both firearm owners and non-firearm owners. Both groups were also similarly likely (64% overall) to be concerned about youth suicide in their community, though those from homes with firearms were less likely to be concerned about youth suicide in their own family (28%) than those from homes without firearms (39%; P = .013).

In addition, caregivers from homes with versus without firearms were considerably less likely to believe suicide can be prevented (48% vs 69%) and were less likely to believe that temporarily removing a firearm from the home reduces the risk for gun injury or death (60% vs 78%; P < .001 for both comparisons).

Firearm owners were also much less likely than non-owners to believe keeping a gun in the home makes it more dangerous (7% vs 29%) and over twice as likely to think keeping a firearm makes their home safer (52% vs 22%; P < .001). The vast majority of respondents (89%) believed secure storage of guns reduces the risk for injury or death, though the response was higher for firearm owners (93%) than for non-owners (86%; P < .001).

“Our finding that most firearm owners believe that secure firearm storage is protective against firearm injury is a promising messaging strategy,” the authors wrote. “It presents a preventive education opportunity for adults living with children who have mental health concerns, who may benefit most from secure in-home storage and/or temporary and voluntary storage of firearms away from home.”
 

Firearm Injuries

A separate study at the AAP conference underscored the devastating impact of firearm injuries even among those who survive, whether self-inflicted or not, and the potential for reducing healthcare treatment and costs from effective prevention efforts. A national analysis of pediatric inpatient data from 2017 to 2020 calculated how much greater the burden of healthcare treatment and costs is for firearm injuries of any kind compared with penetrating traumas and blunt traumas.

“As a surgical resident, I have seen these patients who make it into the trauma bed that we are then faced to care for,” said Colleen Nofi, DO, PhD, MBA, a general surgery resident at Cohen Children’s Medical Center at Northwell Health in New York. “Anecdotally, we understand that the devastation and injury caused by bullets far outweighs the injuries caused by other trauma mechanisms,” but the actual calculation of the burden hasn’t been studied.

Northwell Health

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a recent study of 6 monthly injections of 140 mg erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), most patients with chronic migraine and nonopioid medication overuse headache (MOH) achieved remission. Published online in JAMA Neurology, the study is the first prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled attempt to investigate patients with chronic migraine and MOH related to nonopioid medications, according to lead author Stewart J. Tepper, MD, and his coauthors.

Prior Studies Did Not Focus on MOH

Several prior phase 2 and 3 trials of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor inhibitors that have been FDA-approved for migraine prevention have been performed. These drugs include erenumab, fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva), galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly), and eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck), for patients with and without medication overuse, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was not involved with the new study. Dr. Rapoport is a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, in Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and founder and director emeritus of The New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.

“But we could not call them patients with MOH because they weren’t studied prospectively, so that they had medication overuse according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

In the present clinical trial, investigators enrolled 584 patients with nonopioid MOH and history of failing at least one preventive treatment. After a 4-week baseline phase, researchers randomized patients 1:1:1 to 6 months’ treatment with erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo.

Investigators defined remission as either of the following through months 4-6:

• < 10 mean monthly acute headache medication days per month (AHMD)
• < 14 mean monthly headache days (MHD)

In the primary analysis, 69.1% of patients in the 140 mg cohort achieved remission (P < .001) versus placebo. Remission rates in the 70 mg and the placebo cohorts were 60.3% (P < .13) and 52.6%, respectively. AHMD for the 140-mg, 70-mg, and placebo groups fell by 9.4, 7.8, and 6.6 days per month, respectively. Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (non-EU sites) and Headache Impact Test-6 (EU sites) scores also showed greater improvement for patients treated with erenumab.

No new safety signals emerged, although erenumab-treated participants experienced 2-2.5 times as much COVID-19 disease.

Regarding the primary endpoint, said Dr. Rapoport, the 70-mg dose might also have yielded statistically significant improvement over placebo with a larger sample size. “I have seen that the higher dose of erenumab can be superior for efficacy than the lower in some of the double-blind trials,” he said. The 52.6% placebo response rate was rather high, he added, but not necessarily higher than in other migraine prevention trials.

“Placebo is a type of treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s not as strong as the actual medication, which is specific for prevention, but it does work on the brain to some extent.”

He was more concerned, however, that authors did not counsel study patients about reducing or discontinuing their overused medications in a unified manner. Rather, it was left to individual investigators’ discretion, in different countries, as to whether to educate patients about the harms of medication overuse. “The fascinating aspect of this paper was that no patient was asked to detoxify from the overused medication,” said Dr. Rapoport, “and yet so many patients no longer had MOH at 6 months.”
 

Detox Versus No Detox

In a pioneering study of migraine medication overuse headache (then called rebound headache) published by Lee Kudrow, MD, in Advances in Neurology in 1982, patients who discontinued the overused medication fared much better than those who did not. Adding amitriptyline for migraine prevention further improved results, mostly in those who discontinued their overused medication.

Anticipating possible concerns, the authors wrote that their approach “may also be seen as a strength, as it represents a scenario closer to real life and avoids undue interference with the physician-patient relationship.” Indeed, said Dr. Rapoport, study results are perhaps more impressive because they were achieved through treatment with erenumab alone, without detoxification.
 

Managing Chronic Migraine and MOH

Until erenumab’s 2018 approval, migraine prevention options were limited to tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, and antiseizure medicines – though these medicines never seemed to work very well without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport. Neurologists still use these categories for migraine prevention, he added, “because insurance companies insist that before we give the more expensive, newer medications like those that block CGRP, patients must fail 2 of those 3 categories of older medications which are not approved for chronic migraine.” Only onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is FDA-approved for chronic migraine. “There has been no head-to-head comparison of it and any of the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP,” he said.

In a March 2024 publication in Headache, the American Headache Society stated that requiring patients to fail older drugs is inappropriate, and that CGRP inhibitors, though costly, should be first-line for headache prevention. The key advantage of any drug that blocks CGRP in treating MOH is that unlike older drugs, CGRP inhibitors appear to work well even without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport.

Additional study limitations included the possibility that the 24-week treatment period might not have allowed complete evaluation of long-term efficacy, the authors wrote. “These are usually pretty sick patients,” said Dr. Rapoport, who acknowledged the difficulty of keeping placebo patients off preventive medication altogether for 6 months. The study was extended to 12 months, and the results of an opiate overusers cohort also will be published.

Authors noted that according to a study published in Headache in 2022, most Americans with chronic migraine commonly go without preventive medications. Moreover, such medications do not always work. Accordingly, Dr. Rapoport said, the study duration was reasonable provided patients understood that they had a 33% chance of receiving no effective preventive medication over 6 months.

Extending the study’s month-long baseline period to 3 months before starting erenumab might have been helpful, he added, as that is the timeframe required to confirm MOH diagnosis according to ICHD-3. “However,” said Dr. Rapoport, “3 months with only usual medications, and then 1/3 of patients going 6-12 months with only placebo, would be tough for some patients.”

Dr. Rapoport reports no relevant financial conflicts.

In a recent study of 6 monthly injections of 140 mg erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), most patients with chronic migraine and nonopioid medication overuse headache (MOH) achieved remission. Published online in JAMA Neurology, the study is the first prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled attempt to investigate patients with chronic migraine and MOH related to nonopioid medications, according to lead author Stewart J. Tepper, MD, and his coauthors.

Prior Studies Did Not Focus on MOH

Several prior phase 2 and 3 trials of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor inhibitors that have been FDA-approved for migraine prevention have been performed. These drugs include erenumab, fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva), galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly), and eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck), for patients with and without medication overuse, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was not involved with the new study. Dr. Rapoport is a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, in Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and founder and director emeritus of The New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.

“But we could not call them patients with MOH because they weren’t studied prospectively, so that they had medication overuse according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

In the present clinical trial, investigators enrolled 584 patients with nonopioid MOH and history of failing at least one preventive treatment. After a 4-week baseline phase, researchers randomized patients 1:1:1 to 6 months’ treatment with erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo.

Investigators defined remission as either of the following through months 4-6:

• < 10 mean monthly acute headache medication days per month (AHMD)
• < 14 mean monthly headache days (MHD)

In the primary analysis, 69.1% of patients in the 140 mg cohort achieved remission (P < .001) versus placebo. Remission rates in the 70 mg and the placebo cohorts were 60.3% (P < .13) and 52.6%, respectively. AHMD for the 140-mg, 70-mg, and placebo groups fell by 9.4, 7.8, and 6.6 days per month, respectively. Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (non-EU sites) and Headache Impact Test-6 (EU sites) scores also showed greater improvement for patients treated with erenumab.

No new safety signals emerged, although erenumab-treated participants experienced 2-2.5 times as much COVID-19 disease.

