From the Journals

Disparate views on managing incidental imaging findings made during clinical research — particularly for unclear results — signal a need for standardized guidance, according to recent survey results.

Respondents were split on whether it was the site primary investigator’s responsibility to decide which incidental findings should be reported back to the patient, and the most commonly cited challenges included adequately explaining these findings and the follow-up required. These issues were most present when dealing with nonspecific incidental findings or findings of unclear importance, said lead author Jane S. Kang, MD, a bioethicist and associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

 

“It can be difficult to have a clear approach” when it comes to these situations that are not black and white, and it is hard to get a clear answer, she said in an interview.

The survey included responses from investigators from the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (TARGET) trial, conducted between 2015 and 2021. The 24-week trial included patients from 28 centers in the United States to investigate how different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can reduce cardiovascular and joint inflammation, assessed via whole body FDG PET/CT. The survey was a planned substudy of the TARGET trial and is “the first study that examines researchers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT,” Kang and her coauthors wrote.

This news organization reported the main results of the TARGET trial in 2022.

Eighteen of the 28 site primary investigators (PIs) of the TARGET trial participated in the survey, which was published in Arthritis Care & Research in September 2024.

 

TARGET Trial Incidental Findings

The TARGET trial enrolled 159 patients, of whom 82% had at least one incidental finding and 62% had one or more FDG-avid incidental findings. There were 46 “clinically actionable findings” for 40 participants overall; the reading radiologists recommended additional imaging for 28 findings and specialist consultation or procedural evaluation for 15 findings.

Details on these incidental findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), held in Washington, DC.

The most common non–FDG-avid findings were pulmonary nodules, diverticulosis, cholelithiasis, sinus disease, and vascular calcifications. The most common FDG-avid findings were hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy, increased gastric/esophageal uptake, increased bowel uptake, and increased pharyngeal uptake.

In the related survey, 11 respondents (61%) said they returned any incidental findings to participants and 5 (28%) did not; the remaining 2 respondents did not know.

Across all study PIs, 22% felt that incidental findings were beneficial, 39% said they were potentially beneficial, and 11% said they were potentially detrimental. PIs that ranked incidental findings as potentially detrimental pointed to how these findings led to invasive additional testing.

“One of my subjects was found to have diverticulosis, which needed an invasive procedure to rule out malignancy,” one respondent wrote. “However, the subject had already had a colonoscopy months prior to the PET findings, which was still not deemed sufficient by the nuclear radiologist and GI consultant, so he had to have another colonoscopy, which was benign, but uncomfortable.” 

 

Obligation to Return Findings

All investigators agreed that incidental findings should be shared with patients if they revealed a high-risk medical condition that can be treated; had important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity; and their health could be improved with proven preventive or therapeutic interventions.

There was more disagreement on whether to share that the FDG PET/CT revealed no findings or if the test revealed a finding without clear medical importance of which the research participant may not be aware.

An example of a less-specific finding could be something like increased FDG uptake in a particular area, like the bowel, Kang explained.

“The question is: What does that mean?” she said. “How do you interpret that?”

While some PIs might feel obligated to share all results with patients, sharing ambiguous incidental findings will likely not be helpful to the patient, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Dealing in unknowns and uncertainties when you’re diagnosing doesn’t really do people very much good,” he said in an interview.

While most survey respondents said they were at least moderately obligated to disclose incidental research findings if a patient requests them, Caplan noted that it was ultimately the researchers’ decision.

“Patient preferences are something to take into account, but they’re not final. If the research team says, ‘we don’t know, it’s too uncertain, it’s too new,’ then I don’t think they have any obligation to return that [information],” he said. “You can’t tell somebody what you don’t understand.”

Conversely, the clearer the incidental finding, the stronger the obligation to share that information with research participants, he continued.

 

Need for a Standardized Approach 

The TARGET study, like many research studies, left the management of incidental imaging findings to individual research sites and investigators.

It’s possible that different sites responded to these ambiguous clinical findings in different ways, Kang noted.

“If there’s a situation that’s difficult to interpret as it is, you can imagine that the resulting actions that may result from that can vary, too,” she said, which highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

One way to approach this, Caplan noted, is establishing an agreed-upon approach for dealing with any incidental findings across all research sites before a study begins.

“If there is going to be a common study at many sites, then they should have a common response on what they are going to do,” he noted, and how they will share that information effectively with the research participants to ensure it’s understandable. However, in a lot of research studies, each site has its own approach.

“Right now, it’s all over the place and that shouldn’t be,” he said.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) could be one resource to help build detailed guidance on managing unclear incidental findings in future research, wrote Kang and coauthors.

“For incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT that are not clearly actionable or less straightforward, IRBs may consider requiring a certain level of follow-up for different categories or types of incidental findings or require that all incidental findings are reviewed by an independent group that would provide timely recommendations on the most appropriate return and management of those findings,” Kang and colleagues wrote. “With IRB guidance, very specific and detailed policies and procedures for returning and managing incidental findings should be established for every study, with consistency among the research sites of multicenter trials.”

The TARGET trial and survey were funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Kang reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Caplan serves as a contributing author for this news organization and served on an independent bioethics panel for compassionate drug use that was funded by Johnson & Johnson through the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

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

Disparate views on managing incidental imaging findings made during clinical research — particularly for unclear results — signal a need for standardized guidance, according to recent survey results.

Respondents were split on whether it was the site primary investigator’s responsibility to decide which incidental findings should be reported back to the patient, and the most commonly cited challenges included adequately explaining these findings and the follow-up required. These issues were most present when dealing with nonspecific incidental findings or findings of unclear importance, said lead author Jane S. Kang, MD, a bioethicist and associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

 

“It can be difficult to have a clear approach” when it comes to these situations that are not black and white, and it is hard to get a clear answer, she said in an interview.

