Hyperpigmented lesion on palm

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Hyperpigmented lesion on palm

Hyperpigmented lesion on palm

This patient had a posttraumatic tache noir (also known as talon noir on the volar aspect of the feet); it is a subcorneal hematoma. The diagnosis is made clinically. Dermoscopic evaluation of tache/talon noir will reveal “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules.” Confirmation of tache/talon noir can be made by paring the corneum with a #15 blade, which will reveal blood in the shavings and punctate lesions.1

This patient noted that the knob of his baseball bat rubbed the hypothenar eminence of his nondominant hand when he took a swing. The sheer force of the knob led to the subcorneal hematoma. Tache noir was high on the differential due to his physician’s clinical experience with similar cases. Tache noir occurs predominantly in people ages 12 to 24 years, without regard to gender.2 The condition is commonly found in athletes who participate in baseball, cricket, racquet sports, weightlifting, and rock climbing.2-4

Talon noir occurs most commonly in athletes who are frequently jumping, turning, and pivoting, as in football, basketball, tennis, and lacrosse.

Tache noir can be differentiated from other conditions by the presence of preserved architecture of the skin surface and punctate capillaries beneath the stratum corneum. The differential diagnosis includes verruca vulgaris, acral melanoma, and a traumatic tattoo.

Talon/tache noir are benign conditions that do not require treatment and do not affect sports performance. The lesion will usually self-resolve within a matter of weeks from onset or can even be gently scraped with a sterile needle or blade.

This patient was advised that the lesion would resolve on its own. His knee pain was determined to be a simple case of patellofemoral syndrome or “runner’s knee” and he opted to complete a home exercise program to obtain relief.

This case was adapted from: Warden D. Hyperpigmented lesion on left palm. J Fam Pract. 2021;70:459-460. Photos courtesy of Daniel Warden, MD

References

1. Googe AB, Schulmeier JS, Jackson AR, et al. Talon noir: paring can eliminate the need for biopsy. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:730-731. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-132996

2. Burkhart C, Nguyen N. Talon noire. Dermatology Advisor. Accessed October 19, 2021. www.dermatologyadvisor.com/home/decision-support-in-medicine/dermatology/talon-noire-black-heel-calcaneal-petechiae-runners-heel-basketball-heel-tennis-heel-hyperkeratosis-hemorrhagica-pseudochromhidrosis-plantaris-chromidrose-plantaire-eccrine-intracorne/

3. Talon noir. Primary Care Dermatology Society. Updated August 1, 2021. Accessed October 19, 2021. www.pcds.org.uk/clinical-guidance/talon-noir

4. Birrer RB, Griesemer BA, Cataletto MB, eds. Pediatric Sports Medicine for Primary Care. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(7)
Publications
Topics
Sections

Hyperpigmented lesion on palm

This patient had a posttraumatic tache noir (also known as talon noir on the volar aspect of the feet); it is a subcorneal hematoma. The diagnosis is made clinically. Dermoscopic evaluation of tache/talon noir will reveal “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules.” Confirmation of tache/talon noir can be made by paring the corneum with a #15 blade, which will reveal blood in the shavings and punctate lesions.1

This patient noted that the knob of his baseball bat rubbed the hypothenar eminence of his nondominant hand when he took a swing. The sheer force of the knob led to the subcorneal hematoma. Tache noir was high on the differential due to his physician’s clinical experience with similar cases. Tache noir occurs predominantly in people ages 12 to 24 years, without regard to gender.2 The condition is commonly found in athletes who participate in baseball, cricket, racquet sports, weightlifting, and rock climbing.2-4

Talon noir occurs most commonly in athletes who are frequently jumping, turning, and pivoting, as in football, basketball, tennis, and lacrosse.

Tache noir can be differentiated from other conditions by the presence of preserved architecture of the skin surface and punctate capillaries beneath the stratum corneum. The differential diagnosis includes verruca vulgaris, acral melanoma, and a traumatic tattoo.

Talon/tache noir are benign conditions that do not require treatment and do not affect sports performance. The lesion will usually self-resolve within a matter of weeks from onset or can even be gently scraped with a sterile needle or blade.

This patient was advised that the lesion would resolve on its own. His knee pain was determined to be a simple case of patellofemoral syndrome or “runner’s knee” and he opted to complete a home exercise program to obtain relief.

This case was adapted from: Warden D. Hyperpigmented lesion on left palm. J Fam Pract. 2021;70:459-460. Photos courtesy of Daniel Warden, MD

Hyperpigmented lesion on palm

This patient had a posttraumatic tache noir (also known as talon noir on the volar aspect of the feet); it is a subcorneal hematoma. The diagnosis is made clinically. Dermoscopic evaluation of tache/talon noir will reveal “pebbles on a ridge” or “satellite globules.” Confirmation of tache/talon noir can be made by paring the corneum with a #15 blade, which will reveal blood in the shavings and punctate lesions.1

This patient noted that the knob of his baseball bat rubbed the hypothenar eminence of his nondominant hand when he took a swing. The sheer force of the knob led to the subcorneal hematoma. Tache noir was high on the differential due to his physician’s clinical experience with similar cases. Tache noir occurs predominantly in people ages 12 to 24 years, without regard to gender.2 The condition is commonly found in athletes who participate in baseball, cricket, racquet sports, weightlifting, and rock climbing.2-4

Talon noir occurs most commonly in athletes who are frequently jumping, turning, and pivoting, as in football, basketball, tennis, and lacrosse.

Tache noir can be differentiated from other conditions by the presence of preserved architecture of the skin surface and punctate capillaries beneath the stratum corneum. The differential diagnosis includes verruca vulgaris, acral melanoma, and a traumatic tattoo.

Talon/tache noir are benign conditions that do not require treatment and do not affect sports performance. The lesion will usually self-resolve within a matter of weeks from onset or can even be gently scraped with a sterile needle or blade.

This patient was advised that the lesion would resolve on its own. His knee pain was determined to be a simple case of patellofemoral syndrome or “runner’s knee” and he opted to complete a home exercise program to obtain relief.

This case was adapted from: Warden D. Hyperpigmented lesion on left palm. J Fam Pract. 2021;70:459-460. Photos courtesy of Daniel Warden, MD

References

1. Googe AB, Schulmeier JS, Jackson AR, et al. Talon noir: paring can eliminate the need for biopsy. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:730-731. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-132996

2. Burkhart C, Nguyen N. Talon noire. Dermatology Advisor. Accessed October 19, 2021. www.dermatologyadvisor.com/home/decision-support-in-medicine/dermatology/talon-noire-black-heel-calcaneal-petechiae-runners-heel-basketball-heel-tennis-heel-hyperkeratosis-hemorrhagica-pseudochromhidrosis-plantaris-chromidrose-plantaire-eccrine-intracorne/

3. Talon noir. Primary Care Dermatology Society. Updated August 1, 2021. Accessed October 19, 2021. www.pcds.org.uk/clinical-guidance/talon-noir

4. Birrer RB, Griesemer BA, Cataletto MB, eds. Pediatric Sports Medicine for Primary Care. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.