Regarding the primary endpoint, said Dr. Rapoport, the 70-mg dose might also have yielded statistically significant improvement over placebo with a larger sample size. “I have seen that the higher dose of erenumab can be superior for efficacy than the lower in some of the double-blind trials,” he said. The 52.6% placebo response rate was rather high, he added, but not necessarily higher than in other migraine prevention trials.

“Placebo is a type of treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s not as strong as the actual medication, which is specific for prevention, but it does work on the brain to some extent.”

He was more concerned, however, that authors did not counsel study patients about reducing or discontinuing their overused medications in a unified manner. Rather, it was left to individual investigators’ discretion, in different countries, as to whether to educate patients about the harms of medication overuse. “The fascinating aspect of this paper was that no patient was asked to detoxify from the overused medication,” said Dr. Rapoport, “and yet so many patients no longer had MOH at 6 months.”
 

Detox Versus No Detox

In a pioneering study of migraine medication overuse headache (then called rebound headache) published by Lee Kudrow, MD, in Advances in Neurology in 1982, patients who discontinued the overused medication fared much better than those who did not. Adding amitriptyline for migraine prevention further improved results, mostly in those who discontinued their overused medication.

Anticipating possible concerns, the authors wrote that their approach “may also be seen as a strength, as it represents a scenario closer to real life and avoids undue interference with the physician-patient relationship.” Indeed, said Dr. Rapoport, study results are perhaps more impressive because they were achieved through treatment with erenumab alone, without detoxification.
 

Managing Chronic Migraine and MOH

Until erenumab’s 2018 approval, migraine prevention options were limited to tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, and antiseizure medicines – though these medicines never seemed to work very well without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport. Neurologists still use these categories for migraine prevention, he added, “because insurance companies insist that before we give the more expensive, newer medications like those that block CGRP, patients must fail 2 of those 3 categories of older medications which are not approved for chronic migraine.” Only onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is FDA-approved for chronic migraine. “There has been no head-to-head comparison of it and any of the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP,” he said.

In a March 2024 publication in Headache, the American Headache Society stated that requiring patients to fail older drugs is inappropriate, and that CGRP inhibitors, though costly, should be first-line for headache prevention. The key advantage of any drug that blocks CGRP in treating MOH is that unlike older drugs, CGRP inhibitors appear to work well even without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport.

Additional study limitations included the possibility that the 24-week treatment period might not have allowed complete evaluation of long-term efficacy, the authors wrote. “These are usually pretty sick patients,” said Dr. Rapoport, who acknowledged the difficulty of keeping placebo patients off preventive medication altogether for 6 months. The study was extended to 12 months, and the results of an opiate overusers cohort also will be published.

Authors noted that according to a study published in Headache in 2022, most Americans with chronic migraine commonly go without preventive medications. Moreover, such medications do not always work. Accordingly, Dr. Rapoport said, the study duration was reasonable provided patients understood that they had a 33% chance of receiving no effective preventive medication over 6 months.

Extending the study’s month-long baseline period to 3 months before starting erenumab might have been helpful, he added, as that is the timeframe required to confirm MOH diagnosis according to ICHD-3. “However,” said Dr. Rapoport, “3 months with only usual medications, and then 1/3 of patients going 6-12 months with only placebo, would be tough for some patients.”

Dr. Rapoport reports no relevant financial conflicts.

In a recent study of 6 monthly injections of 140 mg erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), most patients with chronic migraine and nonopioid medication overuse headache (MOH) achieved remission. Published online in JAMA Neurology, the study is the first prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled attempt to investigate patients with chronic migraine and MOH related to nonopioid medications, according to lead author Stewart J. Tepper, MD, and his coauthors.

Prior Studies Did Not Focus on MOH

Several prior phase 2 and 3 trials of calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) ligand or receptor inhibitors that have been FDA-approved for migraine prevention have been performed. These drugs include erenumab, fremanezumab (Ajovy, Teva), galcanezumab (Emgality, Lilly), and eptinezumab (Vyepti, Lundbeck), for patients with and without medication overuse, said Alan M. Rapoport, MD, who was not involved with the new study. Dr. Rapoport is a clinical professor of neurology at the David Geffen School of Medicine of the University of California, in Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and founder and director emeritus of The New England Center for Headache in Stamford, Connecticut.

“But we could not call them patients with MOH because they weren’t studied prospectively, so that they had medication overuse according to International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-3) criteria,” said Dr. Rapoport.

Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

In the present clinical trial, investigators enrolled 584 patients with nonopioid MOH and history of failing at least one preventive treatment. After a 4-week baseline phase, researchers randomized patients 1:1:1 to 6 months’ treatment with erenumab 70 mg, erenumab 140 mg, or placebo.

Investigators defined remission as either of the following through months 4-6:

• < 10 mean monthly acute headache medication days per month (AHMD)
• < 14 mean monthly headache days (MHD)

In the primary analysis, 69.1% of patients in the 140 mg cohort achieved remission (P < .001) versus placebo. Remission rates in the 70 mg and the placebo cohorts were 60.3% (P < .13) and 52.6%, respectively. AHMD for the 140-mg, 70-mg, and placebo groups fell by 9.4, 7.8, and 6.6 days per month, respectively. Migraine Physical Function Impact Diary (non-EU sites) and Headache Impact Test-6 (EU sites) scores also showed greater improvement for patients treated with erenumab.

No new safety signals emerged, although erenumab-treated participants experienced 2-2.5 times as much COVID-19 disease.

Regarding the primary endpoint, said Dr. Rapoport, the 70-mg dose might also have yielded statistically significant improvement over placebo with a larger sample size. “I have seen that the higher dose of erenumab can be superior for efficacy than the lower in some of the double-blind trials,” he said. The 52.6% placebo response rate was rather high, he added, but not necessarily higher than in other migraine prevention trials.

“Placebo is a type of treatment,” Dr. Rapoport said. “It’s not as strong as the actual medication, which is specific for prevention, but it does work on the brain to some extent.”

He was more concerned, however, that authors did not counsel study patients about reducing or discontinuing their overused medications in a unified manner. Rather, it was left to individual investigators’ discretion, in different countries, as to whether to educate patients about the harms of medication overuse. “The fascinating aspect of this paper was that no patient was asked to detoxify from the overused medication,” said Dr. Rapoport, “and yet so many patients no longer had MOH at 6 months.”
 

Detox Versus No Detox

In a pioneering study of migraine medication overuse headache (then called rebound headache) published by Lee Kudrow, MD, in Advances in Neurology in 1982, patients who discontinued the overused medication fared much better than those who did not. Adding amitriptyline for migraine prevention further improved results, mostly in those who discontinued their overused medication.

Anticipating possible concerns, the authors wrote that their approach “may also be seen as a strength, as it represents a scenario closer to real life and avoids undue interference with the physician-patient relationship.” Indeed, said Dr. Rapoport, study results are perhaps more impressive because they were achieved through treatment with erenumab alone, without detoxification.
 

Managing Chronic Migraine and MOH

Until erenumab’s 2018 approval, migraine prevention options were limited to tricyclic antidepressants, beta blockers, and antiseizure medicines – though these medicines never seemed to work very well without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport. Neurologists still use these categories for migraine prevention, he added, “because insurance companies insist that before we give the more expensive, newer medications like those that block CGRP, patients must fail 2 of those 3 categories of older medications which are not approved for chronic migraine.” Only onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) is FDA-approved for chronic migraine. “There has been no head-to-head comparison of it and any of the monoclonal antibodies against CGRP,” he said.

In a March 2024 publication in Headache, the American Headache Society stated that requiring patients to fail older drugs is inappropriate, and that CGRP inhibitors, though costly, should be first-line for headache prevention. The key advantage of any drug that blocks CGRP in treating MOH is that unlike older drugs, CGRP inhibitors appear to work well even without detoxification, said Dr. Rapoport.

Additional study limitations included the possibility that the 24-week treatment period might not have allowed complete evaluation of long-term efficacy, the authors wrote. “These are usually pretty sick patients,” said Dr. Rapoport, who acknowledged the difficulty of keeping placebo patients off preventive medication altogether for 6 months. The study was extended to 12 months, and the results of an opiate overusers cohort also will be published.

Authors noted that according to a study published in Headache in 2022, most Americans with chronic migraine commonly go without preventive medications. Moreover, such medications do not always work. Accordingly, Dr. Rapoport said, the study duration was reasonable provided patients understood that they had a 33% chance of receiving no effective preventive medication over 6 months.

Extending the study’s month-long baseline period to 3 months before starting erenumab might have been helpful, he added, as that is the timeframe required to confirm MOH diagnosis according to ICHD-3. “However,” said Dr. Rapoport, “3 months with only usual medications, and then 1/3 of patients going 6-12 months with only placebo, would be tough for some patients.”

Dr. Rapoport reports no relevant financial conflicts.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Exact Sciences’ next-generation multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, Cologuard Plus, for use in adults 45 or older who are at average risk for colorectal cancer (CRC).