The survey included responses from investigators from the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (TARGET) trial, conducted between 2015 and 2021. The 24-week trial included patients from 28 centers in the United States to investigate how different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can reduce cardiovascular and joint inflammation, assessed via whole body FDG PET/CT. The survey was a planned substudy of the TARGET trial and is “the first study that examines researchers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT,” Kang and her coauthors wrote.

This news organization reported the main results of the TARGET trial in 2022.

Eighteen of the 28 site primary investigators (PIs) of the TARGET trial participated in the survey, which was published in Arthritis Care & Research in September 2024.

 

TARGET Trial Incidental Findings

The TARGET trial enrolled 159 patients, of whom 82% had at least one incidental finding and 62% had one or more FDG-avid incidental findings. There were 46 “clinically actionable findings” for 40 participants overall; the reading radiologists recommended additional imaging for 28 findings and specialist consultation or procedural evaluation for 15 findings.

Details on these incidental findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), held in Washington, DC.

The most common non–FDG-avid findings were pulmonary nodules, diverticulosis, cholelithiasis, sinus disease, and vascular calcifications. The most common FDG-avid findings were hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy, increased gastric/esophageal uptake, increased bowel uptake, and increased pharyngeal uptake.

In the related survey, 11 respondents (61%) said they returned any incidental findings to participants and 5 (28%) did not; the remaining 2 respondents did not know.

Across all study PIs, 22% felt that incidental findings were beneficial, 39% said they were potentially beneficial, and 11% said they were potentially detrimental. PIs that ranked incidental findings as potentially detrimental pointed to how these findings led to invasive additional testing.

“One of my subjects was found to have diverticulosis, which needed an invasive procedure to rule out malignancy,” one respondent wrote. “However, the subject had already had a colonoscopy months prior to the PET findings, which was still not deemed sufficient by the nuclear radiologist and GI consultant, so he had to have another colonoscopy, which was benign, but uncomfortable.” 

 

Obligation to Return Findings

All investigators agreed that incidental findings should be shared with patients if they revealed a high-risk medical condition that can be treated; had important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity; and their health could be improved with proven preventive or therapeutic interventions.

There was more disagreement on whether to share that the FDG PET/CT revealed no findings or if the test revealed a finding without clear medical importance of which the research participant may not be aware.

An example of a less-specific finding could be something like increased FDG uptake in a particular area, like the bowel, Kang explained.

“The question is: What does that mean?” she said. “How do you interpret that?”

While some PIs might feel obligated to share all results with patients, sharing ambiguous incidental findings will likely not be helpful to the patient, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Dealing in unknowns and uncertainties when you’re diagnosing doesn’t really do people very much good,” he said in an interview.

While most survey respondents said they were at least moderately obligated to disclose incidental research findings if a patient requests them, Caplan noted that it was ultimately the researchers’ decision.

“Patient preferences are something to take into account, but they’re not final. If the research team says, ‘we don’t know, it’s too uncertain, it’s too new,’ then I don’t think they have any obligation to return that [information],” he said. “You can’t tell somebody what you don’t understand.”

Conversely, the clearer the incidental finding, the stronger the obligation to share that information with research participants, he continued.

 

Need for a Standardized Approach 

The TARGET study, like many research studies, left the management of incidental imaging findings to individual research sites and investigators.

It’s possible that different sites responded to these ambiguous clinical findings in different ways, Kang noted.

“If there’s a situation that’s difficult to interpret as it is, you can imagine that the resulting actions that may result from that can vary, too,” she said, which highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

One way to approach this, Caplan noted, is establishing an agreed-upon approach for dealing with any incidental findings across all research sites before a study begins.

“If there is going to be a common study at many sites, then they should have a common response on what they are going to do,” he noted, and how they will share that information effectively with the research participants to ensure it’s understandable. However, in a lot of research studies, each site has its own approach.

“Right now, it’s all over the place and that shouldn’t be,” he said.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) could be one resource to help build detailed guidance on managing unclear incidental findings in future research, wrote Kang and coauthors.

“For incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT that are not clearly actionable or less straightforward, IRBs may consider requiring a certain level of follow-up for different categories or types of incidental findings or require that all incidental findings are reviewed by an independent group that would provide timely recommendations on the most appropriate return and management of those findings,” Kang and colleagues wrote. “With IRB guidance, very specific and detailed policies and procedures for returning and managing incidental findings should be established for every study, with consistency among the research sites of multicenter trials.”

The TARGET trial and survey were funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Kang reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Caplan serves as a contributing author for this news organization and served on an independent bioethics panel for compassionate drug use that was funded by Johnson & Johnson through the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

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

Disparate views on managing incidental imaging findings made during clinical research — particularly for unclear results — signal a need for standardized guidance, according to recent survey results.

Respondents were split on whether it was the site primary investigator’s responsibility to decide which incidental findings should be reported back to the patient, and the most commonly cited challenges included adequately explaining these findings and the follow-up required. These issues were most present when dealing with nonspecific incidental findings or findings of unclear importance, said lead author Jane S. Kang, MD, a bioethicist and associate professor of medicine in the Division of Rheumatology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City.

 

“It can be difficult to have a clear approach” when it comes to these situations that are not black and white, and it is hard to get a clear answer, she said in an interview.

The survey included responses from investigators from the Treatments Against Rheumatoid Arthritis and Effect on 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) PET/CT (TARGET) trial, conducted between 2015 and 2021. The 24-week trial included patients from 28 centers in the United States to investigate how different disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs can reduce cardiovascular and joint inflammation, assessed via whole body FDG PET/CT. The survey was a planned substudy of the TARGET trial and is “the first study that examines researchers’ attitudes and beliefs regarding incidental research findings from whole body FDG PET/CT,” Kang and her coauthors wrote.

This news organization reported the main results of the TARGET trial in 2022.