References

1. Googe AB, Schulmeier JS, Jackson AR, et al. Talon noir: paring can eliminate the need for biopsy. Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:730-731. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2014-132996

2. Burkhart C, Nguyen N. Talon noire. Dermatology Advisor. Accessed October 19, 2021. www.dermatologyadvisor.com/home/decision-support-in-medicine/dermatology/talon-noire-black-heel-calcaneal-petechiae-runners-heel-basketball-heel-tennis-heel-hyperkeratosis-hemorrhagica-pseudochromhidrosis-plantaris-chromidrose-plantaire-eccrine-intracorne/

3. Talon noir. Primary Care Dermatology Society. Updated August 1, 2021. Accessed October 19, 2021. www.pcds.org.uk/clinical-guidance/talon-noir

4. Birrer RB, Griesemer BA, Cataletto MB, eds. Pediatric Sports Medicine for Primary Care. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.

Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(7)
Issue
The Journal of Family Practice - 72(7)
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Hyperpigmented lesion on palm
Display Headline
Hyperpigmented lesion on palm
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts
References
  1. Karliner J et al. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(suppl 5):v311. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.843
  2. Vaccari M et al. Waste Manag Res. 2018;36(1):39-47. doi:10.1177/0734242X17739968
  3. Peery AF et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254-272.e11. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063
  4. Sorge A et al. Endoscopy. 2023;55(suppl 2):S72-S73. https://www.esge.com/assets/downloads/pdfs/guidelines/ESGE_Days_2023.pdf
  5. Maurice JB et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(7):636-638. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30157-6
  6. Gayam S. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(12):1931-1932. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001005
  7. Siau K et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(4):344-352. doi:10.1016/j.tige.2021.06.005
  8. Namburar S et al. Gut. 2022;71(7):1326-1331. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324729
  9. Haddock R et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(3):394-400. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001604
  10. Donnelly MC et al. J Hepatol. 2022;76(5):995-1000. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.01
  11. Leddin D, Macrae F. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020;54(5):393-397. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001336
  12. Pohl H et al. Hepatology. 2022;76(6):1836-1844. doi:10.1002/hep.32810
  13. Rodríguez de Santiago E et al. Endoscopy. 2022;54(8):797-826. doi:10.1055/a-1859-3726
  14. Sebastian S et al. Gut. 2023;72(1):12-26. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328460
  15. Cunha Neves JA et al. Gut. 2023;72(2):306-313. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327005
  16. Kaplan S et al. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012;29:1-14. PMID:23214181
  17. López-Muñoz P et al. Gut. 2023;gutjnl-2023-329544. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329544
Author and Disclosure Information

Associate Professor
Department of Medicine
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Associate Professor
Department of Medicine
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV

Author and Disclosure Information

Associate Professor
Department of Medicine
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV

References
  1. Karliner J et al. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(suppl 5):v311. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.843
  2. Vaccari M et al. Waste Manag Res. 2018;36(1):39-47. doi:10.1177/0734242X17739968
  3. Peery AF et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254-272.e11. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063
  4. Sorge A et al. Endoscopy. 2023;55(suppl 2):S72-S73. https://www.esge.com/assets/downloads/pdfs/guidelines/ESGE_Days_2023.pdf
  5. Maurice JB et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(7):636-638. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30157-6
  6. Gayam S. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(12):1931-1932. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001005
  7. Siau K et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(4):344-352. doi:10.1016/j.tige.2021.06.005
  8. Namburar S et al. Gut. 2022;71(7):1326-1331. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324729
  9. Haddock R et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(3):394-400. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001604
  10. Donnelly MC et al. J Hepatol. 2022;76(5):995-1000. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.01
  11. Leddin D, Macrae F. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020;54(5):393-397. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001336
  12. Pohl H et al. Hepatology. 2022;76(6):1836-1844. doi:10.1002/hep.32810
  13. Rodríguez de Santiago E et al. Endoscopy. 2022;54(8):797-826. doi:10.1055/a-1859-3726
  14. Sebastian S et al. Gut. 2023;72(1):12-26. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328460
  15. Cunha Neves JA et al. Gut. 2023;72(2):306-313. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327005
  16. Kaplan S et al. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012;29:1-14. PMID:23214181
  17. López-Muñoz P et al. Gut. 2023;gutjnl-2023-329544. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329544
References
  1. Karliner J et al. Eur J Public Health. 2020;30(suppl 5):v311. doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.843
  2. Vaccari M et al. Waste Manag Res. 2018;36(1):39-47. doi:10.1177/0734242X17739968
  3. Peery AF et al. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254-272.e11. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2018.08.063
  4. Sorge A et al. Endoscopy. 2023;55(suppl 2):S72-S73. https://www.esge.com/assets/downloads/pdfs/guidelines/ESGE_Days_2023.pdf
  5. Maurice JB et al. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5(7):636-638. doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30157-6
  6. Gayam S. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(12):1931-1932. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001005
  7. Siau K et al. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;23(4):344-352. doi:10.1016/j.tige.2021.06.005
  8. Namburar S et al. Gut. 2022;71(7):1326-1331. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324729
  9. Haddock R et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(3):394-400. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001604
  10. Donnelly MC et al. J Hepatol. 2022;76(5):995-1000. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2022.02.01
  11. Leddin D, Macrae F. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2020;54(5):393-397. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001336
  12. Pohl H et al. Hepatology. 2022;76(6):1836-1844. doi:10.1002/hep.32810
  13. Rodríguez de Santiago E et al. Endoscopy. 2022;54(8):797-826. doi:10.1055/a-1859-3726
  14. Sebastian S et al. Gut. 2023;72(1):12-26. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2022-328460
  15. Cunha Neves JA et al. Gut. 2023;72(2):306-313. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327005
  16. Kaplan S et al. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012;29:1-14. PMID:23214181
  17. López-Muñoz P et al. Gut. 2023;gutjnl-2023-329544. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2023-329544
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts
Display Headline
Gastroenterology and Climate Change: Assessing and Mitigating Impacts
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Slideshow
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
Do not render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article Slideshow Optional Introduction

Slideshow below. 

The health care industry, particularly in the United States, is a large contributor to climate change, with the field of GI being one of the top contributors to overall and hazardous waste emissions.1,2 One of the most important components of the carbon footprint of GI is the sheer volume of procedures performed. More than 18 million endoscopic procedures are performed each year in the US alone, and a significant portion are of low-value.3,4 Every endoscopic procedure uses substantial resources, including single-use consumables, water (including sterile water bottles), electricity, paper, and personal protective equipment (PPE), among others.5-7 Within the field of endoscopy, disposable endoscopes are an important area of concern; a complete switch to disposables could increase waste by up to 40%.8 Along with the impact of GI on climate change, there is also a bidirectional effect—climate change affects GI and liver health, worsening symptoms for many.9-11

To combat the contribution of GI to climate change, a GI multisociety task force was formed comprising members from 4 major US societies, including the AGA.12 A strategic plan was proposed to decrease the carbon footprint of GI, similar to a plan proposed by European and British societies.13,14 Multiple recent studies have shown positive effects of interventions such as waste segregation in reducing overall endoscopic waste and increasing recycled waste.15 Such measures also have been shown to have financial benefits, with estimated cost savings of around $5.4 billion dollars in 5 years.16