Developed in collaboration with Mayo Clinic, the company noted in the news release announcing its approval that this noninvasive test “raises the performance bar.” 

The company says the enhanced sensitivity will help minimize unnecessary follow-up colonoscopy procedures by reducing the odds of a false-positive screening test. 

Enhanced sample stability components also will give patients more time to return their sample to the lab.

Cologuard Plus tests for three novel methylated DNA markers and fecal hemoglobin.
 

The BLUE-C Study 

The FDA’s approval was based on the results of the BLUE-C study involving more than 20,000 adults at average risk for CRC that compared the next-generation mt-sDNA test with a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and colonoscopy. 

According to the BLUE-C results, the sensitivities of Cologuard Plus were 95% for CRC and 43% for advanced precancerous lesions, at 94% specificity with no findings on colonoscopy. 

The BLUE-C results also showed that the test significantly outperformed FIT for sensitivity for CRC overall, CRC stages I-III, high-grade dysplasia, and advanced precancerous lesions.

“To meaningfully improve outcomes in colorectal cancer, we must catch cancer early — when it is most treatable — and find advanced precancers, which can prevent cases of this cancer,” Thomas F. Imperiale, MD, AGAF, professor of medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine and research scientist at the Regenstrief Institute, said in the news release.

Indiana University School of Medicine

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

One out of three American adults — about 100 million people in this country — have the metabolic syndrome. I’m showing you the official criteria here, but essentially this is a syndrome of insulin resistance and visceral adiposity that predisposes us to a host of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and even dementia. 

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Annals of Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

One out of three American adults — about 100 million people in this country — have the metabolic syndrome. I’m showing you the official criteria here, but essentially this is a syndrome of insulin resistance and visceral adiposity that predisposes us to a host of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and even dementia. 

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Annals of Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

One out of three American adults — about 100 million people in this country — have the metabolic syndrome. I’m showing you the official criteria here, but essentially this is a syndrome of insulin resistance and visceral adiposity that predisposes us to a host of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and even dementia. 

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Dr. Wilson

Annals of Internal Medicine

Dr. Wilson is associate professor of medicine and public health and director of the Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An international study, Colive Voice, presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 conference, shows that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have different voice characteristics compared with healthy controls of the same age and gender. These results “open up possibilities for developing a first-line, noninvasive, and rapid screening tool for T2D, feasible with just a few seconds of voice recording on a smartphone or during consultations,” explained the study’s principal investigator Guy Fagherazzi, PhD, a diabetes epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, in an interview with this news organization.

How did the idea of detecting diabetes through voice come about?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we began analyzing voice recordings from patients with chronic diseases. We wanted to find solutions to assess people’s health remotely, without physical contact. We quickly realized that this approach could be extended to other diseases. Because my main research focus has always been diabetes, I looked into how voice characteristics might correlate with diabetes. Previous studies had indicated that patients with diabetes have distinct voices compared with the general population, and this insight formed the starting point.

What mechanism could explain why patients with T2D have different voice characteristics?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single factor that would explain why patients with T2D have different voices from those without diabetes. Several factors are involved.

Some biological mechanisms, especially those affecting the vascular system, influence symptoms in people with metabolic diseases such as diabetes. For example, people with T2D have more frequent cardiorespiratory fatigue. Obesity and overweight are also key factors, as these conditions can slightly alter vocal parameters compared with people of normal weight. Hypertension, common in patients with T2D, adds to the complexity.

Neurologic complications can affect the nerves and muscles involved in voice production, particularly the vocal cords.

Therefore, respiratory fatigue, neuropathies, and other conditions such as dehydration and gastric acid reflux, which are more common in patients with diabetes, can contribute to differences in voice.

These differences might not be noticeable to the human ear. That’s why we often don’t notice the link between voice and diabetes. However, technological advancements in signal processing and artificial intelligence allow us to extract a large amount of information from these subtle variations. By analyzing these small differences, we can detect diabetes with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
 

In your study, you mention that voice tone can indicate diabetic status. Could you elaborate?

Yes, voice tone can be affected, though it’s a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

Patients who have had diabetes for 5-10 years, or longer, tend to have a rougher voice than those without diabetes of the same age and gender. In our study, we were able to extract many voice characteristics from the raw audio signal, which is why it’s difficult to isolate one specific factor that stands out.
 

Is there a difference in voice changes between patients with well-managed diabetes and those whose disease is uncontrolled?

The roughness of the voice tends to increase with the duration of diabetes. It’s more noticeable in people with poorly controlled diabetes. Our hypothesis, based on the results we presented at the EASD conference, is that fluctuations in blood sugar levels, both hypo- and hyperglycemia, may cause short-term changes in the voice. There are also many subtle, rapid changes that could potentially be detected, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. We’re currently conducting additional studies to explore this.

Why did you ask participants to read a passage from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

We used a highly standardized approach. Participants completed several recordings, including holding the sound “Aaaaaa” for as long as possible in one breath. They also read a passage, which helps us better distinguish between patients with and those without diabetes. This method works slightly better than other sounds typically used for analyzing diseases. We chose this particular text in the participant’s native language because it’s neutral and doesn’t trigger emotional fluctuations. Because Colive Voice is an international, multilingual study, we use official translations in various languages.

Your research focuses on T2D. Do you plan to study type 1 diabetes (T1D) as well?

We believe that individuals with T1D also exhibit voice changes over time. However, our current focus is on T2D because our goal is to develop large-scale screening methods. T1D, typically diagnosed in childhood, requires different screening approaches. For now, our research mainly involves adults.

Were there any gender differences in the accuracy of your voice analysis?

Yes, voice studies generally show that women have different vocal signatures from men, partly owing to hormonal fluctuations that affect pitch and tone. Detecting differences between healthy individuals and those with diabetes can sometimes be more challenging in women, depending on the condition. In our study, we achieved about 70% accuracy for women compared with 75% for men.

The EASD results focused on a US-based population. When can we expect data from France?

We started with the US because we could quickly gather a large number of patients. Now, we’re expanding to global and language-specific analyses. French data are certainly a priority, and we’re working on it. We encourage people to participate — it takes only 20 minutes and contributes to innovative research on noninvasive diabetes detection. Participants can sign up at www.colivevoice.org

Dr. Fagherazzi heads the Deep Digital Phenotyping laboratory and the Department of Precision Health at the Luxembourg Institute of Health. His research focuses on integrating new technologies and digital data into diabetes research. He has declared no relevant financial relationships. 

This story was translated from the Medscape 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.

An international study, Colive Voice, presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 conference, shows that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have different voice characteristics compared with healthy controls of the same age and gender. These results “open up possibilities for developing a first-line, noninvasive, and rapid screening tool for T2D, feasible with just a few seconds of voice recording on a smartphone or during consultations,” explained the study’s principal investigator Guy Fagherazzi, PhD, a diabetes epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, in an interview with this news organization.

How did the idea of detecting diabetes through voice come about?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we began analyzing voice recordings from patients with chronic diseases. We wanted to find solutions to assess people’s health remotely, without physical contact. We quickly realized that this approach could be extended to other diseases. Because my main research focus has always been diabetes, I looked into how voice characteristics might correlate with diabetes. Previous studies had indicated that patients with diabetes have distinct voices compared with the general population, and this insight formed the starting point.

What mechanism could explain why patients with T2D have different voice characteristics?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single factor that would explain why patients with T2D have different voices from those without diabetes. Several factors are involved.

Some biological mechanisms, especially those affecting the vascular system, influence symptoms in people with metabolic diseases such as diabetes. For example, people with T2D have more frequent cardiorespiratory fatigue. Obesity and overweight are also key factors, as these conditions can slightly alter vocal parameters compared with people of normal weight. Hypertension, common in patients with T2D, adds to the complexity.

Neurologic complications can affect the nerves and muscles involved in voice production, particularly the vocal cords.

Therefore, respiratory fatigue, neuropathies, and other conditions such as dehydration and gastric acid reflux, which are more common in patients with diabetes, can contribute to differences in voice.

These differences might not be noticeable to the human ear. That’s why we often don’t notice the link between voice and diabetes. However, technological advancements in signal processing and artificial intelligence allow us to extract a large amount of information from these subtle variations. By analyzing these small differences, we can detect diabetes with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
 

In your study, you mention that voice tone can indicate diabetic status. Could you elaborate?

Yes, voice tone can be affected, though it’s a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

Patients who have had diabetes for 5-10 years, or longer, tend to have a rougher voice than those without diabetes of the same age and gender. In our study, we were able to extract many voice characteristics from the raw audio signal, which is why it’s difficult to isolate one specific factor that stands out.
 

Is there a difference in voice changes between patients with well-managed diabetes and those whose disease is uncontrolled?

The roughness of the voice tends to increase with the duration of diabetes. It’s more noticeable in people with poorly controlled diabetes. Our hypothesis, based on the results we presented at the EASD conference, is that fluctuations in blood sugar levels, both hypo- and hyperglycemia, may cause short-term changes in the voice. There are also many subtle, rapid changes that could potentially be detected, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. We’re currently conducting additional studies to explore this.

