Lorraine L. Janeczko, MPH

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

From movies to billboards to magazine covers – media have been pushing impossible beauty ideals for decades. But the recent rise of social media brings that exposure to new levels, particularly for young people.

“Youth spend, on average, between 6 and 8 hours per day on screens, much of it on social media,” said senior study author Gary S. Goldfield, PhD, senior scientist at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute in Ottawa, Canada. “Social media provides exposure to so many photo-edited pictures – including those of models, celebrities, and fitness instructors – that perpetuate an unattainable beauty standard that gets internalized by impressionable youth and young adults, leading to body dissatisfaction.”

Plenty of research has linked frequent social media use with body image issues and even eating disorders. But crucial gaps in our knowledge remain, Dr. Goldfield said.

Much of that research “is correlational,” Dr. Goldfield added. And studies don’t always focus on individuals who may be more vulnerable to social media’s harmful effects, such as those with ruminative or brooding cognitive styles, affecting results.

And none have explored an obvious question: Can cutting down on social media use also diminish its potential harms?

Dr. Goldfield and his colleagues found an answer: Yes, it can.  

Limiting social media use to 1 hour per day helped older teens and young adults feel much better about their weight and appearance after only 3 weeks, according to the study in Psychology of Popular Media, a journal of the American Psychological Association.

“Our randomized controlled design allowed us to show a stronger causal link between social media use and body image in youth, compared to previous research,” Dr. Goldfield said. “To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that social media use reduction leads to enhanced body image.”

Nancy Lee Zucker, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and director of the Duke Center for Eating Disorders, said the results provide needed data that could help guide young people and parents on optimal social media use. Dr. Zucker was not involved in the study.
 

What the researchers did

For the study, Dr. Goldfield and colleagues recruited undergraduate psychology students aged 17-25 who averaged at least 2 hours per day of social media use on smartphones, and who had symptoms of depression or anxiety.

Participants were not told the purpose of the study, and their social media use was monitored by a screen time tracking program. At the beginning and end of the study, they answered questions such as “I’m pretty happy about the way I look,” and “I am satisfied with my weight,” on a 1 (never) to 5 (always) Likert scale.

During the first week, all 220 participants (76% female, 23% male, and 1% other) were told to use social media on their smartphones as they usually do. Over the next 3 weeks, 117 students were told to limit their social media use to 1 hour per day, while the rest were instructed to carry on as usual. In both groups, over 70% of participants were between age 17 and 19. 

The first group cut their social media use by about 50%, from a mean of around 168 minutes per day during week 1 to around 78 minutes per day by the end of week 4, while the unrestricted group went from around 181 minutes per day to 189.
 

Cutting use by around half yielded quick, significant improvements

The students who curbed their social media use saw significant improvements in their “appearance esteem” (from 2.95 to 3.15 points; P <.001) and their “weight esteem” (from 3.16 to 3.32 points; P < .001), whereas those who used social media freely saw no such changes (from 2.72 to 2.76; P = .992 and 3.01 to 3.02; P = .654, respectively). No gender differences between the groups were found.

The researchers are now studying possible reasons for these findings.

The changes in appearance scores “represent a small- to medium-effect size,” said child psychologist Sara R. Gould, PhD, director of the Eating Disorders Center at Children’s Mercy Kansas City in Missouri, who was not associated with the research.“ As such, these are clinically meaningful results, particularly since they were achieved in only 3 weeks. Even small impacts can be added to other changes to create larger impacts or have the potential to grow over time.”
 

The push to limit social media

As more and more experts scrutinize the impact of social media on young people’s mental health, social media companies have responded with features designed to limit the time young users spend on their platforms.

Just this year, Instagram rolled out “quiet mode,” which lets users shut down their direct messages (DMs) for a specified amount of time. To turn on quiet mode, users can navigate to their profiles, and select the triple line icon, “settings,” “notifications,” and “quiet mode.” Another option: Tap the triple line icon, “your activity,” and “time spent” to set reminders to take breaks after 10, 20, or 30 minutes of use.  