Eighteen of the 28 site primary investigators (PIs) of the TARGET trial participated in the survey, which was published in Arthritis Care & Research in September 2024.

 

TARGET Trial Incidental Findings

The TARGET trial enrolled 159 patients, of whom 82% had at least one incidental finding and 62% had one or more FDG-avid incidental findings. There were 46 “clinically actionable findings” for 40 participants overall; the reading radiologists recommended additional imaging for 28 findings and specialist consultation or procedural evaluation for 15 findings.

Details on these incidental findings were presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), held in Washington, DC.

The most common non–FDG-avid findings were pulmonary nodules, diverticulosis, cholelithiasis, sinus disease, and vascular calcifications. The most common FDG-avid findings were hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy, increased gastric/esophageal uptake, increased bowel uptake, and increased pharyngeal uptake.

In the related survey, 11 respondents (61%) said they returned any incidental findings to participants and 5 (28%) did not; the remaining 2 respondents did not know.

Across all study PIs, 22% felt that incidental findings were beneficial, 39% said they were potentially beneficial, and 11% said they were potentially detrimental. PIs that ranked incidental findings as potentially detrimental pointed to how these findings led to invasive additional testing.

“One of my subjects was found to have diverticulosis, which needed an invasive procedure to rule out malignancy,” one respondent wrote. “However, the subject had already had a colonoscopy months prior to the PET findings, which was still not deemed sufficient by the nuclear radiologist and GI consultant, so he had to have another colonoscopy, which was benign, but uncomfortable.” 

 

Obligation to Return Findings

All investigators agreed that incidental findings should be shared with patients if they revealed a high-risk medical condition that can be treated; had important health implications such as premature death or substantial morbidity; and their health could be improved with proven preventive or therapeutic interventions.

There was more disagreement on whether to share that the FDG PET/CT revealed no findings or if the test revealed a finding without clear medical importance of which the research participant may not be aware.

An example of a less-specific finding could be something like increased FDG uptake in a particular area, like the bowel, Kang explained.

“The question is: What does that mean?” she said. “How do you interpret that?”

While some PIs might feel obligated to share all results with patients, sharing ambiguous incidental findings will likely not be helpful to the patient, said Arthur Caplan, PhD, of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University (NYU) Grossman School of Medicine, New York City.

“Dealing in unknowns and uncertainties when you’re diagnosing doesn’t really do people very much good,” he said in an interview.

While most survey respondents said they were at least moderately obligated to disclose incidental research findings if a patient requests them, Caplan noted that it was ultimately the researchers’ decision.

“Patient preferences are something to take into account, but they’re not final. If the research team says, ‘we don’t know, it’s too uncertain, it’s too new,’ then I don’t think they have any obligation to return that [information],” he said. “You can’t tell somebody what you don’t understand.”

Conversely, the clearer the incidental finding, the stronger the obligation to share that information with research participants, he continued.

 

Need for a Standardized Approach 

The TARGET study, like many research studies, left the management of incidental imaging findings to individual research sites and investigators.

It’s possible that different sites responded to these ambiguous clinical findings in different ways, Kang noted.

“If there’s a situation that’s difficult to interpret as it is, you can imagine that the resulting actions that may result from that can vary, too,” she said, which highlights the need for more specific and standardized guidance.

One way to approach this, Caplan noted, is establishing an agreed-upon approach for dealing with any incidental findings across all research sites before a study begins.

“If there is going to be a common study at many sites, then they should have a common response on what they are going to do,” he noted, and how they will share that information effectively with the research participants to ensure it’s understandable. However, in a lot of research studies, each site has its own approach.

“Right now, it’s all over the place and that shouldn’t be,” he said.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) could be one resource to help build detailed guidance on managing unclear incidental findings in future research, wrote Kang and coauthors.

“For incidental findings from whole body FDG PET/CT that are not clearly actionable or less straightforward, IRBs may consider requiring a certain level of follow-up for different categories or types of incidental findings or require that all incidental findings are reviewed by an independent group that would provide timely recommendations on the most appropriate return and management of those findings,” Kang and colleagues wrote. “With IRB guidance, very specific and detailed policies and procedures for returning and managing incidental findings should be established for every study, with consistency among the research sites of multicenter trials.”