Slide
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Slide Media

Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls
References
  1. Jin Z et al. BioMed Eng OnLine. 2022;21(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12938-022-00979-
  2. Buendgens L, Cifci D, Ghaffari Laleh N, et al. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4829. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08773-1
  3. Uche-Anya EN, Berzin TM. Artificial intelligence applications in colonoscopy. GI & Hepatology News. January 24, 2023. https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/260769/mixed-topics/artificial-intelligence-applications-colonoscopy
  4. Rondonotti E et al. Endoscopy. 2023;55(1):14-22. doi:10.1055/a-1852-0330
  5. Antonelli G et al. Ann Gastroenterol. 2023;36(2):114-122. doi:10.20524/aog.2023.0781
  6. van der Zander QEW et al. Endoscopy. 2021;53(12):1219-1226. doi:10.1055/a-1343-159
  7. Areia PM et al. Lancet Digital Health. 2022;4(6):e436-e444. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5
  8. Sumiyama K et al. Dig Endosc. 2021;33(2):218-230. doi:10.1111/den.13837
  9. Berzin TM et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(4):951-959. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.035
  10. Mori Y et al. Dig Endosc. 2023;35(4):422-429. doi:10.1111/den.14531
  11. Uche-Anya E et al. Gut. 2022;71(9):1909-1915. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326271
  12. Moor M et al. Nature. 2023;616(7956):259-265. 10.1038/s41586-023-05881-4
  13. Kather JN et al. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):90. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00634-5
Author and Disclosure Information

Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA

Author and Disclosure Information

Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA

References
  1. Jin Z et al. BioMed Eng OnLine. 2022;21(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12938-022-00979-
  2. Buendgens L, Cifci D, Ghaffari Laleh N, et al. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4829. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08773-1
  3. Uche-Anya EN, Berzin TM. Artificial intelligence applications in colonoscopy. GI & Hepatology News. January 24, 2023. https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/260769/mixed-topics/artificial-intelligence-applications-colonoscopy
  4. Rondonotti E et al. Endoscopy. 2023;55(1):14-22. doi:10.1055/a-1852-0330
  5. Antonelli G et al. Ann Gastroenterol. 2023;36(2):114-122. doi:10.20524/aog.2023.0781
  6. van der Zander QEW et al. Endoscopy. 2021;53(12):1219-1226. doi:10.1055/a-1343-159
  7. Areia PM et al. Lancet Digital Health. 2022;4(6):e436-e444. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5
  8. Sumiyama K et al. Dig Endosc. 2021;33(2):218-230. doi:10.1111/den.13837
  9. Berzin TM et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(4):951-959. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.035
  10. Mori Y et al. Dig Endosc. 2023;35(4):422-429. doi:10.1111/den.14531
  11. Uche-Anya E et al. Gut. 2022;71(9):1909-1915. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326271
  12. Moor M et al. Nature. 2023;616(7956):259-265. 10.1038/s41586-023-05881-4
  13. Kather JN et al. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):90. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00634-5
References
  1. Jin Z et al. BioMed Eng OnLine. 2022;21(1):12. doi:10.1186/s12938-022-00979-
  2. Buendgens L, Cifci D, Ghaffari Laleh N, et al. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4829. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-08773-1
  3. Uche-Anya EN, Berzin TM. Artificial intelligence applications in colonoscopy. GI & Hepatology News. January 24, 2023. https://www.mdedge.com/gihepnews/article/260769/mixed-topics/artificial-intelligence-applications-colonoscopy
  4. Rondonotti E et al. Endoscopy. 2023;55(1):14-22. doi:10.1055/a-1852-0330
  5. Antonelli G et al. Ann Gastroenterol. 2023;36(2):114-122. doi:10.20524/aog.2023.0781
  6. van der Zander QEW et al. Endoscopy. 2021;53(12):1219-1226. doi:10.1055/a-1343-159
  7. Areia PM et al. Lancet Digital Health. 2022;4(6):e436-e444. doi:10.1016/S2589-7500(22)00042-5
  8. Sumiyama K et al. Dig Endosc. 2021;33(2):218-230. doi:10.1111/den.13837
  9. Berzin TM et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;92(4):951-959. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.035
  10. Mori Y et al. Dig Endosc. 2023;35(4):422-429. doi:10.1111/den.14531
  11. Uche-Anya E et al. Gut. 2022;71(9):1909-1915. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326271
  12. Moor M et al. Nature. 2023;616(7956):259-265. 10.1038/s41586-023-05881-4
  13. Kather JN et al. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):90. doi:10.1038/s41746-022-00634-5
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls
Display Headline
Harnessing the Power of AI to Enhance Endoscopy: Promises and Pitfalls
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Slideshow
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
Do not render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article Slideshow Optional Introduction

Slideshow below. 

The availability of AI technologies to improve the overall quality of GI endoscopy has grown significantly over the last decade.1 AI algorithms have shown promise in detecting malignant, infectious, and inflammatory diseases in both upper and lower GI endoscopy imaging.2 Most AI research in endoscopy is currently focused on computer-aided detection (CADe) and diagnosis (CADx), but other computer vision tools are also in development, ranging from algorithms to measure IBD activity to dysplasia detection in Barrett's esophagus.2,3 

Improved lesion detection and classification with AI can support clinical decision-making and lead to better patient outcomes, cost savings, clinician time management, and other efficiencies within the health care system.2-7 However, some substantial barriers must be overcome and current projections must be validated with clinical and real-world trials before we can fully rely on AI in these settings.8-11

Slide
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Slide Media

Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile
References
  1. Di Bella S et al. Toxins (Basel). 2016;8(5):134. doi:10.3390/toxins8050134
  2. Turner NA, Anderson DJ. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020;33(2):98-108. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1701234
  3. Czepiel J et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38(7):1211-1221. doi:10.1007/s10096-019-03539-6
  4. Sekirov I et al. Gut microbiota in health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2012;90(3):859-904. doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2009
  5. Posteraro B et al. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2018;18(4):469-476. doi:10.1080/14712598.2018.1452908
  6. Khanna S. J Intern Med. 2021;290(2):294-309. doi:10.1111/joim.13290
  7. Seekatz AM et al . Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2022;15:17562848221134396. doi:10.1177/17562848221134396
  8. Federal Drug Administration. FDA approves first fecal microbiota product: Rebyota approved for the prevention of recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults [press release]. Published November 30, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-fecal-microbiota-product
  9. Bafeta A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(1):34-39. doi:10.7326/M16-2810
  10. Guh AY et al; Emerging Infections Program Clostridioides difficile Infection Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(14):1320-1330. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910215
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What is C. diff? Last reviewed September 7, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/cdiff/what-is.html
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients and families: be antibiotics aware. C. diff infection—Am I at risk? Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/cdiff/pdf/FS-Cdiff-PatientsFamilies-508.pdf
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 annual report for the emerging infections program for Clostridioides difficile infection. Last reviewed February 1, 2023. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/Annual-CDI-Report-2019.html
  14. Kelly CR et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(6):1124-1147. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001278
  15. Tariq R et al. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021;14:1756284821994046. doi:10.1177/1756284821994046
  16. McDonald LC et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):e1-e48. doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085
  17. Wilcox MH et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):305-317. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602615
  18. Guilleman MM et al. Gene Ther. 2023;30:455-462. doi:10.1038/s41434-021-00236-y
  19. Sims MD et al; ECOSPOR IV Investigators. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2255758. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55758
  20. Microbiota Restoration Therapy for Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection (PUNCHCD2). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02299570. Updated January 2021. Accessed August 2023. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02299570
  21. Khanna S et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1613-e1620. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1430
Author and Disclosure Information