TikTok users under 18 will soon have their accounts defaulted to a 1-hour daily screen-time limit, TikTok has announced. Unlike other similar features, it will require users to turn it off rather than turn it on.

Leveraging built-in controls is “a good start to being more intentional about your screen time,” suggested lead author Helen Thai, a PhD student in clinical psychology at McGill University in Montreal. “Unfortunately, users can easily bypass these settings.”  

One reason for social’s magnetic pull: “FOMO – fear of missing out – on what friends are doing can make cutting back on social media use difficult,” said Dr. Zucker. To help prevent FOMO, parents may consider talking to parents of their children’s friends about reducing usage for all the children, Dr. Zucker suggested.

Mary E. Romano, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics-adolescent medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., urges parents “to have very clear rules and expectations about social media use.” 

Dr. Romano, also not involved in the study, recommended the website Wait Until 8th to help parents band together to commit to delaying smartphone access until at least eighth grade.

Dr. Gould recommended the Family Media Plan, a tool from the American Academy of Pediatrics that lets users create a customized plan, complete with guidance tailored to each person’s age and the family’s goals. Sample tips: Designate a basket for holding devices during meals, and switch to audiobooks or relaxing music instead of videos to fall asleep at night.
 

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

Bacterial proteins in the bleeding gums of patients with periodontal disease (PD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enter the bloodstream and trigger immune responses that may contribute to RA pathogenesis and disease flares, a new longitudinal study suggests.

The results suggest that PD involves repeated oral mucosa breakdowns with the release of citrullinated oral bacteria into the bloodstream and that these bacteria activate inflammatory monocytes in the inflamed RA synovium and in the blood of patients with RA. The bacteria also activate anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive B cells, promoting affinity maturation and epitope spreading to citrullinated human antigens, the authors wrote.

“Our study discovered frequent and repeated episodes of oral bacteria in the blood of patients with periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis,” senior study author Dana E. Orange, MD, associate professor of clinical investigation at Rockefeller University, New York, said in an interview. “We saw that these bacteria were triggering an inflammatory [monocyte] response that is similar to what we see in the inflamed joints of patients with RA.

“RA patients are less likely to benefit from RA treatment if they have concurrent periodontal disease,” she said.

“RA patients tend to harbor cyclic citrullinated peptide [CCP] autoantibodies. Many groups have noted that CCP antibodies are very highly mutated, a signature of a B-cell/antibody response that has been stimulated over and over again,” Dr. Orange explained. “We found that CCP antibodies also bind the same oral bacteria we detected in the bloodstream. That patients with PD experience frequent, repeated episodes of oral bacteria in the blood is consistent with the very high level of mutation burden of CCP antibodies.”
 

Periodontal disease is a large problem among older adults

Periodontal disease ranges from gingivitis with swollen, red gums that may bleed, to periodontitis with gums pulling away from teeth, bone loss, and loose or lost teeth. PD is very prevalent in the United States, with some form of it occurring in 47% of people 30 years of age and older and in 70% of those 65 years and older, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

PD is more common in people with RA who have detectable ACPAs, and that link implicates oral mucosal inflammation in RA pathogenesis.
 

Investigating whether PD leads to RA

At Rockefeller University, Dr. Orange and her colleagues followed five female patients with RA who were seropositive for CCP over the course of 1-4 years. Two had severe PD, and three showed no signs of PD. Each week, participants provided finger-stick blood samples for RNA sequencing and B-cell repertoire sequencing, reported changes in their medication and dental work, and completed questionnaires. They also underwent monthly physical exams that evaluated tenderness and swelling in 28 joints, and they provided additional samples during self-reported flares.

At Stanford (Calif.) University, researchers isolated plasmablasts from blood samples collected from 12 donors with anti-CPP+ RA and healthy donors. They also analyzed synovial fluid samples from 65 RA and OA patients.

In addition, University of Colorado researchers collected plasma samples from patients with RA and healthy donors, and they classified the gingival health of participants.

The researchers found that the patients with PD also had repeated flare-ups of oral bacteria in the blood, mainly from the Streptococcaceae family, suggesting that the oral mucosa repeatedly broke down and introduced bacteria into the bloodstream. In the blood, inflammatory immune cells targeted the bacteria and released ACPAs, which have been linked with RA.