The TARGET trial and survey were funded by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Kang reported receiving research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Caplan serves as a contributing author for this news organization and served on an independent bioethics panel for compassionate drug use that was funded by Johnson & Johnson through the NYU Grossman School of Medicine.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide is linked to a lower risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD)–related hospitalizations, compared with traditional AUD medications, a new study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study from 2006 to 2023 in Sweden that included more than 220,000 individuals with AUD (mean age, 40 years; 64% men).
• Data were obtained from registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pension, with a median follow-up period of 8.8 years.
• The primary exposure measured was the use of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists — commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity — compared with nonuse.
• The secondary exposure examined was the use of medications indicated for AUD.
• The primary outcome was AUD-related hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization due to substance use disorder (SUD), somatic hospitalization, and suicide attempts.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 59% of participants experienced AUD-related hospitalization.
• Semaglutide users (n = 4321) had the lowest risk for hospitalization related to AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and to any SUD (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85).
• Liraglutide users (n = 2509) had the second lowest risk for both AUD-related (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92) and SUD-related (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97) hospitalizations.
• The use of both semaglutide (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90) and liraglutide (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) was linked to a reduced risk for hospitalization because of somatic reasons but was not associated with the risk of suicide attempts.
• Traditional AUD medications showed modest effectiveness with a slightly decreased but nonsignificant risk for AUD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“AUDs and SUDs are undertreated pharmacologically, despite the availability of effective treatments. However, novel treatments are also needed because existing treatments may not be suitable for all patients. Semaglutide and liraglutide may be effective in the treatment of AUD, and clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these findings,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio. It was published online on November 13 in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The data used in this study were obtained from the REWHARD consortium, supported by the Swedish Research Council. Four of the six authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work, which are fully listed in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide is linked to a lower risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD)–related hospitalizations, compared with traditional AUD medications, a new study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study from 2006 to 2023 in Sweden that included more than 220,000 individuals with AUD (mean age, 40 years; 64% men).
• Data were obtained from registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pension, with a median follow-up period of 8.8 years.
• The primary exposure measured was the use of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists — commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity — compared with nonuse.
• The secondary exposure examined was the use of medications indicated for AUD.
• The primary outcome was AUD-related hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization due to substance use disorder (SUD), somatic hospitalization, and suicide attempts.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 59% of participants experienced AUD-related hospitalization.
• Semaglutide users (n = 4321) had the lowest risk for hospitalization related to AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and to any SUD (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85).
• Liraglutide users (n = 2509) had the second lowest risk for both AUD-related (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92) and SUD-related (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97) hospitalizations.
• The use of both semaglutide (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90) and liraglutide (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) was linked to a reduced risk for hospitalization because of somatic reasons but was not associated with the risk of suicide attempts.
• Traditional AUD medications showed modest effectiveness with a slightly decreased but nonsignificant risk for AUD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“AUDs and SUDs are undertreated pharmacologically, despite the availability of effective treatments. However, novel treatments are also needed because existing treatments may not be suitable for all patients. Semaglutide and liraglutide may be effective in the treatment of AUD, and clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these findings,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio. It was published online on November 13 in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The data used in this study were obtained from the REWHARD consortium, supported by the Swedish Research Council. Four of the six authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work, which are fully listed in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Use of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists semaglutide and liraglutide is linked to a lower risk for alcohol use disorder (AUD)–related hospitalizations, compared with traditional AUD medications, a new study suggested.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study from 2006 to 2023 in Sweden that included more than 220,000 individuals with AUD (mean age, 40 years; 64% men).
• Data were obtained from registers of inpatient and specialized outpatient care, sickness absence, and disability pension, with a median follow-up period of 8.8 years.
• The primary exposure measured was the use of individual GLP-1 receptor agonists — commonly used to treat type 2 diabetes and obesity — compared with nonuse.
• The secondary exposure examined was the use of medications indicated for AUD.
• The primary outcome was AUD-related hospitalization; secondary outcomes included hospitalization due to substance use disorder (SUD), somatic hospitalization, and suicide attempts.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 59% of participants experienced AUD-related hospitalization.
• Semaglutide users (n = 4321) had the lowest risk for hospitalization related to AUD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and to any SUD (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85).
• Liraglutide users (n = 2509) had the second lowest risk for both AUD-related (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.92) and SUD-related (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.97) hospitalizations.
• The use of both semaglutide (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.90) and liraglutide (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91) was linked to a reduced risk for hospitalization because of somatic reasons but was not associated with the risk of suicide attempts.
• Traditional AUD medications showed modest effectiveness with a slightly decreased but nonsignificant risk for AUD-related hospitalization (aHR, 0.98).

IN PRACTICE:

“AUDs and SUDs are undertreated pharmacologically, despite the availability of effective treatments. However, novel treatments are also needed because existing treatments may not be suitable for all patients. Semaglutide and liraglutide may be effective in the treatment of AUD, and clinical trials are urgently needed to confirm these findings,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Markku Lähteenvuo, MD, PhD, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio. It was published online on November 13 in JAMA Psychiatry.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational nature of this study limited causal inferences.

DISCLOSURES:

The data used in this study were obtained from the REWHARD consortium, supported by the Swedish Research Council. Four of the six authors reported receiving grants or personal fees from various sources outside the submitted work, which are fully listed in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

In older postmenopausal women with type 2 diabetes (T2D), pyridoxamine treatment has potential to prevent fractures and protect bone tissue by targeting advanced glycation end products and also lowers levels of A1c, an early glycation product.

METHODOLOGY:

• Despite greater bone density and low bone turnover, people with T2D have increased fractures risk and higher associated mortality, but previous research linking advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to bone fragility suggests an AGE inhibitor could be a novel therapeutic strategy to prevent the accumulation of AGE in bone tissue.
• This randomized clinical trial, conducted at the Metabolic Bone Disease Unit of Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York City, from December 2017 to February 2021, assessed the efficacy of the vitamin B6 metabolite pyridoxamine, an AGE inhibitor, in promoting bone formation in 55 older postmenopausal women with T2D.
• The participants received either 200 mg of oral pyridoxamine dihydrochloride (n = 27; mean age, 75.6 years) or matching placebo tablets (n = 28; mean age, 73.1 years) twice daily for 1 year.
• The primary outcome was the change in the levels of the bone formation marker Procollagen Type I Intact N-terminal Propeptide (P1NP) from baseline to after 12 months of treatment.
• Other outcomes included changes in bone mineral density measured at the lumbar spine, total hip, femoral neck, and 1/3 radius using dual energy x-ray absorptiometry; A1c levels; and skin autofluorescence at 12 months, a surrogate for bone AGEs. The safety of pyridoxamine was evaluated by monitoring neurologic findings and adverse events because high doses of the parent vitamin B6 have been reported to cause neurotoxicity.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 12 months, pyridoxamine treatment increased P1NP levels by 23% (P = .028) compared with 4.1% with placebo (P = .576), a “nearly significant difference.”
• Bone mineral density at the femoral neck increased by 2.64% with pyridoxamine but decreased by 0.91% with placebo (P = .007), with no changes at the lumbar spine, total hip, or 1/3 radius. The levels of bone resorption markers or skin autofluorescence were not significantly different between the groups.
• A1c levels decreased by 0.38% in the pyridoxamine group and correlated with increased P1NP levels, compared with a 0.05% increase in the placebo group (P = .04).
• Pyridoxamine was well tolerated. Four serious adverse events were reported in the pyridoxamine group and seven in the placebo group; none of these were related to the trial treatment.