Why did you ask participants to read a passage from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

We used a highly standardized approach. Participants completed several recordings, including holding the sound “Aaaaaa” for as long as possible in one breath. They also read a passage, which helps us better distinguish between patients with and those without diabetes. This method works slightly better than other sounds typically used for analyzing diseases. We chose this particular text in the participant’s native language because it’s neutral and doesn’t trigger emotional fluctuations. Because Colive Voice is an international, multilingual study, we use official translations in various languages.

Your research focuses on T2D. Do you plan to study type 1 diabetes (T1D) as well?

We believe that individuals with T1D also exhibit voice changes over time. However, our current focus is on T2D because our goal is to develop large-scale screening methods. T1D, typically diagnosed in childhood, requires different screening approaches. For now, our research mainly involves adults.

Were there any gender differences in the accuracy of your voice analysis?

Yes, voice studies generally show that women have different vocal signatures from men, partly owing to hormonal fluctuations that affect pitch and tone. Detecting differences between healthy individuals and those with diabetes can sometimes be more challenging in women, depending on the condition. In our study, we achieved about 70% accuracy for women compared with 75% for men.

The EASD results focused on a US-based population. When can we expect data from France?

We started with the US because we could quickly gather a large number of patients. Now, we’re expanding to global and language-specific analyses. French data are certainly a priority, and we’re working on it. We encourage people to participate — it takes only 20 minutes and contributes to innovative research on noninvasive diabetes detection. Participants can sign up at www.colivevoice.org

Dr. Fagherazzi heads the Deep Digital Phenotyping laboratory and the Department of Precision Health at the Luxembourg Institute of Health. His research focuses on integrating new technologies and digital data into diabetes research. He has declared no relevant financial relationships. 

This story was translated from the Medscape 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.

An international study, Colive Voice, presented at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) 2024 conference, shows that patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have different voice characteristics compared with healthy controls of the same age and gender. These results “open up possibilities for developing a first-line, noninvasive, and rapid screening tool for T2D, feasible with just a few seconds of voice recording on a smartphone or during consultations,” explained the study’s principal investigator Guy Fagherazzi, PhD, a diabetes epidemiologist at the Luxembourg Institute of Health, in an interview with this news organization.

How did the idea of detecting diabetes through voice come about?

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we began analyzing voice recordings from patients with chronic diseases. We wanted to find solutions to assess people’s health remotely, without physical contact. We quickly realized that this approach could be extended to other diseases. Because my main research focus has always been diabetes, I looked into how voice characteristics might correlate with diabetes. Previous studies had indicated that patients with diabetes have distinct voices compared with the general population, and this insight formed the starting point.

What mechanism could explain why patients with T2D have different voice characteristics?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single factor that would explain why patients with T2D have different voices from those without diabetes. Several factors are involved.

Some biological mechanisms, especially those affecting the vascular system, influence symptoms in people with metabolic diseases such as diabetes. For example, people with T2D have more frequent cardiorespiratory fatigue. Obesity and overweight are also key factors, as these conditions can slightly alter vocal parameters compared with people of normal weight. Hypertension, common in patients with T2D, adds to the complexity.

Neurologic complications can affect the nerves and muscles involved in voice production, particularly the vocal cords.

Therefore, respiratory fatigue, neuropathies, and other conditions such as dehydration and gastric acid reflux, which are more common in patients with diabetes, can contribute to differences in voice.

These differences might not be noticeable to the human ear. That’s why we often don’t notice the link between voice and diabetes. However, technological advancements in signal processing and artificial intelligence allow us to extract a large amount of information from these subtle variations. By analyzing these small differences, we can detect diabetes with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
 

In your study, you mention that voice tone can indicate diabetic status. Could you elaborate?

Yes, voice tone can be affected, though it’s a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

Patients who have had diabetes for 5-10 years, or longer, tend to have a rougher voice than those without diabetes of the same age and gender. In our study, we were able to extract many voice characteristics from the raw audio signal, which is why it’s difficult to isolate one specific factor that stands out.
 

Is there a difference in voice changes between patients with well-managed diabetes and those whose disease is uncontrolled?

The roughness of the voice tends to increase with the duration of diabetes. It’s more noticeable in people with poorly controlled diabetes. Our hypothesis, based on the results we presented at the EASD conference, is that fluctuations in blood sugar levels, both hypo- and hyperglycemia, may cause short-term changes in the voice. There are also many subtle, rapid changes that could potentially be detected, though we haven’t confirmed this yet. We’re currently conducting additional studies to explore this.

Why did you ask participants to read a passage from the  Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

We used a highly standardized approach. Participants completed several recordings, including holding the sound “Aaaaaa” for as long as possible in one breath. They also read a passage, which helps us better distinguish between patients with and those without diabetes. This method works slightly better than other sounds typically used for analyzing diseases. We chose this particular text in the participant’s native language because it’s neutral and doesn’t trigger emotional fluctuations. Because Colive Voice is an international, multilingual study, we use official translations in various languages.

Your research focuses on T2D. Do you plan to study type 1 diabetes (T1D) as well?

We believe that individuals with T1D also exhibit voice changes over time. However, our current focus is on T2D because our goal is to develop large-scale screening methods. T1D, typically diagnosed in childhood, requires different screening approaches. For now, our research mainly involves adults.

Were there any gender differences in the accuracy of your voice analysis?

Yes, voice studies generally show that women have different vocal signatures from men, partly owing to hormonal fluctuations that affect pitch and tone. Detecting differences between healthy individuals and those with diabetes can sometimes be more challenging in women, depending on the condition. In our study, we achieved about 70% accuracy for women compared with 75% for men.

The EASD results focused on a US-based population. When can we expect data from France?

We started with the US because we could quickly gather a large number of patients. Now, we’re expanding to global and language-specific analyses. French data are certainly a priority, and we’re working on it. We encourage people to participate — it takes only 20 minutes and contributes to innovative research on noninvasive diabetes detection. Participants can sign up at www.colivevoice.org

Dr. Fagherazzi heads the Deep Digital Phenotyping laboratory and the Department of Precision Health at the Luxembourg Institute of Health. His research focuses on integrating new technologies and digital data into diabetes research. He has declared no relevant financial relationships. 

This story was translated from the Medscape 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.

Cannabis use is becoming increasingly common among people with diabetes. A recent US prevalence study estimated that 9% adults with diabetes used cannabis in the last month, a 33.7% increase between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half (48.9%) of users were younger than 50 years.

Cannabis use is also increasing sharply among those aged 65 years or older, many of whom have diabetes and other chronic conditions. In this demographic, the perceived risk surrounding regular cannabis use has dropped significantly, even as the data tell another story — that they are particularly at risk from emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning.

As legalization continues and cannabis products proliferate, endocrinologists will likely face more patients of all ages seeking advice about its use. Yet with few evidence-based resources to turn to, endocrinologists advising patients in this area are mostly left fending for themselves.
 

Evidence ‘Limited’

“The evidence on cannabis is limited mainly because of its scheduling in the United States,” Jay Shubrook, DO, a professor and diabetologist at College of Osteopathic Medicine, Touro University California, in Vallejo, California, told this news organization. 

“It was declared to be a schedule I drug in the 1970s, which meant it was ‘dangerous’ and ‘had no medical benefit.’ This made it hard to access and study in human trials.” 

That will likely change soon. On May 16, 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to move marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, emphasizing its accepted medical use. If approved, the door will open to more investigators seeking to study the effects of cannabis. 

Yet, even in Canada, where recreational use has been legal since 2018 and cannabis is sold widely with government support, there are little hard data to guide practice. In 2019, Diabetes Canada issued a position statement on recreational cannabis use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). It sought to evaluate the effects of cannabis on metabolic factors and diabetes complications, as well as self-management behaviors in those aged 13 years or older.

The authors noted that five of the six studies upon which the statement was based did not consider or report the routes of cannabis administration, which have differing risks. In addition, their recommendations were based on grade D evidence and consensus.
 

What Patients Are Taking

Cannabis — also known as marijuana, weed, pot, or bud — refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis plant. The plant contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is responsible for the euphoric “high,” and other active compounds, including cannabidiol (CBD), which by itself is not mind-altering.

Cannabis can be ingested in several ways. It can be smoked (ie, joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes), ingested in edible form (mixed or infused into foods), and inhaled using electronic vaporizing devices (ie, e-cigarettes or vape pens).

Compounds in cannabis can also be extracted to make oils and concentrates that can be vaped or inhaled. Smoking oils, concentrates, and extracts from the cannabis plant, known as “dabbing,” are on the rise in the United States.