“Even without dental procedures, patients with RA and periodontal disease experience repeated episodes of bacteremia,” Dr. Orange said. “While dental procedures are known to be associated with dissemination of oral bacteria into the bloodstream, we didn’t expect to see this happening so frequently and independent of dental procedures. We also had thought that people with oral bacteria in their blood would have symptoms such as fever or malaise, but they were asymptomatic.”
 

Experts welcome the results

“It is well established that oral health impacts overall health. In particular, the link between periodontal disease and chronic systemic diseases has been explored in many robust studies,” Chi T. Viet, MD, DDS, PhD, oral and maxillofacial surgeon and associate professor at the Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Dentistry, told this news organization.

“The study ... highlights the importance of early treatment and prevention of oral health issues, as they can have devastating systemic sequelae,” added Dr. Viet, who was not involved in the study.

Devon Charlton, MD, MPH, director of rheumatology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Regional Orthopedics in New Castle, Pa., advised patients and providers to team up to manage RA and PD.

“If the patient and provider aggressively treat periodontal disease and dental health in general, the patient decreases their risk of infection and inflammation, decreases the potential development of RA, and increases their future quality of life,” said Dr. Charlton, also not involved in the study.

However, findings from the study population may be difficult to generalize to other populations, he added.

Dr. Orange and her colleagues suggest further related research, including studies on whether treating PD makes RA easier to treat and whether the treatment of PD in patients whose RA is in clinical remission raises the likelihood of being able to discontinue therapy safely.

The study was supported through grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Robertson Foundation, Rockefeller University, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Iris and Junming Le Foundation, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Orange reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors report financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Viet and Dr. Charlton report no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Bacterial proteins in the bleeding gums of patients with periodontal disease (PD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enter the bloodstream and trigger immune responses that may contribute to RA pathogenesis and disease flares, a new longitudinal study suggests.

The results suggest that PD involves repeated oral mucosa breakdowns with the release of citrullinated oral bacteria into the bloodstream and that these bacteria activate inflammatory monocytes in the inflamed RA synovium and in the blood of patients with RA. The bacteria also activate anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive B cells, promoting affinity maturation and epitope spreading to citrullinated human antigens, the authors wrote.

“Our study discovered frequent and repeated episodes of oral bacteria in the blood of patients with periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis,” senior study author Dana E. Orange, MD, associate professor of clinical investigation at Rockefeller University, New York, said in an interview. “We saw that these bacteria were triggering an inflammatory [monocyte] response that is similar to what we see in the inflamed joints of patients with RA.

“RA patients are less likely to benefit from RA treatment if they have concurrent periodontal disease,” she said.

“RA patients tend to harbor cyclic citrullinated peptide [CCP] autoantibodies. Many groups have noted that CCP antibodies are very highly mutated, a signature of a B-cell/antibody response that has been stimulated over and over again,” Dr. Orange explained. “We found that CCP antibodies also bind the same oral bacteria we detected in the bloodstream. That patients with PD experience frequent, repeated episodes of oral bacteria in the blood is consistent with the very high level of mutation burden of CCP antibodies.”
 

Periodontal disease is a large problem among older adults

Periodontal disease ranges from gingivitis with swollen, red gums that may bleed, to periodontitis with gums pulling away from teeth, bone loss, and loose or lost teeth. PD is very prevalent in the United States, with some form of it occurring in 47% of people 30 years of age and older and in 70% of those 65 years and older, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

PD is more common in people with RA who have detectable ACPAs, and that link implicates oral mucosal inflammation in RA pathogenesis.
 

Investigating whether PD leads to RA

At Rockefeller University, Dr. Orange and her colleagues followed five female patients with RA who were seropositive for CCP over the course of 1-4 years. Two had severe PD, and three showed no signs of PD. Each week, participants provided finger-stick blood samples for RNA sequencing and B-cell repertoire sequencing, reported changes in their medication and dental work, and completed questionnaires. They also underwent monthly physical exams that evaluated tenderness and swelling in 28 joints, and they provided additional samples during self-reported flares.