IN PRACTICE:

“[The study] findings suggest that AGE inhibition might clinically improve the low bone formation state of T2D, and that PM [pyridoxamine] might warrant further investigation as a potential disease mechanism-directed approach for the therapy of T2D bone fragility,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aiden V. Brossfield, Metabolic Bone Disease Unit, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Irving Medical Center. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings were preliminary. The study’s small sample size and individual variability led to a lack of statistical significance. The exclusion of men may have limited the generalizability of the findings. The short duration of 1 year may have been insufficient for detecting changes in skin AGEs. The levels of circulating AGEs or pyridoxamine were not measured, which could have provided additional insights.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the US National Institute on Aging. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Up to one in seven young adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D) have clinically significant hepatic fibrosis, signaling the crucial need for screening in this population to aid early detection and intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers aimed to assess the prevalence of hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis (stage ≥ 2) in young adults without a history of metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), hypothesizing that the rates would be comparable with those in older adults, especially in the presence of cardiometabolic risk factors.
• Overall, 1420 participants aged 21-79 years with or without T2D (63% or 37%, respectively) were included from outpatient clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and divided into two age groups: < 45 years (n = 243) and ≥ 45 years (n = 1177).
• All the participants underwent assessment of liver stiffness via transient elastography, with magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) or liver biopsy recommended when indicated.
• Participants also underwent a medical history review, physical examination, and fasting blood tests to rule out secondary causes of liver disease.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 52% of participants had hepatic steatosis, and 9.5% had clinically significant fibrosis.
• There were no significant differences in the frequencies of hepatic steatosis (50.2% vs 52.7%; P = .6) or clinically significant hepatic fibrosis (7.5% vs 9.9%; P = .2) observed between young and older adults.
• The presence of either T2D or obesity was linked to an increased prevalence of both hepatic steatosis and fibrosis in both the age groups (P < .01).
• In young and older adults, the presence of both T2D and obesity led to the highest rates of both hepatic steatosis and clinically significant fibrosis, with the latter rate being statistically similar between the groups (15.7% vs 17.3%; P = .2).
• The presence of T2D and obesity was the strongest risk factors for hepatic fibrosis in young adults (odds ratios, 4.33 and 1.16, respectively; P < .05 for both).

IN PRACTICE:

“The clinical implication is that young adults with obesity and T2D carry a high risk of future cirrhosis, possibly as high as older adults, and must be aggressively screened at the first visit and carefully followed,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

This study, led by Anu Sharma, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, was published online in Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The diagnosis of clinically significant hepatic fibrosis was confirmed via MRE and/or liver biopsy in only 30% of all participants. The study population included a slightly higher proportion of young adults with obesity, T2D, and other cardiometabolic risk factors than that in national averages, which may have limited its generalizability. Genetic variants associated with MASLD were not included in this study.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded partly by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Echosens. One author disclosed receiving research support and serving as a consultant for various pharmaceutical companies.

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

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recently published consensus guidelines for low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) treatment of hair loss provide best-practice recommendations in areas ranging from pretreatment considerations and counseling to patient monitoring. With large randomized, controlled trials lacking, the guidelines authors and other dermatologists said the paper provides practical pointers that should increase clinicians’ confidence in prescribing LDOM for hair loss.

Comfort and Confidence

Benjamin N. Ungar, MD, director of the Alopecia Center of Excellence at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York City, said he hopes that the guidelines will “make dermatologists in practice more comfortable with the use of low-dose oral minoxidil to treat different kinds of hair loss, and therefore, more patients will benefit.” He was not an author of the paper, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology on November 20, but was asked to comment.

Members of the multidisciplinary Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation steering committee recruited dermatologists with hair loss expertise from 12 countries. Using a modified four-round Delphi process that required at least 70% agreement, the group of 43 dermatologists crafted 76 consensus statements. “Notably,” said Co-senior author Jennifer Fu, MD, director of the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, “27 items achieved at least 90% consensus after the first two rounds, indicating broad agreement in expert practice.”

Indications for LDOM

At least 90% of experts concurred regarding the appropriateness of LDOM use for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and age-related thinning and in cases where topical minoxidil proves ineffective or problematic. Additional situations in which LDOM might provide direct benefit involve follicular miniaturization, such as alopecia areata, or hair cycle disruption, such as chemotherapy. The authors also recommended considering LDOM over topical minoxidil when the latter is more expensive and when patients desire enhanced hypertrichosis.

 

Contraindications and Precautions

Before prescribing LDOM, the authors wrote, clinicians may consult with primary care or cardiology when contraindications (cardiovascular issues, pregnancy/nursing, and potential drug interactions) or precautions (history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, or impaired kidney function) exist. Patients with precautions may require blood pressure monitoring, as well as monitoring for adverse effects of treatment. The panel also suggested the latter for all patients at the time of LDOM initiation and dose escalation. The authors advised against routine baseline laboratory and EKG testing in cases without relevant precautions.

Dosing Considerations

Along with systemic adverse event risk and baseline hair loss severity, key dosing considerations include patient age, sex, and whether patients desire hypertrichosis. Consensus on daily doses for adolescent females and males begins at 0.625 mg and 1.25 mg, respectively, and ranges up to 2.5 mg for adolescent females vs 5 mg for adult females and adolescent and adult males.

Presently, said Ungar, many dermatologists — including some who prescribe LDOM — remain uncomfortable even with very low doses, perhaps because of an invalid perception of cardiovascular safety issues including potential hypotension and pericardial effusions. However, recently published data include a review published November 7 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, which showed no significant effect of LDOM on blood pressure. And in a September Journal of Drugs in Dermatology article the authors found no impact on pericardial effusions in a 100-patient cohort.