There are no validated or standard dosage recommendations for cannabis strains and formulations, THC/CBD ratios, or modes of administration. Therefore, the Canadian Pharmacists Association prepared a guide for finding a safe and effective dose for medical purposes. GoodRx, a website with information on prescription drug prices, says that larger doses of THC pose greater risks, noting that the potency of cannabis has increased from 4% in 1995 to about 14% in 2019.
 

Potential Risks and Benefits: Canadian and US Perspectives

Health and safety risks vary with each of the different ways of using cannabis for individuals with and without diabetes, depending on a host of patient- and product-specific factors.

In a recent article proposing a “THC unit” for Canada’s legal cannabis market, researchers reported that consumers lack familiarity with THC levels, don’t know what constitutes a “low” or “high” THC amount, have trouble dosing, overconsume, and commonly experience adverse health events from cannabis use.

A recent study suggested that most clinicians are similarly uninformed, with “a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects, and of how to advise patients,” even for medical cannabis.

Diabetes Canada takes a stab at summarizing what’s known with respect to cannabis and diabetes, stating that:

“Research on recreational cannabis use suggests it may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors. The safety of recreational cannabis use has not been demonstrated, whereas regular cannabis use is associated with worsening glycemic control, more diabetes-related complications, and poorer self-care behaviors, such as adequate glucose monitoring, adherence to medications, and compliance with dietary and physical activity recommendations for people living with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”

The American Diabetes Association’s information on cannabis consists of a patient-oriented article on CBD oil. The article stated:

“There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies.”

It concludes that:

“Although many claims continue to be made about CBD oil, there is little evidence of any benefit. It’s certainly not an alternative to traditional diabetes management. The safety of CBD is also unknown — it may have dangerous side effects that we won’t know about unless further research is done.”
 

A Roundup of Recent Studies

A smattering of recent studies have touched on various aspects of cannabis consumption and diabetes.

Angela Bryan, PhD, professor and co-director of CUChange at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been evaluating cannabis use in young adults (ages 21-40 years) in the SONIC study. Dr. Bryan reported at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions that cannabis users were more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to develop T2D. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users were less likely to have measures of inflammation and no loss of insulin sensitivity.

Another study by Dr. Bryan’s group found that CBD-dominant forms of cannabis were associated with acute tension reduction, which might lead to longer-term reductions in anxiety. Bryan said the findings could be relevant in the context of diabetes distress.

Similarly positive results were found in a 15-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD spray for neuropathic pain among treatment-resistant patients. The investigators reported that “clinically important improvements” were seen in pain, sleep quality, and subjective impressions of pain. Another small study of inhaled cannabis in treatment-refractory patients found a dose-dependent reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.

Findings from a 9-year longitudinal study of approximately 18,000 Swedish men and women suggested no association between cannabis and subsequent T2D development after controlling for age, although these authors also called for longer follow-up and more detailed information about cannabis use to make “more robust” conclusions.

On the other side of the spectrum, a “rapid” review of recreational cannabis use in people with T1D and T2D found that recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors and may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction, and renal disease. However, the authors cautioned that more robust research is needed to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes.
 

How to Advise Patients

When Dr. Shubrook was working with patients with diabetes in his family medicine practice in Ohio, cannabis wasn’t legal. 

“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was the way we handled it then,” he said. 

By contrast, in California, where he’s currently located, “it’s pretty well accepted and legal, and patients volunteer information about use, even if it’s recreational,” he said. “Realizing this was something we could talk about was really eye-opening to me.” 

Talking to patients about cannabis use is a “20-minute conversation that details what they’re doing,” he said. He proceeds by asking questions: Are you using for recreational or medicinal purposes? What do you take? What do you take it for? Does it work? 

“People will tell you,” Dr. Shubrook said. “They know exactly what it works or doesn’t work for and how it affects their glucose control, which in most cases is only minimally.”

He tells patients he would prefer they don’t inhale cannabis, given the risks posed to the lungs. 

“Edibles may have a slower onset of effect, but depending on what they’re adding it to, glucose might be affected,” he noted. “And I have seen that chronic use can lead to hyperemesis syndrome.”

Overall, he said, “Take the time to talk to your patients about cannabis — it will allow them to be honest with you, and you can improve the specificity and safety of its use. If cannabis is legal in your state, encourage people to go to legal dispensaries, which will reduce the risk of it being laced with another drug that could increase the danger of use.”

A recent US prevalence study found that people with diabetes who use cannabis likely engage in other substance and psychoactive substance use, including tobacco use, binge drinking, and misuse of opioids and stimulants. 

“Use of these additional substances could further exacerbate the health risks associated with diabetes and also emphasizes the importance of addressing polysubstance use among adults with diabetes,” the study’s author Benjamin H. Han, MD, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, US San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla, California, told this news organization.

“We were surprised at how strong the associations were, especially with use of substances that can increase cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Han added. “And given the strong association we found between cannabis use and use of other psychoactive substances in diabetes, clinicians must screen all their patients for psychoactive substance use.” 

Diabetes Canada’s position paper states that despite the limited evidence, “there were sufficient data to begin developing recommendations for type 1 and type 2 diabetes about education, counseling, and management related to recreational cannabis use.” 

Their recommendations include the following:

• Healthcare professionals should engage their patients in discussions about substance use on a regular basis, with a nonjudgmental approach.
• The use of recreational cannabis is not recommended for adolescents and adults with diabetes.
• People with T1D should avoid recreational cannabis use because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
• For adults with T1D or T2D who intend to use cannabis recreationally, individualized assessment and counseling should be offered to inform them of the general risks of cannabis, with a focus on harm reduction and reduction of the risk for potential adverse effects on diabetes management and complications.
• People with T1D or T2D should be offered education on and encouraged to read public information available through resources from various Canadian health authorities about the general risks of cannabis use to reduce the risk for nondiabetes-related adverse effects of cannabis consumption.

Of note, in 2018, the Canadian government produced an exhaustive compendium of information on cannabis for healthcare professionals that includes information relevant to managing patients with diabetes. 

Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Han reported no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cannabis use is becoming increasingly common among people with diabetes. A recent US prevalence study estimated that 9% adults with diabetes used cannabis in the last month, a 33.7% increase between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half (48.9%) of users were younger than 50 years.

Cannabis use is also increasing sharply among those aged 65 years or older, many of whom have diabetes and other chronic conditions. In this demographic, the perceived risk surrounding regular cannabis use has dropped significantly, even as the data tell another story — that they are particularly at risk from emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning.

As legalization continues and cannabis products proliferate, endocrinologists will likely face more patients of all ages seeking advice about its use. Yet with few evidence-based resources to turn to, endocrinologists advising patients in this area are mostly left fending for themselves.
 

Evidence ‘Limited’

“The evidence on cannabis is limited mainly because of its scheduling in the United States,” Jay Shubrook, DO, a professor and diabetologist at College of Osteopathic Medicine, Touro University California, in Vallejo, California, told this news organization. 

“It was declared to be a schedule I drug in the 1970s, which meant it was ‘dangerous’ and ‘had no medical benefit.’ This made it hard to access and study in human trials.” 

That will likely change soon. On May 16, 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to move marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, emphasizing its accepted medical use. If approved, the door will open to more investigators seeking to study the effects of cannabis. 

Yet, even in Canada, where recreational use has been legal since 2018 and cannabis is sold widely with government support, there are little hard data to guide practice. In 2019, Diabetes Canada issued a position statement on recreational cannabis use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). It sought to evaluate the effects of cannabis on metabolic factors and diabetes complications, as well as self-management behaviors in those aged 13 years or older.

The authors noted that five of the six studies upon which the statement was based did not consider or report the routes of cannabis administration, which have differing risks. In addition, their recommendations were based on grade D evidence and consensus.
 

What Patients Are Taking

Cannabis — also known as marijuana, weed, pot, or bud — refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis plant. The plant contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is responsible for the euphoric “high,” and other active compounds, including cannabidiol (CBD), which by itself is not mind-altering.

Cannabis can be ingested in several ways. It can be smoked (ie, joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes), ingested in edible form (mixed or infused into foods), and inhaled using electronic vaporizing devices (ie, e-cigarettes or vape pens).

Compounds in cannabis can also be extracted to make oils and concentrates that can be vaped or inhaled. Smoking oils, concentrates, and extracts from the cannabis plant, known as “dabbing,” are on the rise in the United States.

There are no validated or standard dosage recommendations for cannabis strains and formulations, THC/CBD ratios, or modes of administration. Therefore, the Canadian Pharmacists Association prepared a guide for finding a safe and effective dose for medical purposes. GoodRx, a website with information on prescription drug prices, says that larger doses of THC pose greater risks, noting that the potency of cannabis has increased from 4% in 1995 to about 14% in 2019.
 

Potential Risks and Benefits: Canadian and US Perspectives

Health and safety risks vary with each of the different ways of using cannabis for individuals with and without diabetes, depending on a host of patient- and product-specific factors.