At Stanford (Calif.) University, researchers isolated plasmablasts from blood samples collected from 12 donors with anti-CPP+ RA and healthy donors. They also analyzed synovial fluid samples from 65 RA and OA patients.

In addition, University of Colorado researchers collected plasma samples from patients with RA and healthy donors, and they classified the gingival health of participants.

The researchers found that the patients with PD also had repeated flare-ups of oral bacteria in the blood, mainly from the Streptococcaceae family, suggesting that the oral mucosa repeatedly broke down and introduced bacteria into the bloodstream. In the blood, inflammatory immune cells targeted the bacteria and released ACPAs, which have been linked with RA.

“Even without dental procedures, patients with RA and periodontal disease experience repeated episodes of bacteremia,” Dr. Orange said. “While dental procedures are known to be associated with dissemination of oral bacteria into the bloodstream, we didn’t expect to see this happening so frequently and independent of dental procedures. We also had thought that people with oral bacteria in their blood would have symptoms such as fever or malaise, but they were asymptomatic.”
 

Experts welcome the results

“It is well established that oral health impacts overall health. In particular, the link between periodontal disease and chronic systemic diseases has been explored in many robust studies,” Chi T. Viet, MD, DDS, PhD, oral and maxillofacial surgeon and associate professor at the Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Dentistry, told this news organization.

“The study ... highlights the importance of early treatment and prevention of oral health issues, as they can have devastating systemic sequelae,” added Dr. Viet, who was not involved in the study.

Devon Charlton, MD, MPH, director of rheumatology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Regional Orthopedics in New Castle, Pa., advised patients and providers to team up to manage RA and PD.

“If the patient and provider aggressively treat periodontal disease and dental health in general, the patient decreases their risk of infection and inflammation, decreases the potential development of RA, and increases their future quality of life,” said Dr. Charlton, also not involved in the study.

However, findings from the study population may be difficult to generalize to other populations, he added.

Dr. Orange and her colleagues suggest further related research, including studies on whether treating PD makes RA easier to treat and whether the treatment of PD in patients whose RA is in clinical remission raises the likelihood of being able to discontinue therapy safely.

The study was supported through grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Robertson Foundation, Rockefeller University, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Iris and Junming Le Foundation, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Orange reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors report financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Viet and Dr. Charlton report no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

Bacterial proteins in the bleeding gums of patients with periodontal disease (PD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enter the bloodstream and trigger immune responses that may contribute to RA pathogenesis and disease flares, a new longitudinal study suggests.

The results suggest that PD involves repeated oral mucosa breakdowns with the release of citrullinated oral bacteria into the bloodstream and that these bacteria activate inflammatory monocytes in the inflamed RA synovium and in the blood of patients with RA. The bacteria also activate anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA)–positive B cells, promoting affinity maturation and epitope spreading to citrullinated human antigens, the authors wrote.

“Our study discovered frequent and repeated episodes of oral bacteria in the blood of patients with periodontal disease and rheumatoid arthritis,” senior study author Dana E. Orange, MD, associate professor of clinical investigation at Rockefeller University, New York, said in an interview. “We saw that these bacteria were triggering an inflammatory [monocyte] response that is similar to what we see in the inflamed joints of patients with RA.

“RA patients are less likely to benefit from RA treatment if they have concurrent periodontal disease,” she said.

“RA patients tend to harbor cyclic citrullinated peptide [CCP] autoantibodies. Many groups have noted that CCP antibodies are very highly mutated, a signature of a B-cell/antibody response that has been stimulated over and over again,” Dr. Orange explained. “We found that CCP antibodies also bind the same oral bacteria we detected in the bloodstream. That patients with PD experience frequent, repeated episodes of oral bacteria in the blood is consistent with the very high level of mutation burden of CCP antibodies.”
 

Periodontal disease is a large problem among older adults

Periodontal disease ranges from gingivitis with swollen, red gums that may bleed, to periodontitis with gums pulling away from teeth, bone loss, and loose or lost teeth. PD is very prevalent in the United States, with some form of it occurring in 47% of people 30 years of age and older and in 70% of those 65 years and older, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

PD is more common in people with RA who have detectable ACPAs, and that link implicates oral mucosal inflammation in RA pathogenesis.
 