Some dermatologists worry about the impact hypertrichosis may have on patients, Ungar added. Although incidence estimates range from 15% to 30%, he said, more than half of his patients experience hypertrichosis. “However, most continue treatment because the beneficial effects outweigh the effect of hypertrichosis.”



 

Practical Roadmap

Adam Friedman, MD, who was not involved with the publication, applauds its inclusion of pragmatic clinical guidance, which he said consensus papers often lack. “This paper sets a great roadmap for working low-dose oral minoxidil into your clinical practice, Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

Rather than limiting LDOM use to AGA, he said, the paper is most helpful in showing the spectrum of disease states for which the expert panel prescribes LDOM. “We use it as adjunctive therapy for many other things, both scarring and nonscarring hair loss,” he added.

In appropriate clinical contexts, the authors wrote, clinicians may consider combining LDOM with spironolactone or beta-blockers. Friedman said that in his hands, combining LDOM with a 5-alpha reductase inhibitor (5ARI) is “absolutely outstanding.” Minoxidil increases blood flow to the scalp, he explained, while 5ARIs prevent production of dihydrotestosterone, which miniaturizes hair.

Fu said, “We hope these consensus outcomes will be helpful to dermatology colleagues as they consider using LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patient populations. We anticipate that these guidelines will be updated as additional evidence-based data emerges and are encouraged that we are already seeing new publications on this topic.”

Important areas for future research, she noted, include pediatric use of LDOM, the comparative efficacy of topical vs oral minoxidil, the safety of oral minoxidil for patients with a history of allergic contact dermatitis to topical minoxidil, and the use of other off-label forms of minoxidil, such as compounded oral minoxidil and sublingual minoxidil.

The study was funded by the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Dermatology Medical Student Summer Research Fellowship Program. Fu reported personal fees from Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, and Sun Pharma outside of the study. The full list of author disclosures can be found in the paper. Ungar and Friedman reported no relevant financial relationships.

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

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

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

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

TOPLINE:

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapies for chronic back and/or leg pain is superior to conventional medical management (CMM) for reduced pain intensity and functional disability, new research suggests.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials that compared conventional and novel SCS therapies with CMM.
• More than 1500 adults with chronic back and/or leg pain and no past history of receiving SCS therapies were included.
• Novel therapies included high frequency, burst, differential target multiplexed, and closed-loop SCS; conventional therapies included tonic SCS wave forms.
• Study outcomes included pain intensity in the back and in the leg, proportion of patients achieving at least 50% pain reduction in the back and in the leg, quality of life as measured by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) index, and functional disability on the Oswestry Disability Index.
• The analysis included data from multiple follow-up points at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6-month data being those from the longest mutually reported timepoint across all outcomes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Both conventional and novel SCS therapies demonstrated superior efficacy vs CMM in pain reduction, but the novel SCS therapies were more likely to provide ≥ 50% reduction in back pain (odds ratio, 8.76; 95% credible interval [CrI], 3.84-22.31).
• Both SCS therapies showed a significant reduction in pain intensity, with novel SCS providing the greatest mean difference (MD) for back pain (–2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73) and lower leg pain (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75).
• Quality of life improved with both types of SCS therapies, with novel SCS therapies yielding the highest MD (0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13-0.21) in EQ-5D index score.
• Conventional SCS showed greater improvement in functionality vs CMM, yielding the lowest MD (–7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36) in Oswestry Disability Index score.

IN PRACTICE:

“We found that SCS was associated with improved pain and QOL [quality of life] and reduced disability, compared with CMM, after 6 months of follow-up. These findings highlight the potential of SCS therapies as an effective and valuable option in chronic pain management,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Frank J.P.M. Huygen, PhD, MD, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The lack of randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up data restricted the inclusion of extended outcome assessments. Most included studies showed a high risk for bias. Safety estimates could not be evaluated as adverse events were only reported as procedure-related outcomes, which are not applicable for CMM. Additionally, the network meta-analytical approach, which combined evidence from studies with varying patient eligibility criteria, may have introduced bias because of between-study heterogeneity.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by Medtronic. Huygen reported receiving personal fees from Abbott, Saluda, and Grunenthal outside the submitted work. The four other authors reported receiving funding from Medtronic.

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

TOPLINE: 

Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking are more strongly linked to increased risk for severe stroke than nonsevere stroke, whereas a high waist-to-hip ratio is more closely associated with nonsevere stroke, a global study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INTERSTROKE case-control study included nearly 27,000 participants, half of whom had a first acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the other half acting as age- and sex-matched controls.
• Participants (mean age, 62 years; 40% women) were recruited across 142 centers in 32 countries between 2007 and 2015. Baseline demographics and lifestyle risk factors for stroke were gathered using standardized questionnaires
• Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores measured within 72 hours of hospital admission were used to classify stroke severity (0-3, nonsevere stroke; 4-6, severe stroke).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the participants with acute stroke, 64% had nonsevere stroke and 36% had severe stroke, based on the mRS.
• Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking showed a significantly stronger association with severe stroke than with nonsevere stroke (odds ratios [ORs], 3.21 vs 2.87, 4.70 vs 3.61, and 1.87 vs 1.65, respectively; all P < .001).
• A high waist-to-hip ratio showed a stronger association with nonsevere stroke than with severe stroke (OR, 1.37 vs 1.11, respectively; P < .001).
• Diabetes, poor diet, physical inactivity, and stress were linked to increased odds of both severe and nonsevere stroke, whereas alcohol consumption and high apolipoprotein B levels were linked to higher odds of only nonsevere stroke. No significant differences in odds were observed between stroke severities in matched individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of controlling high blood pressure, which is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke globally,” lead author Catriona Reddin, MB BCh, BAO, MSc, School of Medicine, University of Galway, in Ireland, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included potential unmeasured confounders; reliance on the mRS score, which may have underestimated stroke severity; and challenges with recruiting patients with severe stroke in a case-control study. Smoking-related comorbidities and regional or sex-related variations in alcohol intake may also have influenced the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by various organizations, including health research councils and foundations from Canada, Sweden, and Scotland, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and MSD. One investigator reported receiving funding from the Irish Clinical Academic Training Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive, National Doctors Training and Planning, and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division in Northern Ireland. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