In a recent article proposing a “THC unit” for Canada’s legal cannabis market, researchers reported that consumers lack familiarity with THC levels, don’t know what constitutes a “low” or “high” THC amount, have trouble dosing, overconsume, and commonly experience adverse health events from cannabis use.

A recent study suggested that most clinicians are similarly uninformed, with “a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects, and of how to advise patients,” even for medical cannabis.

Diabetes Canada takes a stab at summarizing what’s known with respect to cannabis and diabetes, stating that:

“Research on recreational cannabis use suggests it may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors. The safety of recreational cannabis use has not been demonstrated, whereas regular cannabis use is associated with worsening glycemic control, more diabetes-related complications, and poorer self-care behaviors, such as adequate glucose monitoring, adherence to medications, and compliance with dietary and physical activity recommendations for people living with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”

The American Diabetes Association’s information on cannabis consists of a patient-oriented article on CBD oil. The article stated:

“There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies.”

It concludes that:

“Although many claims continue to be made about CBD oil, there is little evidence of any benefit. It’s certainly not an alternative to traditional diabetes management. The safety of CBD is also unknown — it may have dangerous side effects that we won’t know about unless further research is done.”
 

A Roundup of Recent Studies

A smattering of recent studies have touched on various aspects of cannabis consumption and diabetes.

Angela Bryan, PhD, professor and co-director of CUChange at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been evaluating cannabis use in young adults (ages 21-40 years) in the SONIC study. Dr. Bryan reported at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions that cannabis users were more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to develop T2D. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users were less likely to have measures of inflammation and no loss of insulin sensitivity.

Another study by Dr. Bryan’s group found that CBD-dominant forms of cannabis were associated with acute tension reduction, which might lead to longer-term reductions in anxiety. Bryan said the findings could be relevant in the context of diabetes distress.

Similarly positive results were found in a 15-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD spray for neuropathic pain among treatment-resistant patients. The investigators reported that “clinically important improvements” were seen in pain, sleep quality, and subjective impressions of pain. Another small study of inhaled cannabis in treatment-refractory patients found a dose-dependent reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.

Findings from a 9-year longitudinal study of approximately 18,000 Swedish men and women suggested no association between cannabis and subsequent T2D development after controlling for age, although these authors also called for longer follow-up and more detailed information about cannabis use to make “more robust” conclusions.

On the other side of the spectrum, a “rapid” review of recreational cannabis use in people with T1D and T2D found that recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors and may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction, and renal disease. However, the authors cautioned that more robust research is needed to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes.
 

How to Advise Patients

When Dr. Shubrook was working with patients with diabetes in his family medicine practice in Ohio, cannabis wasn’t legal. 

“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was the way we handled it then,” he said. 

By contrast, in California, where he’s currently located, “it’s pretty well accepted and legal, and patients volunteer information about use, even if it’s recreational,” he said. “Realizing this was something we could talk about was really eye-opening to me.” 

Talking to patients about cannabis use is a “20-minute conversation that details what they’re doing,” he said. He proceeds by asking questions: Are you using for recreational or medicinal purposes? What do you take? What do you take it for? Does it work? 

“People will tell you,” Dr. Shubrook said. “They know exactly what it works or doesn’t work for and how it affects their glucose control, which in most cases is only minimally.”

He tells patients he would prefer they don’t inhale cannabis, given the risks posed to the lungs. 

“Edibles may have a slower onset of effect, but depending on what they’re adding it to, glucose might be affected,” he noted. “And I have seen that chronic use can lead to hyperemesis syndrome.”

Overall, he said, “Take the time to talk to your patients about cannabis — it will allow them to be honest with you, and you can improve the specificity and safety of its use. If cannabis is legal in your state, encourage people to go to legal dispensaries, which will reduce the risk of it being laced with another drug that could increase the danger of use.”

A recent US prevalence study found that people with diabetes who use cannabis likely engage in other substance and psychoactive substance use, including tobacco use, binge drinking, and misuse of opioids and stimulants. 

“Use of these additional substances could further exacerbate the health risks associated with diabetes and also emphasizes the importance of addressing polysubstance use among adults with diabetes,” the study’s author Benjamin H. Han, MD, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, US San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla, California, told this news organization.

“We were surprised at how strong the associations were, especially with use of substances that can increase cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Han added. “And given the strong association we found between cannabis use and use of other psychoactive substances in diabetes, clinicians must screen all their patients for psychoactive substance use.” 

Diabetes Canada’s position paper states that despite the limited evidence, “there were sufficient data to begin developing recommendations for type 1 and type 2 diabetes about education, counseling, and management related to recreational cannabis use.” 

Their recommendations include the following:

• Healthcare professionals should engage their patients in discussions about substance use on a regular basis, with a nonjudgmental approach.
• The use of recreational cannabis is not recommended for adolescents and adults with diabetes.
• People with T1D should avoid recreational cannabis use because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
• For adults with T1D or T2D who intend to use cannabis recreationally, individualized assessment and counseling should be offered to inform them of the general risks of cannabis, with a focus on harm reduction and reduction of the risk for potential adverse effects on diabetes management and complications.
• People with T1D or T2D should be offered education on and encouraged to read public information available through resources from various Canadian health authorities about the general risks of cannabis use to reduce the risk for nondiabetes-related adverse effects of cannabis consumption.

Of note, in 2018, the Canadian government produced an exhaustive compendium of information on cannabis for healthcare professionals that includes information relevant to managing patients with diabetes. 

Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Han reported no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Cannabis use is becoming increasingly common among people with diabetes. A recent US prevalence study estimated that 9% adults with diabetes used cannabis in the last month, a 33.7% increase between 2021 and 2022. Nearly half (48.9%) of users were younger than 50 years.

Cannabis use is also increasing sharply among those aged 65 years or older, many of whom have diabetes and other chronic conditions. In this demographic, the perceived risk surrounding regular cannabis use has dropped significantly, even as the data tell another story — that they are particularly at risk from emergency department visits for cannabis poisoning.

As legalization continues and cannabis products proliferate, endocrinologists will likely face more patients of all ages seeking advice about its use. Yet with few evidence-based resources to turn to, endocrinologists advising patients in this area are mostly left fending for themselves.
 

Evidence ‘Limited’

“The evidence on cannabis is limited mainly because of its scheduling in the United States,” Jay Shubrook, DO, a professor and diabetologist at College of Osteopathic Medicine, Touro University California, in Vallejo, California, told this news organization. 

“It was declared to be a schedule I drug in the 1970s, which meant it was ‘dangerous’ and ‘had no medical benefit.’ This made it hard to access and study in human trials.” 

That will likely change soon. On May 16, 2024, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to move marijuana from a schedule I to a schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, emphasizing its accepted medical use. If approved, the door will open to more investigators seeking to study the effects of cannabis. 

Yet, even in Canada, where recreational use has been legal since 2018 and cannabis is sold widely with government support, there are little hard data to guide practice. In 2019, Diabetes Canada issued a position statement on recreational cannabis use in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). It sought to evaluate the effects of cannabis on metabolic factors and diabetes complications, as well as self-management behaviors in those aged 13 years or older.

The authors noted that five of the six studies upon which the statement was based did not consider or report the routes of cannabis administration, which have differing risks. In addition, their recommendations were based on grade D evidence and consensus.
 

What Patients Are Taking

Cannabis — also known as marijuana, weed, pot, or bud — refers to the dried flowers, leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis plant. The plant contains more than 100 compounds, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is responsible for the euphoric “high,” and other active compounds, including cannabidiol (CBD), which by itself is not mind-altering.

Cannabis can be ingested in several ways. It can be smoked (ie, joints, blunts, pipes, and water pipes), ingested in edible form (mixed or infused into foods), and inhaled using electronic vaporizing devices (ie, e-cigarettes or vape pens).

Compounds in cannabis can also be extracted to make oils and concentrates that can be vaped or inhaled. Smoking oils, concentrates, and extracts from the cannabis plant, known as “dabbing,” are on the rise in the United States.

There are no validated or standard dosage recommendations for cannabis strains and formulations, THC/CBD ratios, or modes of administration. Therefore, the Canadian Pharmacists Association prepared a guide for finding a safe and effective dose for medical purposes. GoodRx, a website with information on prescription drug prices, says that larger doses of THC pose greater risks, noting that the potency of cannabis has increased from 4% in 1995 to about 14% in 2019.
 

Potential Risks and Benefits: Canadian and US Perspectives

Health and safety risks vary with each of the different ways of using cannabis for individuals with and without diabetes, depending on a host of patient- and product-specific factors.

In a recent article proposing a “THC unit” for Canada’s legal cannabis market, researchers reported that consumers lack familiarity with THC levels, don’t know what constitutes a “low” or “high” THC amount, have trouble dosing, overconsume, and commonly experience adverse health events from cannabis use.