Investigating whether PD leads to RA

At Rockefeller University, Dr. Orange and her colleagues followed five female patients with RA who were seropositive for CCP over the course of 1-4 years. Two had severe PD, and three showed no signs of PD. Each week, participants provided finger-stick blood samples for RNA sequencing and B-cell repertoire sequencing, reported changes in their medication and dental work, and completed questionnaires. They also underwent monthly physical exams that evaluated tenderness and swelling in 28 joints, and they provided additional samples during self-reported flares.

At Stanford (Calif.) University, researchers isolated plasmablasts from blood samples collected from 12 donors with anti-CPP+ RA and healthy donors. They also analyzed synovial fluid samples from 65 RA and OA patients.

In addition, University of Colorado researchers collected plasma samples from patients with RA and healthy donors, and they classified the gingival health of participants.

The researchers found that the patients with PD also had repeated flare-ups of oral bacteria in the blood, mainly from the Streptococcaceae family, suggesting that the oral mucosa repeatedly broke down and introduced bacteria into the bloodstream. In the blood, inflammatory immune cells targeted the bacteria and released ACPAs, which have been linked with RA.

“Even without dental procedures, patients with RA and periodontal disease experience repeated episodes of bacteremia,” Dr. Orange said. “While dental procedures are known to be associated with dissemination of oral bacteria into the bloodstream, we didn’t expect to see this happening so frequently and independent of dental procedures. We also had thought that people with oral bacteria in their blood would have symptoms such as fever or malaise, but they were asymptomatic.”
 

Experts welcome the results

“It is well established that oral health impacts overall health. In particular, the link between periodontal disease and chronic systemic diseases has been explored in many robust studies,” Chi T. Viet, MD, DDS, PhD, oral and maxillofacial surgeon and associate professor at the Loma Linda (Calif.) University School of Dentistry, told this news organization.

“The study ... highlights the importance of early treatment and prevention of oral health issues, as they can have devastating systemic sequelae,” added Dr. Viet, who was not involved in the study.

Devon Charlton, MD, MPH, director of rheumatology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Regional Orthopedics in New Castle, Pa., advised patients and providers to team up to manage RA and PD.

“If the patient and provider aggressively treat periodontal disease and dental health in general, the patient decreases their risk of infection and inflammation, decreases the potential development of RA, and increases their future quality of life,” said Dr. Charlton, also not involved in the study.

However, findings from the study population may be difficult to generalize to other populations, he added.

Dr. Orange and her colleagues suggest further related research, including studies on whether treating PD makes RA easier to treat and whether the treatment of PD in patients whose RA is in clinical remission raises the likelihood of being able to discontinue therapy safely.

The study was supported through grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Robertson Foundation, Rockefeller University, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Iris and Junming Le Foundation, and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Orange reports no relevant financial relationships. Several coauthors report financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Viet and Dr. Charlton report no relevant financial relationships. All experts commented by email.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

The prevalence of contact allergy triggered by a common product preservative, isothiazolinone, has decreased in Europe while it has increased in North America, a trend that is likely driven by regulatory differences, a retrospective cohort study suggests.

“Between 2009 to 2018, the global burden of isothiazolinone allergy showed divergent trends between North American and European countries,” lead study author Margo J. Reeder, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison and her colleagues write. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

Isothiazolinone contact allergy peaked in Europe in 2013-2014 before gradually decreasing, they found. The prevalence of isothiazolinone allergy steadily increased in North America during the study period. “Earlier and more stringent regulation of MI [methylisothiazolinone] in Europe is associated with these divergent trends,” they write.
 

Common ingredients worldwide

Isothiazolinone preservatives, which are added to personal and industrial products, cause allergic contact dermatitis worldwide, the authors write. The preservatives are found in a wide range of leave-on and rinse-off water-based personal care products, such as shampoo and other hair products, dishwashing liquid, face cream, body lotion, shower gel, liquid soap, and wet wipes, as well as in water-based paint.