Professor of Medicine
Chair GI Hospital Practice
Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency Program
Medical Director Desk and Secretarial Operations
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota

Publications
Author and Disclosure Information

Professor of Medicine
Chair GI Hospital Practice
Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency Program
Medical Director Desk and Secretarial Operations
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota

Author and Disclosure Information

Professor of Medicine
Chair GI Hospital Practice
Associate Program Director, Internal Medicine Residency Program
Medical Director Desk and Secretarial Operations
Mayo Clinic
Rochester, Minnesota

References
  1. Di Bella S et al. Toxins (Basel). 2016;8(5):134. doi:10.3390/toxins8050134
  2. Turner NA, Anderson DJ. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020;33(2):98-108. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1701234
  3. Czepiel J et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38(7):1211-1221. doi:10.1007/s10096-019-03539-6
  4. Sekirov I et al. Gut microbiota in health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2012;90(3):859-904. doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2009
  5. Posteraro B et al. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2018;18(4):469-476. doi:10.1080/14712598.2018.1452908
  6. Khanna S. J Intern Med. 2021;290(2):294-309. doi:10.1111/joim.13290
  7. Seekatz AM et al . Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2022;15:17562848221134396. doi:10.1177/17562848221134396
  8. Federal Drug Administration. FDA approves first fecal microbiota product: Rebyota approved for the prevention of recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults [press release]. Published November 30, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-fecal-microbiota-product
  9. Bafeta A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(1):34-39. doi:10.7326/M16-2810
  10. Guh AY et al; Emerging Infections Program Clostridioides difficile Infection Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(14):1320-1330. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910215
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What is C. diff? Last reviewed September 7, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/cdiff/what-is.html
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients and families: be antibiotics aware. C. diff infection—Am I at risk? Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/cdiff/pdf/FS-Cdiff-PatientsFamilies-508.pdf
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 annual report for the emerging infections program for Clostridioides difficile infection. Last reviewed February 1, 2023. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/Annual-CDI-Report-2019.html
  14. Kelly CR et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(6):1124-1147. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001278
  15. Tariq R et al. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021;14:1756284821994046. doi:10.1177/1756284821994046
  16. McDonald LC et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):e1-e48. doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085
  17. Wilcox MH et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):305-317. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602615
  18. Guilleman MM et al. Gene Ther. 2023;30:455-462. doi:10.1038/s41434-021-00236-y
  19. Sims MD et al; ECOSPOR IV Investigators. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2255758. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55758
  20. Microbiota Restoration Therapy for Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection (PUNCHCD2). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02299570. Updated January 2021. Accessed August 2023. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02299570
  21. Khanna S et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1613-e1620. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1430
References
  1. Di Bella S et al. Toxins (Basel). 2016;8(5):134. doi:10.3390/toxins8050134
  2. Turner NA, Anderson DJ. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2020;33(2):98-108. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1701234
  3. Czepiel J et al. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2019;38(7):1211-1221. doi:10.1007/s10096-019-03539-6
  4. Sekirov I et al. Gut microbiota in health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2012;90(3):859-904. doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2009
  5. Posteraro B et al. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2018;18(4):469-476. doi:10.1080/14712598.2018.1452908
  6. Khanna S. J Intern Med. 2021;290(2):294-309. doi:10.1111/joim.13290
  7. Seekatz AM et al . Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2022;15:17562848221134396. doi:10.1177/17562848221134396
  8. Federal Drug Administration. FDA approves first fecal microbiota product: Rebyota approved for the prevention of recurrence of Clostridioides difficile infection in adults [press release]. Published November 30, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-fecal-microbiota-product
  9. Bafeta A et al. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(1):34-39. doi:10.7326/M16-2810
  10. Guh AY et al; Emerging Infections Program Clostridioides difficile Infection Working Group. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(14):1320-1330. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1910215
  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What is C. diff? Last reviewed September 7, 2022. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/cdiff/what-is.html
  12. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Patients and families: be antibiotics aware. C. diff infection—Am I at risk? Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/cdiff/pdf/FS-Cdiff-PatientsFamilies-508.pdf
  13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 annual report for the emerging infections program for Clostridioides difficile infection. Last reviewed February 1, 2023. Accessed July 14, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/Annual-CDI-Report-2019.html
  14. Kelly CR et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(6):1124-1147. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001278
  15. Tariq R et al. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021;14:1756284821994046. doi:10.1177/1756284821994046
  16. McDonald LC et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(7):e1-e48. doi:10.1093/cid/cix1085
  17. Wilcox MH et al. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(4):305-317. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1602615
  18. Guilleman MM et al. Gene Ther. 2023;30:455-462. doi:10.1038/s41434-021-00236-y
  19. Sims MD et al; ECOSPOR IV Investigators. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(2):e2255758. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.55758
  20. Microbiota Restoration Therapy for Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection (PUNCHCD2). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02299570. Updated January 2021. Accessed August 2023. https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02299570
  21. Khanna S et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;73(7):e1613-e1620. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1430
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile
Display Headline
Evolution of Targeted Therapies for C difficile
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Slideshow
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
Do not render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article Slideshow Optional Introduction

Slideshow below. 

Clostridioides difficile (C difficile) is a gram-positive anaerobic bacillus that produces toxins (enterotoxin A [TcdA] and cytotoxin B [TcdB]) that can damage the lining of the gastrointestinal tract and cause potentially life-threatening disease of the large intestine.1 C difficile infection (CDI) is not only a common nosocomial infection, but an increasing incidence is seen in the community with a high disease burden, as reinfection often occurs.C difficile is very contagious and spreads easily via contaminated surfaces that act as reservoirs (especially in healthcare settings); the spores of this bacterium are very hard to kill.3

CDI often occurs either while the patient is taking antibiotics or soon after finishing them, as the intestinal (gut) microbiome and metabolism are altered, which allows for C difficile to proliferate.4 People with a compromised immune system or other comorbid conditions, or who are older than 65 years of age, are especially prone to CDI.1

Antibiotics are the first-line treatment for primary and recurrent CDI (rCDI), although they do not always kill the spores,3 and the dysbiosis caused by antibiotics within the gut environment still needs to be addressed.4 A humanized monoclonal antibody (an immunoglobulin G against the cytotoxin B), in combination with antibiotics, has been shown to help prevent rCDI in a subset of patients.5

Therapies that help restore the gut microbiota to a eubiotic state, especially after antibiotic treatment for C difficile, have been shown to help manage and prevent future rCDI. Experimental fecal microbiota transplantatio (FMT) performed under enforcement discretion from the FDA is one such microbiota restoration therapy.3 Microbes harvested from healthy donor stool are transplanted into the intestine of a recipient (usually via colonoscopy) to help restore the gut microbiome and prevent CDI.7

Two therapeutics are approved by the FDA for prevention of rCDI. The first one was approved in 2022 and is a rectal administration product derived from human donor stool (fecal microbiota live-jslm [Rebyota]).The other is an oral capsule (fecal microbiota spores live-bprk [Vowst]) containing live spores from fecal microbiota.6 With these exciting advances, we can now begin to address additional unmet needs with future research into microbiota restoration therapies.9

Slide
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Slide Media

Gastroenterology Data Trends 2023

Article Type
Changed

GI&Hepatology News and the American Gastroenterological Association present the 2023 issue of Gastroenterology Data Trends, a special report on hot topics in gastroenterology told through original infographics and visual storytelling.