A recent study suggested that most clinicians are similarly uninformed, with “a lack of knowledge of beneficial effects, adverse effects, and of how to advise patients,” even for medical cannabis.

Diabetes Canada takes a stab at summarizing what’s known with respect to cannabis and diabetes, stating that:

“Research on recreational cannabis use suggests it may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors. The safety of recreational cannabis use has not been demonstrated, whereas regular cannabis use is associated with worsening glycemic control, more diabetes-related complications, and poorer self-care behaviors, such as adequate glucose monitoring, adherence to medications, and compliance with dietary and physical activity recommendations for people living with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.”

The American Diabetes Association’s information on cannabis consists of a patient-oriented article on CBD oil. The article stated:

“There’s a lot of hype surrounding CBD oil and diabetes. There is no noticeable effect on blood glucose (blood sugar) or insulin levels in people with type 2 diabetes. Researchers continue to study the effects of CBD on diabetes in animal studies.”

It concludes that:

“Although many claims continue to be made about CBD oil, there is little evidence of any benefit. It’s certainly not an alternative to traditional diabetes management. The safety of CBD is also unknown — it may have dangerous side effects that we won’t know about unless further research is done.”
 

A Roundup of Recent Studies

A smattering of recent studies have touched on various aspects of cannabis consumption and diabetes.

Angela Bryan, PhD, professor and co-director of CUChange at the University of Colorado Boulder, has been evaluating cannabis use in young adults (ages 21-40 years) in the SONIC study. Dr. Bryan reported at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 84th Scientific Sessions that cannabis users were more likely to have a lower body mass index and less likely to develop T2D. Furthermore, chronic cannabis users were less likely to have measures of inflammation and no loss of insulin sensitivity.

Another study by Dr. Bryan’s group found that CBD-dominant forms of cannabis were associated with acute tension reduction, which might lead to longer-term reductions in anxiety. Bryan said the findings could be relevant in the context of diabetes distress.

Similarly positive results were found in a 15-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of THC/CBD spray for neuropathic pain among treatment-resistant patients. The investigators reported that “clinically important improvements” were seen in pain, sleep quality, and subjective impressions of pain. Another small study of inhaled cannabis in treatment-refractory patients found a dose-dependent reduction in diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain.

Findings from a 9-year longitudinal study of approximately 18,000 Swedish men and women suggested no association between cannabis and subsequent T2D development after controlling for age, although these authors also called for longer follow-up and more detailed information about cannabis use to make “more robust” conclusions.

On the other side of the spectrum, a “rapid” review of recreational cannabis use in people with T1D and T2D found that recreational cannabis use may negatively impact diabetes metabolic factors and self-management behaviors and may increase risks for peripheral arterial occlusion, myocardial infarction, and renal disease. However, the authors cautioned that more robust research is needed to confirm the potential impact of cannabis on diabetes.
 

How to Advise Patients

When Dr. Shubrook was working with patients with diabetes in his family medicine practice in Ohio, cannabis wasn’t legal. 

“’Don’t ask, don’t tell’ was the way we handled it then,” he said. 

By contrast, in California, where he’s currently located, “it’s pretty well accepted and legal, and patients volunteer information about use, even if it’s recreational,” he said. “Realizing this was something we could talk about was really eye-opening to me.” 

Talking to patients about cannabis use is a “20-minute conversation that details what they’re doing,” he said. He proceeds by asking questions: Are you using for recreational or medicinal purposes? What do you take? What do you take it for? Does it work? 

“People will tell you,” Dr. Shubrook said. “They know exactly what it works or doesn’t work for and how it affects their glucose control, which in most cases is only minimally.”

He tells patients he would prefer they don’t inhale cannabis, given the risks posed to the lungs. 

“Edibles may have a slower onset of effect, but depending on what they’re adding it to, glucose might be affected,” he noted. “And I have seen that chronic use can lead to hyperemesis syndrome.”

Overall, he said, “Take the time to talk to your patients about cannabis — it will allow them to be honest with you, and you can improve the specificity and safety of its use. If cannabis is legal in your state, encourage people to go to legal dispensaries, which will reduce the risk of it being laced with another drug that could increase the danger of use.”

A recent US prevalence study found that people with diabetes who use cannabis likely engage in other substance and psychoactive substance use, including tobacco use, binge drinking, and misuse of opioids and stimulants. 

“Use of these additional substances could further exacerbate the health risks associated with diabetes and also emphasizes the importance of addressing polysubstance use among adults with diabetes,” the study’s author Benjamin H. Han, MD, Division of Geriatrics, Gerontology and Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, US San Diego School of Medicine in La Jolla, California, told this news organization.

“We were surprised at how strong the associations were, especially with use of substances that can increase cardiovascular risk,” Dr. Han added. “And given the strong association we found between cannabis use and use of other psychoactive substances in diabetes, clinicians must screen all their patients for psychoactive substance use.” 

Diabetes Canada’s position paper states that despite the limited evidence, “there were sufficient data to begin developing recommendations for type 1 and type 2 diabetes about education, counseling, and management related to recreational cannabis use.” 

Their recommendations include the following:

• Healthcare professionals should engage their patients in discussions about substance use on a regular basis, with a nonjudgmental approach.
• The use of recreational cannabis is not recommended for adolescents and adults with diabetes.
• People with T1D should avoid recreational cannabis use because of the increased risk for diabetic ketoacidosis.
• For adults with T1D or T2D who intend to use cannabis recreationally, individualized assessment and counseling should be offered to inform them of the general risks of cannabis, with a focus on harm reduction and reduction of the risk for potential adverse effects on diabetes management and complications.
• People with T1D or T2D should be offered education on and encouraged to read public information available through resources from various Canadian health authorities about the general risks of cannabis use to reduce the risk for nondiabetes-related adverse effects of cannabis consumption.

Of note, in 2018, the Canadian government produced an exhaustive compendium of information on cannabis for healthcare professionals that includes information relevant to managing patients with diabetes. 

Dr. Shubrook and Dr. Han reported no competing interests.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Higher daily buprenorphine doses may help patients better manage opioid use disorder (OUD), data from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study suggested.

The new data highlight that the dose size currently recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and insurance caps on doses are outdated and harmful in the age of fentanyl overdoses, according to the American Medical Association (AMA) and physicians who have studied the issue.

Findings of the study, led by Sarah Axeen, PhD, with the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, were published in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers reviewed insurance claims data from more than 35,000 people diagnosed with OUD who started on buprenorphine treatment between 2016 and 2021. They found that 12.5% had an emergency department (ED) or inpatient visit related to behavioral health within the study period.

They analyzed whether a patient’s buprenorphine dose was linked with the length of time between treatment start and an ED or inpatient visit.
 

Higher Doses, Better Outcomes

The FDA’s recommended target dose for buprenorphine is 16 mg/d. Dr. Axeen’s team found that those taking higher daily doses (> 16 to 24 mg) took 20% longer to have an ED or inpatient visit related to behavioral health within the first year after receiving treatment than those who took > 8 to 16 mg/d.

“Those taking daily doses of more than 24 mg of buprenorphine went 50% longer before having a subsequent emergency or inpatient healthcare visit related to behavioral health within the first year after receiving treatment, compared to those receiving > 8 to 16 mg a day,” the researchers said in a press release.
 

AMA Says the Findings Should Change Policies

Bobby Mukkamala, MD, president-elect of the AMA and Chair of the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force, said the association welcomed the study findings and urged policymakers and insurance providers to act on them with updated policies.

“The findings support AMA policy calling for flexibility in buprenorphine dosing, allowing patients to receive doses exceeding FDA-approved limits when clinically recommended by their prescriber,” he said in a statement. “Policymakers must take note of these findings and the growing body of evidence that further affirm buprenorphine as a safe, effective, and lifesaving tool in the fight against the illicit fentanyl overdose epidemic. It is also critically important for health insurance companies, Medicaid, and Medicare to remove dosage caps for buprenorphine.”
 

‘Tangible Economic Impact’

Lucinda Grande, MD, a family physician and addiction specialist with Pioneer Family Practice in Lacey, Washington, said in an interview that she was happy to see this study because “it is the first buprenorphine dose study that addresses an outcome with a tangible economic impact that would affect the bottom line of payers and healthcare systems” and may capture the attention of policymakers in changing what she says are outdated recommendations.

“This study is also unusual because it looked specifically at the dose range above 24 mg. Even though that top tier included only a tiny proportion (1.8%) of patients, it was the group that had the greatest long-term benefit from buprenorphine,” Dr. Grande said, adding that other studies have not included that high a dose.

Dr. Grande, who published on a related topic in 2023, noted that Medicaid patients were excluded from the current study, and they make up a substantial portion of those using buprenorphine for OUD. Had they been included, she said, she suspects the evidence would have been even stronger in favor of higher doses.