 

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

TOPLINE: 

Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking are more strongly linked to increased risk for severe stroke than nonsevere stroke, whereas a high waist-to-hip ratio is more closely associated with nonsevere stroke, a global study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INTERSTROKE case-control study included nearly 27,000 participants, half of whom had a first acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the other half acting as age- and sex-matched controls.
• Participants (mean age, 62 years; 40% women) were recruited across 142 centers in 32 countries between 2007 and 2015. Baseline demographics and lifestyle risk factors for stroke were gathered using standardized questionnaires
• Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores measured within 72 hours of hospital admission were used to classify stroke severity (0-3, nonsevere stroke; 4-6, severe stroke).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the participants with acute stroke, 64% had nonsevere stroke and 36% had severe stroke, based on the mRS.
• Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking showed a significantly stronger association with severe stroke than with nonsevere stroke (odds ratios [ORs], 3.21 vs 2.87, 4.70 vs 3.61, and 1.87 vs 1.65, respectively; all P < .001).
• A high waist-to-hip ratio showed a stronger association with nonsevere stroke than with severe stroke (OR, 1.37 vs 1.11, respectively; P < .001).
• Diabetes, poor diet, physical inactivity, and stress were linked to increased odds of both severe and nonsevere stroke, whereas alcohol consumption and high apolipoprotein B levels were linked to higher odds of only nonsevere stroke. No significant differences in odds were observed between stroke severities in matched individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of controlling high blood pressure, which is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke globally,” lead author Catriona Reddin, MB BCh, BAO, MSc, School of Medicine, University of Galway, in Ireland, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included potential unmeasured confounders; reliance on the mRS score, which may have underestimated stroke severity; and challenges with recruiting patients with severe stroke in a case-control study. Smoking-related comorbidities and regional or sex-related variations in alcohol intake may also have influenced the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by various organizations, including health research councils and foundations from Canada, Sweden, and Scotland, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and MSD. One investigator reported receiving funding from the Irish Clinical Academic Training Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive, National Doctors Training and Planning, and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division in Northern Ireland. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

 

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

TOPLINE: 

Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking are more strongly linked to increased risk for severe stroke than nonsevere stroke, whereas a high waist-to-hip ratio is more closely associated with nonsevere stroke, a global study shows.

METHODOLOGY:

• The INTERSTROKE case-control study included nearly 27,000 participants, half of whom had a first acute stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the other half acting as age- and sex-matched controls.
• Participants (mean age, 62 years; 40% women) were recruited across 142 centers in 32 countries between 2007 and 2015. Baseline demographics and lifestyle risk factors for stroke were gathered using standardized questionnaires
• Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores measured within 72 hours of hospital admission were used to classify stroke severity (0-3, nonsevere stroke; 4-6, severe stroke).

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the participants with acute stroke, 64% had nonsevere stroke and 36% had severe stroke, based on the mRS.
• Hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and smoking showed a significantly stronger association with severe stroke than with nonsevere stroke (odds ratios [ORs], 3.21 vs 2.87, 4.70 vs 3.61, and 1.87 vs 1.65, respectively; all P < .001).
• A high waist-to-hip ratio showed a stronger association with nonsevere stroke than with severe stroke (OR, 1.37 vs 1.11, respectively; P < .001).
• Diabetes, poor diet, physical inactivity, and stress were linked to increased odds of both severe and nonsevere stroke, whereas alcohol consumption and high apolipoprotein B levels were linked to higher odds of only nonsevere stroke. No significant differences in odds were observed between stroke severities in matched individuals.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings emphasize the importance of controlling high blood pressure, which is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke globally,” lead author Catriona Reddin, MB BCh, BAO, MSc, School of Medicine, University of Galway, in Ireland, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

The study was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study limitations included potential unmeasured confounders; reliance on the mRS score, which may have underestimated stroke severity; and challenges with recruiting patients with severe stroke in a case-control study. Smoking-related comorbidities and regional or sex-related variations in alcohol intake may also have influenced the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by various organizations, including health research councils and foundations from Canada, Sweden, and Scotland, and pharmaceutical companies such as AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and MSD. One investigator reported receiving funding from the Irish Clinical Academic Training Programme, the Wellcome Trust and the Health Research Board, the Health Service Executive, National Doctors Training and Planning, and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division in Northern Ireland. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

 

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

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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

TOPLINE:

Death rates for patients aged < 50 years with early-onset colorectal cancer (EOCRC) are higher in native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander individuals and non-Hispanic Black individuals than in non-Hispanic White individuals (adjusted hazard ratios [aHR] of 1.34 and 1.18, respectively). The largest racial and ethnic disparities in survival were linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status.

METHODOLOGY:

• US rates of EOCRC are increasing, with differences across racial and ethnic groups, but few studies have provided detailed risk estimates in the categories of Asian American and of Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, as well as the contribution of sociodemographic factors to these differences.
• A population-based cohort study analyzed California Cancer Registry data for 22,834 individuals aged 18-49 years diagnosed with EOCRC between January 2000 and December 2019.
• Researchers examined the association between mortality risk and racial and ethnic groups, including Asian American (15.5%, separated into seven subcategories), Hispanic (30.2%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (0.6%), non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native (0.5%), non-Hispanic Black (7.3%), and non-Hispanic White (45.9%) individuals, with a median follow-up of 4.2 years.
• Statistical models measured baseline associations adjusting for clinical features and then tested for the contribution of socioeconomic factors together and separately, with adjustments for insurance status, neighborhood socioeconomic status, and more.