In this issue:

Publications
Topics
Sections

GI&Hepatology News and the American Gastroenterological Association present the 2023 issue of Gastroenterology Data Trends, a special report on hot topics in gastroenterology told through original infographics and visual storytelling.

In this issue:

GI&Hepatology News and the American Gastroenterological Association present the 2023 issue of Gastroenterology Data Trends, a special report on hot topics in gastroenterology told through original infographics and visual storytelling.

In this issue:

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
Do not render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Gating Strategy
No Gating
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
survey writer start date

Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing

Article Type
Changed
Display Headline
Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing
References
  1. Weiss JM et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(10):1122-1132. doi:10.1164/jnccn.2021.0048
  2. Samadder NJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(2):230-237. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6252
  3. Pearlman R et al; Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative Study Group. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(4):464-471. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5194
  4. Stoffel EM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):897-905.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.11.004
  5. Stoffel EM, Murphy CC. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(2):341-353. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.055
  6. Cavestro GM et al; Associazione Italiana Familiarità Ereditarietà Tumori; Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer; European Hereditary Tumour Group, and the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(3):581-603.e33. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.006
  7. Gupta S et al. Cancer. 2020;126(13):3013-3020. doi:10.1002/cncr.32851
  8. Stanich PP et al. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(5):1850-1852. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.009
  9. Rustgi S et al. Universal screening strategies for the identification of Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients and at-risk relatives. Research forum lecture #263 presented at: Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2023; May 6-9, 2023; Chicago, IL.
  10. Tier 1 genomic applications and their importance to public health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reviewed March 6, 2014. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/implementation/toolkit/tier1.htm
  11. Win AK et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(3):404-412. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0693
  12. Yurgelun MB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1086-1095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0012
  13. Pearlman R et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5:PO.20.00525. doi:10.1200/PO.20.00525
  14. Patel R, Hyer W. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019;10(4):379-387. doi:10.1136/flgastro-2018-101053
Author and Disclosure Information

Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases
Director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Program
Director, Muzzi Mirza Pancreatic Cancer
Prevention and Genetics Program
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York Presbyterian Hospital
New York, NY

Publications
Topics
Author and Disclosure Information

Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases
Director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Program
Director, Muzzi Mirza Pancreatic Cancer
Prevention and Genetics Program
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York Presbyterian Hospital
New York, NY

Author and Disclosure Information

Associate Professor of Medicine
Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases
Director, Gastrointestinal Cancer Risk and Prevention Program
Director, Muzzi Mirza Pancreatic Cancer
Prevention and Genetics Program
Columbia University Irving Medical Center
New York Presbyterian Hospital
New York, NY

References
  1. Weiss JM et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(10):1122-1132. doi:10.1164/jnccn.2021.0048
  2. Samadder NJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(2):230-237. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6252
  3. Pearlman R et al; Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative Study Group. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(4):464-471. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5194
  4. Stoffel EM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):897-905.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.11.004
  5. Stoffel EM, Murphy CC. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(2):341-353. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.055
  6. Cavestro GM et al; Associazione Italiana Familiarità Ereditarietà Tumori; Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer; European Hereditary Tumour Group, and the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(3):581-603.e33. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.006
  7. Gupta S et al. Cancer. 2020;126(13):3013-3020. doi:10.1002/cncr.32851
  8. Stanich PP et al. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(5):1850-1852. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.009
  9. Rustgi S et al. Universal screening strategies for the identification of Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients and at-risk relatives. Research forum lecture #263 presented at: Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2023; May 6-9, 2023; Chicago, IL.
  10. Tier 1 genomic applications and their importance to public health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reviewed March 6, 2014. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/implementation/toolkit/tier1.htm
  11. Win AK et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(3):404-412. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0693
  12. Yurgelun MB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1086-1095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0012
  13. Pearlman R et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5:PO.20.00525. doi:10.1200/PO.20.00525
  14. Patel R, Hyer W. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019;10(4):379-387. doi:10.1136/flgastro-2018-101053
References
  1. Weiss JM et al. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(10):1122-1132. doi:10.1164/jnccn.2021.0048
  2. Samadder NJ et al. JAMA Oncol. 2021;7(2):230-237. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.6252
  3. Pearlman R et al; Ohio Colorectal Cancer Prevention Initiative Study Group. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(4):464-471. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5194
  4. Stoffel EM et al. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(4):897-905.e1. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.11.004
  5. Stoffel EM, Murphy CC. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(2):341-353. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.055
  6. Cavestro GM et al; Associazione Italiana Familiarità Ereditarietà Tumori; Collaborative Group of the Americas on Inherited Gastrointestinal Cancer; European Hereditary Tumour Group, and the International Society for Gastrointestinal Hereditary Tumours. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023;21(3):581-603.e33. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.12.006
  7. Gupta S et al. Cancer. 2020;126(13):3013-3020. doi:10.1002/cncr.32851
  8. Stanich PP et al. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(5):1850-1852. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.12.009
  9. Rustgi S et al. Universal screening strategies for the identification of Lynch syndrome in colorectal cancer patients and at-risk relatives. Research forum lecture #263 presented at: Digestive Disease Week (DDW) 2023; May 6-9, 2023; Chicago, IL.
  10. Tier 1 genomic applications and their importance to public health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reviewed March 6, 2014. Accessed August 15, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/genomics/implementation/toolkit/tier1.htm
  11. Win AK et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017;26(3):404-412. doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0693
  12. Yurgelun MB et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(10):1086-1095. doi:10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0012
  13. Pearlman R et al. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5:PO.20.00525. doi:10.1200/PO.20.00525
  14. Patel R, Hyer W. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2019;10(4):379-387. doi:10.1136/flgastro-2018-101053
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing
Display Headline
Germline Genetic Testing in CRC: Implications for Familial and Population-Based Testing
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Eyebrow Default
Slideshow
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
Do not render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Article Slideshow Optional Introduction

Slideshow below. 

Scientific advances in DNA sequencing technologies have allowed for the simultaneous testing of multiple genes associated with an inherited susceptibility of CRC. As a result, CRC screening and treatment protocols have been affected by results from germline multigene panel testing,1,2 including but not limited to Lynch syndrome (LS), the most common inherited CRC syndrome, which is associated with mismatch repair deficiency and tumor microsatellite instability.3

A demographic of concern for which systematic genetic risk assessment is recommended is the early-onset (EO) population—people diagnosed with CRC before age 50 years. More than 15% of EO-CRC cases are due to pathogenic variants in cancer susceptibility genes3,4 irrespective of family cancer history, most of which are LS–related and most frequently detected as age at CRC diagnosis decreases.5 Thus, multiple international guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EO-CRC undergo germline genetic testing6; these results have implications for at-risk relatives, particularly when a familial pathogenic variant is detected and specialized cancer screening or risk-reducing strategies can be pursued in family members, many of whom are cancer-free. The alarming increase in EO-CRC rates has led to a focus on the assessment of familial and inherited CRC risk to optimize screening recommendations among the general population.7,8

Furthermore, universal germline testing of all individuals with CRC is cost-effective and provides optimal surveillance for cancer survivors while also increasing the pool of at-risk, cancer-free relatives who benefi most from cancer screening and prevention protocols.In fact, indications for universal germline testing for relatives of individuals with CRC to personalize screening recommendations also supports future consideration for population-based germline genetic testing for LS genes, as the prevalence of the condition is 1 in 279 individuals, with more than 1 million individuals in the United States affected but unaware of their diagnosis.10,11

Slide
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Slide Media

AVAHO Shines Spotlight on Health Literacy

Article Type
Changed
AVAHO Launches 2023 meeting by putting health equity in the spotlight

At a glance, “health literacy” sounds like it has something specifically to do with the ability to read. Mary Laudon Thomas, MS, CNS, AOCN, a former president of Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, knows better.