Physicians can prescribe higher doses off-label, but buprenorphine is expensive, and some insurers have caps based on the FDA recommendations. Dr. Grande says she rarely prescribes > 32 mg/d, and the patients who need the higher doses often have chronic pain. “In Washington State,” she said, “we have had the luxury of prescribing up to 32 mg daily to Medicaid patients for years. I have had a lot of opportunity to work in that dose rage for people who really need it, and I can really see a difference.”

As fentanyl has grown into the primary illicit opioid, she says, the FDA recommendations for buprenorphine have become progressively weaker.

“Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, the opioid prevalent when the FDA guidelines were written,” she said. “It’s like a popgun that you’re using against a cannon.”

This manuscript was prepared with support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Axeen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Coauthor Jessica S. Merlin, MD, reported grants from Cambia Health Foundation outside the submitted work. Adam J. Gordon, MD, reported grants from NIH and the Veterans Affairs (institution) during the conduct of the study; he reported service as editor-in-chief with the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance use and Addiction. Bradley D. Stein, MD, reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Mukkamala and Dr. Grande reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Higher daily buprenorphine doses may help patients better manage opioid use disorder (OUD), data from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study suggested.

The new data highlight that the dose size currently recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and insurance caps on doses are outdated and harmful in the age of fentanyl overdoses, according to the American Medical Association (AMA) and physicians who have studied the issue.

Findings of the study, led by Sarah Axeen, PhD, with the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, were published in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers reviewed insurance claims data from more than 35,000 people diagnosed with OUD who started on buprenorphine treatment between 2016 and 2021. They found that 12.5% had an emergency department (ED) or inpatient visit related to behavioral health within the study period.

They analyzed whether a patient’s buprenorphine dose was linked with the length of time between treatment start and an ED or inpatient visit.
 

Higher Doses, Better Outcomes

The FDA’s recommended target dose for buprenorphine is 16 mg/d. Dr. Axeen’s team found that those taking higher daily doses (> 16 to 24 mg) took 20% longer to have an ED or inpatient visit related to behavioral health within the first year after receiving treatment than those who took > 8 to 16 mg/d.

“Those taking daily doses of more than 24 mg of buprenorphine went 50% longer before having a subsequent emergency or inpatient healthcare visit related to behavioral health within the first year after receiving treatment, compared to those receiving > 8 to 16 mg a day,” the researchers said in a press release.
 

AMA Says the Findings Should Change Policies

Bobby Mukkamala, MD, president-elect of the AMA and Chair of the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force, said the association welcomed the study findings and urged policymakers and insurance providers to act on them with updated policies.

“The findings support AMA policy calling for flexibility in buprenorphine dosing, allowing patients to receive doses exceeding FDA-approved limits when clinically recommended by their prescriber,” he said in a statement. “Policymakers must take note of these findings and the growing body of evidence that further affirm buprenorphine as a safe, effective, and lifesaving tool in the fight against the illicit fentanyl overdose epidemic. It is also critically important for health insurance companies, Medicaid, and Medicare to remove dosage caps for buprenorphine.”
 

‘Tangible Economic Impact’

Lucinda Grande, MD, a family physician and addiction specialist with Pioneer Family Practice in Lacey, Washington, said in an interview that she was happy to see this study because “it is the first buprenorphine dose study that addresses an outcome with a tangible economic impact that would affect the bottom line of payers and healthcare systems” and may capture the attention of policymakers in changing what she says are outdated recommendations.

“This study is also unusual because it looked specifically at the dose range above 24 mg. Even though that top tier included only a tiny proportion (1.8%) of patients, it was the group that had the greatest long-term benefit from buprenorphine,” Dr. Grande said, adding that other studies have not included that high a dose.

Dr. Grande, who published on a related topic in 2023, noted that Medicaid patients were excluded from the current study, and they make up a substantial portion of those using buprenorphine for OUD. Had they been included, she said, she suspects the evidence would have been even stronger in favor of higher doses.

Physicians can prescribe higher doses off-label, but buprenorphine is expensive, and some insurers have caps based on the FDA recommendations. Dr. Grande says she rarely prescribes > 32 mg/d, and the patients who need the higher doses often have chronic pain. “In Washington State,” she said, “we have had the luxury of prescribing up to 32 mg daily to Medicaid patients for years. I have had a lot of opportunity to work in that dose rage for people who really need it, and I can really see a difference.”

As fentanyl has grown into the primary illicit opioid, she says, the FDA recommendations for buprenorphine have become progressively weaker.

“Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, the opioid prevalent when the FDA guidelines were written,” she said. “It’s like a popgun that you’re using against a cannon.”

This manuscript was prepared with support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Axeen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Coauthor Jessica S. Merlin, MD, reported grants from Cambia Health Foundation outside the submitted work. Adam J. Gordon, MD, reported grants from NIH and the Veterans Affairs (institution) during the conduct of the study; he reported service as editor-in-chief with the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance use and Addiction. Bradley D. Stein, MD, reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Mukkamala and Dr. Grande reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Higher daily buprenorphine doses may help patients better manage opioid use disorder (OUD), data from a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study suggested.

The new data highlight that the dose size currently recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and insurance caps on doses are outdated and harmful in the age of fentanyl overdoses, according to the American Medical Association (AMA) and physicians who have studied the issue.

Findings of the study, led by Sarah Axeen, PhD, with the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, were published in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers reviewed insurance claims data from more than 35,000 people diagnosed with OUD who started on buprenorphine treatment between 2016 and 2021. They found that 12.5% had an emergency department (ED) or inpatient visit related to behavioral health within the study period.

They analyzed whether a patient’s buprenorphine dose was linked with the length of time between treatment start and an ED or inpatient visit.
 

Higher Doses, Better Outcomes

The FDA’s recommended target dose for buprenorphine is 16 mg/d. Dr. Axeen’s team found that those taking higher daily doses (> 16 to 24 mg) took 20% longer to have an ED or inpatient visit related to behavioral health within the first year after receiving treatment than those who took > 8 to 16 mg/d.

“Those taking daily doses of more than 24 mg of buprenorphine went 50% longer before having a subsequent emergency or inpatient healthcare visit related to behavioral health within the first year after receiving treatment, compared to those receiving > 8 to 16 mg a day,” the researchers said in a press release.
 

AMA Says the Findings Should Change Policies

Bobby Mukkamala, MD, president-elect of the AMA and Chair of the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force, said the association welcomed the study findings and urged policymakers and insurance providers to act on them with updated policies.

“The findings support AMA policy calling for flexibility in buprenorphine dosing, allowing patients to receive doses exceeding FDA-approved limits when clinically recommended by their prescriber,” he said in a statement. “Policymakers must take note of these findings and the growing body of evidence that further affirm buprenorphine as a safe, effective, and lifesaving tool in the fight against the illicit fentanyl overdose epidemic. It is also critically important for health insurance companies, Medicaid, and Medicare to remove dosage caps for buprenorphine.”
 

‘Tangible Economic Impact’

Lucinda Grande, MD, a family physician and addiction specialist with Pioneer Family Practice in Lacey, Washington, said in an interview that she was happy to see this study because “it is the first buprenorphine dose study that addresses an outcome with a tangible economic impact that would affect the bottom line of payers and healthcare systems” and may capture the attention of policymakers in changing what she says are outdated recommendations.

“This study is also unusual because it looked specifically at the dose range above 24 mg. Even though that top tier included only a tiny proportion (1.8%) of patients, it was the group that had the greatest long-term benefit from buprenorphine,” Dr. Grande said, adding that other studies have not included that high a dose.

Dr. Grande, who published on a related topic in 2023, noted that Medicaid patients were excluded from the current study, and they make up a substantial portion of those using buprenorphine for OUD. Had they been included, she said, she suspects the evidence would have been even stronger in favor of higher doses.

Physicians can prescribe higher doses off-label, but buprenorphine is expensive, and some insurers have caps based on the FDA recommendations. Dr. Grande says she rarely prescribes > 32 mg/d, and the patients who need the higher doses often have chronic pain. “In Washington State,” she said, “we have had the luxury of prescribing up to 32 mg daily to Medicaid patients for years. I have had a lot of opportunity to work in that dose rage for people who really need it, and I can really see a difference.”

As fentanyl has grown into the primary illicit opioid, she says, the FDA recommendations for buprenorphine have become progressively weaker.

“Fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin, the opioid prevalent when the FDA guidelines were written,” she said. “It’s like a popgun that you’re using against a cannon.”

This manuscript was prepared with support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Dr. Axeen reported no relevant financial disclosures. Coauthor Jessica S. Merlin, MD, reported grants from Cambia Health Foundation outside the submitted work. Adam J. Gordon, MD, reported grants from NIH and the Veterans Affairs (institution) during the conduct of the study; he reported service as editor-in-chief with the Association for Multidisciplinary Education and Research in Substance use and Addiction. Bradley D. Stein, MD, reported grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Mukkamala and Dr. Grande reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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