TAKEAWAY:

• Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander individuals demonstrated the highest EOCRC mortality risk compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (socioeconomic status–adjusted HR [SES aHR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.76).
• Non-Hispanic Black individuals showed a higher EOCRC mortality risk than non-Hispanic White individuals (SES aHR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29).
• Hispanic individuals’ higher EOCRC mortality (base aHR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.08-1.22) disappeared after adjusting for neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.04).
• Southeast Asian individuals’ increased mortality risk (base aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34) was no longer significant after adjusting for insurance status (SES aHR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.96-1.26).

IN PRACTICE:

“As clinicians and researchers, we should ask ourselves how to act on these findings,” wrote the authors of an invited commentary. “The effort cannot stop with data analysis alone, it must extend to actionable steps,” such as tailored efforts to deliver culturally competent care and patient navigation services to those with greatest need and at highest risk, they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Joshua Demb, PhD, University of California, San Diego. The study was published online on November 22 in JAMA Network Open (2024. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.46820) with the invited commentary led by Clare E. Jacobson, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by a relatively short follow-up time and small sample sizes in some racial and ethnic groups, potentially leading to imprecise aHR estimates. The generalizability of findings beyond California requires further investigation, and the ability to examine potential associations between neighborhood socioeconomic status and other factors was also constrained by small sample sizes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health. One study author reported receiving consulting fees from Guardant Health, InterVenn Biosciences, Geneoscopy, and Universal DX; research support from Freenome; and stock options from CellMax outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported by other authors of the study or the commentary.

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

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons, whether symptomatic or in at-risk groups. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons, whether symptomatic or in at-risk groups. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has issued an updated draft recommendation statement advising early screening for syphilis in all pregnant persons, whether symptomatic or in at-risk groups. Those with abnormal screening results should receive “timely, equitable, and evidence-based evaluation and treatment for syphilis,” it advises.

Reaffirming the task force’s 2018 statement, in which an evidence review found the benefits of screening substantially outweighed the harms, the current draft is based on no substantial new data. It is open for public input until December 23.

“Congenital syphilis infection is still an important health problem, and rates are not decreasing as they should,” said USPSTF panel member Carlos R. Jaén, MD, PhD, MS, Dr. and Mrs. James L. Holly Distinguished Chair in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. “Cases are 10 times higher today than they were a decade ago, despite the harmful consequences of syphilis infection in mother and baby and despite it being a preventable and easily treated condition.”

The statement notes that untreated syphilis infection in mothers is associated with miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and neonatal death. Syphilis infection is linked to significant abnormalities in infants such as deformed bones, anemia, enlarged liver and spleen, jaundice, meningitis, and brain and nerve problems resulting in permanent vision or hearing loss.

The USPSTF statement aligns with the recommendations of other healthcare organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which issued a clinical practice advisory on prenatal syphilis screening in April 2024.

This advisory recommends obstetric care providers screen all pregnant individuals serologically for syphilis at the first prenatal care visit, with universal rescreening during the third trimester and at birth rather than targeted risk-based testing.

The advisory notes that two in five infants with congenital syphilis were born to persons who received no prenatal care. It urges making any healthcare encounter during pregnancy — in emergency departments, jails, syringe service programs, and maternal and child health clinics — an opportunity to screen for syphilis.

So far, there is no official guidance on preconception screening for persons planning a pregnancy, according to Allison Bryant Mantha, MD, MPH, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General Brigham health system and an associate professor at Harvard School of Medicine in Boston, Massachusetts, who coauthored the ACOG advisory.

But Lynn M. Yee, MD, MPH, an associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of the Northwestern Medicine Women’s Infectious Disease Program in Chicago, Illinois, said syphilis testing could easily be part of a prepregnancy “bucket” of health checkup items along with other sexually transmitted infections and blood pressure.

 

By the Numbers

In 2022, there were 3761 cases of congenital syphilis in the United States, including 231 stillbirths and 51 infant deaths — the highest number reported in more than 30 years and more than 10 times that reported in 2012.

At play may be social, economic, and immigration status factors creating barriers to prenatal care as well as declines in prevention infrastructure and resources.

Although most syphilis cases occur in men, the increase in incidence rate in women was two to four times higher than that of men from 2017 to 2021.

 

Why Such Persistently High Rates?

Despite a widely available test and cost-effective penicillin treatment covered by most insurance, congenital syphilis remains a challenge. According to Bryant, many mothers are still presenting for care and testing late in pregnancy. “Differential access to care is just one of many reasons,” she said.

Stigma and bias may also play a part, according to Yee. “Some clinicians may think their patient population is not the kind to be at risk and doesn’t need to be screened,” she said. Furthermore, screening is not a one-off test but a two-step process, and serology results can be hard to understand and easy to misinterpret.

In addition, some situations may promote ongoing disease, according to Yee. “Reinfection can occur after treatment if a patient keeps returning to a partner who refuses treatment,” Yee said.

On an optimistic note, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in some areas increases in newborn syphilis cases appear to be slowing — with a 3% increase in 2022 than with a 30% or higher annual increases in previous years. In 2020-2021, for example, congenital cases rose by 32% and resulted in 220 stillbirths and infant deaths.

 

Going Forward

The USPSTF statement identifies knowledge gaps. These include studies to evaluate the benefits and harms of repeat screening later in pregnancy and to evaluate the benefits and harms of such strategies as rapid point-of-care tests. The USPSTF also called for research on disparities in syphilis incidence and screening rates to reduce these disparities in populations.

Within these vulnerable groups, the CDC noted that babies born to Black, Hispanic, or Native American/Alaska Native mothers in 2021 were as much as eight times more likely to have congenital syphilis than those born to their White counterparts.

Jaén, Bryant, and Yee had no competing interests relevant to their comments.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.