“It’s not the same as reading level, and it’s not the same as educational level,” Thomas told Federal Practitioner. “Even educated people can think men can’t get breast cancer or misunderstand how to properly take their medications.”

Instead, health literacy is a broader topic: Do patients understand what’s going on when they get medical care? Can they use the information they get to make informed decisions about their health? Low health literacy is associated with lower use of preventative care of poorer adherence, poorer ability to navigate the health system and contributes to social inequities. In cancer care, low health literacy is associated with lower levels of screening, longer lag times in symptom identification, impairments in risk perception, fewer questions, lower perceived quality of life, and less follow-up.

Thomas and colleagues explored strategies to improve health literacy in cancer care during a half-day session on September 28th, kicking off the AVAHO 2023 annual meeting in Chicago. 

There are countless examples of patients who fail to understand aspects of their care, said Thomas, a retired clinical nurse specialist in hematology at California’s VA Palo Alto Health Care System who now serves as cochair of the AVAHO education committee. A patient may not realize that high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing, for instance, or not understand that they need to go to the radiology department for a computed tomography.

“That’s our problem,” Thomas said. “We’re so fluent in our medical-speak that we forget we’re speaking a foreign language to other people.”

The goal of the AVAHO 2023 workshop is to “help people develop awareness of the scope of the problem and give them tools they can use to simplify how they speak to patients, teach patients and inform patients,” Thomas said.

In the first segment of the program, Angela Kumar, MPH, national program manager for Veterans Health Education and Information, discussed the VA organizational approach to health literacy. She noted that building a health-literate care organization aligns with the VA goal to be a high reliability organization. Veterans who have questions and concerns will need additional information throughout their cancer journey. The role for VA clinicians is to help answer veterans’ questions. “Rather than assume patients know what we are talking about, we have to make sure they understand,” Kumar explained. Institutional support will lead to better health outcomes and patient satisfaction throughout the system. VA is in the process of creating a patient centered learning program, Kumar noted. The program will be open to veterans, their families, caregivers, and provide training for VA health care professionals.

In the workshop’s 2 other sessions Janet Papadakos, PhD, MEd, a scientist at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Education Research, discussed the impact of health literacy on cancer treatment and outcomes and Fatemeh Youssefi, PhD, RN, OCN, director at large and committee member of the Oncology Nursing Society, discussed the roles of health literacy and patient education in empowering patients. Both speakers noted that patients with cancer are undergoing intense emotional stress, which can significantly impact their ability to understanding their treatment. Importantly, Papadakos explained, people can change and improve their health literacy, so clinicians have an opportunity to help influence and improve comprehension for their patient, by taking basic steps shown to improve health literacy.

“We know that in general, people with low health literacy report worse health, and they also have historically have poor outcomes,” Thomas said. Indeed, a 2021 systematic review of 66 papers found that “lower health literacy was associated with greater difficulties understanding and processing cancer related information, poorer quality of life and poorer experience of care.” Just 12% of US adults have proficient health literacy and one-third of adults have difficulty with common health tasks.

Papadakos and Youssefi provided some guidance for better communication with patients. Teach back, for example, is a tool to ensure patients understand topics when discussed. The key, Papadakos explained, is that it is not a test of the patient but rather a test of how well the information was communicated. Youssefi and Papadakos also emphasized the importance of using plain language. Clear and precise words that avoid technical terms avoid miscommunication and confusion. Finally, they urged clinicians to never assume health literacy and to approach all patients using clear language to ensure that they understand and can provide back the content covered.

Thomas said 3 more virtual sessions about health literacy will be offered over the coming year. Organizers will develop the specific topics after engaging in a discussion with attendees at the end of the AVAHO session. Meanwhile, advocates are developing a section of the AVAHO website that will be devoted to health literacy.

The workshop received support from Genentech.

Publications
Topics
Sections
AVAHO Launches 2023 meeting by putting health equity in the spotlight
AVAHO Launches 2023 meeting by putting health equity in the spotlight

At a glance, “health literacy” sounds like it has something specifically to do with the ability to read. Mary Laudon Thomas, MS, CNS, AOCN, a former president of Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, knows better.

“It’s not the same as reading level, and it’s not the same as educational level,” Thomas told Federal Practitioner. “Even educated people can think men can’t get breast cancer or misunderstand how to properly take their medications.”

Instead, health literacy is a broader topic: Do patients understand what’s going on when they get medical care? Can they use the information they get to make informed decisions about their health? Low health literacy is associated with lower use of preventative care of poorer adherence, poorer ability to navigate the health system and contributes to social inequities. In cancer care, low health literacy is associated with lower levels of screening, longer lag times in symptom identification, impairments in risk perception, fewer questions, lower perceived quality of life, and less follow-up.

Thomas and colleagues explored strategies to improve health literacy in cancer care during a half-day session on September 28th, kicking off the AVAHO 2023 annual meeting in Chicago. 

There are countless examples of patients who fail to understand aspects of their care, said Thomas, a retired clinical nurse specialist in hematology at California’s VA Palo Alto Health Care System who now serves as cochair of the AVAHO education committee. A patient may not realize that high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing, for instance, or not understand that they need to go to the radiology department for a computed tomography.

“That’s our problem,” Thomas said. “We’re so fluent in our medical-speak that we forget we’re speaking a foreign language to other people.”

The goal of the AVAHO 2023 workshop is to “help people develop awareness of the scope of the problem and give them tools they can use to simplify how they speak to patients, teach patients and inform patients,” Thomas said.

In the first segment of the program, Angela Kumar, MPH, national program manager for Veterans Health Education and Information, discussed the VA organizational approach to health literacy. She noted that building a health-literate care organization aligns with the VA goal to be a high reliability organization. Veterans who have questions and concerns will need additional information throughout their cancer journey. The role for VA clinicians is to help answer veterans’ questions. “Rather than assume patients know what we are talking about, we have to make sure they understand,” Kumar explained. Institutional support will lead to better health outcomes and patient satisfaction throughout the system. VA is in the process of creating a patient centered learning program, Kumar noted. The program will be open to veterans, their families, caregivers, and provide training for VA health care professionals.

In the workshop’s 2 other sessions Janet Papadakos, PhD, MEd, a scientist at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Education Research, discussed the impact of health literacy on cancer treatment and outcomes and Fatemeh Youssefi, PhD, RN, OCN, director at large and committee member of the Oncology Nursing Society, discussed the roles of health literacy and patient education in empowering patients. Both speakers noted that patients with cancer are undergoing intense emotional stress, which can significantly impact their ability to understanding their treatment. Importantly, Papadakos explained, people can change and improve their health literacy, so clinicians have an opportunity to help influence and improve comprehension for their patient, by taking basic steps shown to improve health literacy.

“We know that in general, people with low health literacy report worse health, and they also have historically have poor outcomes,” Thomas said. Indeed, a 2021 systematic review of 66 papers found that “lower health literacy was associated with greater difficulties understanding and processing cancer related information, poorer quality of life and poorer experience of care.” Just 12% of US adults have proficient health literacy and one-third of adults have difficulty with common health tasks.

Papadakos and Youssefi provided some guidance for better communication with patients. Teach back, for example, is a tool to ensure patients understand topics when discussed. The key, Papadakos explained, is that it is not a test of the patient but rather a test of how well the information was communicated. Youssefi and Papadakos also emphasized the importance of using plain language. Clear and precise words that avoid technical terms avoid miscommunication and confusion. Finally, they urged clinicians to never assume health literacy and to approach all patients using clear language to ensure that they understand and can provide back the content covered.

Thomas said 3 more virtual sessions about health literacy will be offered over the coming year. Organizers will develop the specific topics after engaging in a discussion with attendees at the end of the AVAHO session. Meanwhile, advocates are developing a section of the AVAHO website that will be devoted to health literacy.

The workshop received support from Genentech.

At a glance, “health literacy” sounds like it has something specifically to do with the ability to read. Mary Laudon Thomas, MS, CNS, AOCN, a former president of Association of VA Hematology/Oncology, knows better.

“It’s not the same as reading level, and it’s not the same as educational level,” Thomas told Federal Practitioner. “Even educated people can think men can’t get breast cancer or misunderstand how to properly take their medications.”

Instead, health literacy is a broader topic: Do patients understand what’s going on when they get medical care? Can they use the information they get to make informed decisions about their health? Low health literacy is associated with lower use of preventative care of poorer adherence, poorer ability to navigate the health system and contributes to social inequities. In cancer care, low health literacy is associated with lower levels of screening, longer lag times in symptom identification, impairments in risk perception, fewer questions, lower perceived quality of life, and less follow-up.

Thomas and colleagues explored strategies to improve health literacy in cancer care during a half-day session on September 28th, kicking off the AVAHO 2023 annual meeting in Chicago. 

There are countless examples of patients who fail to understand aspects of their care, said Thomas, a retired clinical nurse specialist in hematology at California’s VA Palo Alto Health Care System who now serves as cochair of the AVAHO education committee. A patient may not realize that high blood pressure and hypertension are the same thing, for instance, or not understand that they need to go to the radiology department for a computed tomography.

“That’s our problem,” Thomas said. “We’re so fluent in our medical-speak that we forget we’re speaking a foreign language to other people.”

The goal of the AVAHO 2023 workshop is to “help people develop awareness of the scope of the problem and give them tools they can use to simplify how they speak to patients, teach patients and inform patients,” Thomas said.

In the first segment of the program, Angela Kumar, MPH, national program manager for Veterans Health Education and Information, discussed the VA organizational approach to health literacy. She noted that building a health-literate care organization aligns with the VA goal to be a high reliability organization. Veterans who have questions and concerns will need additional information throughout their cancer journey. The role for VA clinicians is to help answer veterans’ questions. “Rather than assume patients know what we are talking about, we have to make sure they understand,” Kumar explained. Institutional support will lead to better health outcomes and patient satisfaction throughout the system. VA is in the process of creating a patient centered learning program, Kumar noted. The program will be open to veterans, their families, caregivers, and provide training for VA health care professionals.

In the workshop’s 2 other sessions Janet Papadakos, PhD, MEd, a scientist at the University of Toronto’s Institute for Education Research, discussed the impact of health literacy on cancer treatment and outcomes and Fatemeh Youssefi, PhD, RN, OCN, director at large and committee member of the Oncology Nursing Society, discussed the roles of health literacy and patient education in empowering patients. Both speakers noted that patients with cancer are undergoing intense emotional stress, which can significantly impact their ability to understanding their treatment. Importantly, Papadakos explained, people can change and improve their health literacy, so clinicians have an opportunity to help influence and improve comprehension for their patient, by taking basic steps shown to improve health literacy.

“We know that in general, people with low health literacy report worse health, and they also have historically have poor outcomes,” Thomas said. Indeed, a 2021 systematic review of 66 papers found that “lower health literacy was associated with greater difficulties understanding and processing cancer related information, poorer quality of life and poorer experience of care.” Just 12% of US adults have proficient health literacy and one-third of adults have difficulty with common health tasks.

Papadakos and Youssefi provided some guidance for better communication with patients. Teach back, for example, is a tool to ensure patients understand topics when discussed. The key, Papadakos explained, is that it is not a test of the patient but rather a test of how well the information was communicated. Youssefi and Papadakos also emphasized the importance of using plain language. Clear and precise words that avoid technical terms avoid miscommunication and confusion. Finally, they urged clinicians to never assume health literacy and to approach all patients using clear language to ensure that they understand and can provide back the content covered.

Thomas said 3 more virtual sessions about health literacy will be offered over the coming year. Organizers will develop the specific topics after engaging in a discussion with attendees at the end of the AVAHO session. Meanwhile, advocates are developing a section of the AVAHO website that will be devoted to health literacy.

The workshop received support from Genentech.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Fremanezumab reduces medication overuse in chronic migraine

Article Type
Changed

Key clinical point: Fremanezumab was effective as a preventive treatment in patients with chronic migraine (CM) with or without medication overuse (MO) and showed potential benefits in reducing MO.

Major finding: During a 12-week follow-up period, the administration of monthly and quarterly fremanezumab vs placebo led to significantly reduced average number of monthly headache days of moderate or greater severity in patients with MO (monthly: mean change [∆] −2.0, P = .0012; and quarterly: ∆ −1.8, P = .0042) and without MO (monthly: ∆ −1.6, P = .0437; and quarterly: ∆ −1.5, P = .0441). A greater proportion of patients receiving fremanezumab vs placebo reverted to no MO (P .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of a phase 2b/3 trial included 479 Japanese patients with CM who were randomly assigned to receive monthly fremanezumab (n = 159), quarterly fremanezumab (n = 159), or placebo (n = 161), and of whom 320 patients reported MO.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Several authors declared being full-time employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and N Imai declared ties with various other sources.

Source: Imai N et al. Effects of fremanezumab on medication overuse in Japanese chronic migraine patients: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Ther. 2023 (Sep 11). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00531-3

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Fremanezumab was effective as a preventive treatment in patients with chronic migraine (CM) with or without medication overuse (MO) and showed potential benefits in reducing MO.

Major finding: During a 12-week follow-up period, the administration of monthly and quarterly fremanezumab vs placebo led to significantly reduced average number of monthly headache days of moderate or greater severity in patients with MO (monthly: mean change [∆] −2.0, P = .0012; and quarterly: ∆ −1.8, P = .0042) and without MO (monthly: ∆ −1.6, P = .0437; and quarterly: ∆ −1.5, P = .0441). A greater proportion of patients receiving fremanezumab vs placebo reverted to no MO (P .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of a phase 2b/3 trial included 479 Japanese patients with CM who were randomly assigned to receive monthly fremanezumab (n = 159), quarterly fremanezumab (n = 159), or placebo (n = 161), and of whom 320 patients reported MO.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Several authors declared being full-time employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and N Imai declared ties with various other sources.

Source: Imai N et al. Effects of fremanezumab on medication overuse in Japanese chronic migraine patients: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Ther. 2023 (Sep 11). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00531-3

Key clinical point: Fremanezumab was effective as a preventive treatment in patients with chronic migraine (CM) with or without medication overuse (MO) and showed potential benefits in reducing MO.

Major finding: During a 12-week follow-up period, the administration of monthly and quarterly fremanezumab vs placebo led to significantly reduced average number of monthly headache days of moderate or greater severity in patients with MO (monthly: mean change [∆] −2.0, P = .0012; and quarterly: ∆ −1.8, P = .0042) and without MO (monthly: ∆ −1.6, P = .0437; and quarterly: ∆ −1.5, P = .0441). A greater proportion of patients receiving fremanezumab vs placebo reverted to no MO (P .05).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of a phase 2b/3 trial included 479 Japanese patients with CM who were randomly assigned to receive monthly fremanezumab (n = 159), quarterly fremanezumab (n = 159), or placebo (n = 161), and of whom 320 patients reported MO.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Several authors declared being full-time employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and N Imai declared ties with various other sources.

Source: Imai N et al. Effects of fremanezumab on medication overuse in Japanese chronic migraine patients: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Neurol Ther. 2023 (Sep 11). doi: 10.1007/s40120-023-00531-3

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan: Migraine October, 2023
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Responders to anti-CGRP mAb show improvement in migraine-attack-associated symptoms

Article Type
Changed

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in headache days at 6 months (responders) with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) showed an even greater reduction in the number of days per month with photophobia, phonophobia, and aura ratios.

Major finding: Monthly headache days reduced significantly by 9.4 days/month (P < .001) and 2.2 days/month (P = .004) among responders and non-responders, respectively, with responders having additional significant reductions in photophobia (19.5%; P < .001), phonophobia (12.1%; P = .010), and aura (−25.1%; P = .008) ratios. Higher basal photophobia ratios were predictors of increased response rates between months 3 and 6 (incidence risk ratio 0.928; P = .040).

Study details: This prospective observational study included 158 patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP mAb, of whom 43.7% were responders.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. A Alpuente, E Caronna, M Torres-Ferrús, and P Pozo-Rosich declared receiving honoraria as consultants or speakers from various sources.

Source: Alpuente A et al. Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study. Cephalalgia. 2023;43(8):3331024231177636 (Aug 9). doi: 10.1177/03331024231177636

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in headache days at 6 months (responders) with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) showed an even greater reduction in the number of days per month with photophobia, phonophobia, and aura ratios.

Major finding: Monthly headache days reduced significantly by 9.4 days/month (P < .001) and 2.2 days/month (P = .004) among responders and non-responders, respectively, with responders having additional significant reductions in photophobia (19.5%; P < .001), phonophobia (12.1%; P = .010), and aura (−25.1%; P = .008) ratios. Higher basal photophobia ratios were predictors of increased response rates between months 3 and 6 (incidence risk ratio 0.928; P = .040).

Study details: This prospective observational study included 158 patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP mAb, of whom 43.7% were responders.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. A Alpuente, E Caronna, M Torres-Ferrús, and P Pozo-Rosich declared receiving honoraria as consultants or speakers from various sources.

Source: Alpuente A et al. Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study. Cephalalgia. 2023;43(8):3331024231177636 (Aug 9). doi: 10.1177/03331024231177636

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine who achieved ≥ 50% reduction in headache days at 6 months (responders) with anti-calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAb) showed an even greater reduction in the number of days per month with photophobia, phonophobia, and aura ratios.

Major finding: Monthly headache days reduced significantly by 9.4 days/month (P < .001) and 2.2 days/month (P = .004) among responders and non-responders, respectively, with responders having additional significant reductions in photophobia (19.5%; P < .001), phonophobia (12.1%; P = .010), and aura (−25.1%; P = .008) ratios. Higher basal photophobia ratios were predictors of increased response rates between months 3 and 6 (incidence risk ratio 0.928; P = .040).

Study details: This prospective observational study included 158 patients with migraine treated with anti-CGRP mAb, of whom 43.7% were responders.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. A Alpuente, E Caronna, M Torres-Ferrús, and P Pozo-Rosich declared receiving honoraria as consultants or speakers from various sources.

Source: Alpuente A et al. Impact of anti-CGRP monoclonal antibodies on migraine attack accompanying symptoms: A real-world evidence study. Cephalalgia. 2023;43(8):3331024231177636 (Aug 9). doi: 10.1177/03331024231177636

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan: Migraine October, 2023
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article

Migraine history and COVID-19 risk in older women: Is there a link?

Article Type
Changed

Key clinical point: No appreciable association was observed between a history of migraine or its subtypes and an increase in the risk for COVID-19, including hospitalization for COVID-19, in older women.

Major finding: No significant association was observed between a history of migraine and the risk of developing COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% CI 0.95-1.22) or being hospitalized for COVID-19 (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.86-1.68) among older women. Similarly, other migraine statuses, including migraine with aura, showed no association with the risk for COVID-19.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 16,492 women (age 45 years) enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, of whom 28.9% had a history of migraine and 7.7% reported positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, a diagnosis of COVID-19, or hospitalization for COVID-19.

Disclosures: The Women’s Health Study was funded by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. T Kurth declared receiving research grants and personal compensation from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rist PM et al. History of migraine and risk of COVID-19: A cohort study. Am J Med. 2023 (Aug 18). doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.07.021

Publications
Topics
Sections

Key clinical point: No appreciable association was observed between a history of migraine or its subtypes and an increase in the risk for COVID-19, including hospitalization for COVID-19, in older women.

Major finding: No significant association was observed between a history of migraine and the risk of developing COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% CI 0.95-1.22) or being hospitalized for COVID-19 (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.86-1.68) among older women. Similarly, other migraine statuses, including migraine with aura, showed no association with the risk for COVID-19.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 16,492 women (age 45 years) enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, of whom 28.9% had a history of migraine and 7.7% reported positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, a diagnosis of COVID-19, or hospitalization for COVID-19.

Disclosures: The Women’s Health Study was funded by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. T Kurth declared receiving research grants and personal compensation from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rist PM et al. History of migraine and risk of COVID-19: A cohort study. Am J Med. 2023 (Aug 18). doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.07.021

Key clinical point: No appreciable association was observed between a history of migraine or its subtypes and an increase in the risk for COVID-19, including hospitalization for COVID-19, in older women.

Major finding: No significant association was observed between a history of migraine and the risk of developing COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% CI 0.95-1.22) or being hospitalized for COVID-19 (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.86-1.68) among older women. Similarly, other migraine statuses, including migraine with aura, showed no association with the risk for COVID-19.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 16,492 women (age 45 years) enrolled in the Women’s Health Study, of whom 28.9% had a history of migraine and 7.7% reported positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, a diagnosis of COVID-19, or hospitalization for COVID-19.

Disclosures: The Women’s Health Study was funded by grants from the US National Cancer Institute and the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. T Kurth declared receiving research grants and personal compensation from various sources. The other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Rist PM et al. History of migraine and risk of COVID-19: A cohort study. Am J Med. 2023 (Aug 18). doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.07.021

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Article Series
Clinical Edge Journal Scan: Migraine October, 2023
Gate On Date
Un-Gate On Date
Use ProPublica
CFC Schedule Remove Status
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article