A mixture of methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI) and MI has been used to prevent microbial growth in products since the 1980s. In 2005, U.S. and European regulators approved MI alone at higher concentrations as a preservative in personal care products. Coupled with consumer concerns about other preservatives, such as parabens (a rare allergen), use of MI in personal care products increased, the authors write.

Subsequently, researchers reported a global increase in the prevalence of contact allergy to isothiazolinones, the authors write. Regulatory restrictions on MI in personal care products were implemented in 2013 in Europe and in 2015 in Canada but not in the United States.
 

Patch test data reveal latest trends

To compare prevalence trends of allergic contact allergy to MI and sensitization to the MCI/MI mixture in North America and in Europe, Dr. Reeder and her colleagues compared the prevalence of positive patch test reactions to MCI/MI and to MI alone in North America and in Europe between 2009 and 2018.

They analyzed data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG), the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA), and the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK) in 2-year intervals. The data came from patients who had been patch tested at referral patch test clinics in North America and Europe.

Over the decade, the study sites conducted patch testing for 226,161 patients for MCI/MI and 118,779 for MI. Most data came from Europe. The researchers found the following:

• In Europe, isothiazolinone allergy peaked in 2013 and 2014; MCI/MI positivity reached 7.6% (ESSCA) and 5.4% (IVDK) before decreasing to 4.4% (ESSCA) and 3.2% (IVDK) in 2017-2018.
• In North America, MCI/MI positivity rose steadily from 2.5% in 2009-2010 to 10.8% in 2017-2018.
• In Europe, there were 5.5% (ESSCA) and 3.4% (IVDK) positive reactions to MI, compared with 15% (NACDG) in North America in 2017-2018.

Divergent contact allergy trends linked to regulatory approaches

The downward trend of isothiazolinone allergy in Europe after its peak in 2013 and 2014 may have been due in part, the authors explain, to a memo released in 2013 by Cosmetics Europe after it and the European Society of Contact Dermatitis reviewed reports of increased contact allergy to MI. The memo urged companies to remove MI from leave-on products.

Later that year, the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety advised omitting MI from leave-on consumer personal care products and moved to restrict the ingredient in rinse-off products to less than 15 ppm. The recommendation took effect in 2015.

That year, Canada banned the use of MCI/MI in leave-on products but allowed MI alone in leave-on products until 2018. The total concentration of MI and MCI in wash-off products was limited to less than 15 ppm.

The authors add that, to their knowledge, the U.S. government does not restrict the use of MCI/MI or MI.
 

Policy implications for contact allergy

MI is still widely used in “countless products,” including shampoos, skin cleansers, dishwashing and laundry detergents, paints, and adhesives, Daniel W. Shaw, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, told this news organization by email.

“Exact figures between the U.S. and Europe are difficult to compare due to differing patch test concentrations, but the overall trends strongly suggest that stricter and earlier regulation in Europe resulted in lower MI allergy prevalence there than in the U.S.,” added Dr. Shaw, who was not involved in the study.

Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C., said by email that accurate information on allergic reaction prevalence is difficult to find.

“The NACDG, ESSCA, and IVDK databases may contain the best data available, but the data depend on people who get patch tested and are not directly informative of the allergy rates in the general population,” added Dr. Feldman, who was not involved in the study.

“The great majority of people in the population may not be allergic,” he said. “For those with itchy rashes, getting patch tested or avoiding products with preservatives may be prudent. Broad regulations, however, should consider the overall risks and benefits in the population, and this particular study does not fully capture those issues.”

“This study shows that government regulations are important to limit consumer exposure to common allergens, especially to the concentrations used in personal care products,” Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Columbus, noted by email. She was not involved in the study.

She advised clinicians to ask their patients who may have allergic contact dermatitis whether they have been exposed to products containing these compounds.

“All personal care products in the store contain preservatives, and their maximum concentrations should be limited,” she advised. “The Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety should establish stricter guidelines for MI use in personal care products, especially given the findings of this study.”
 

Has MI contact allergy in North America peaked?

“In the U.S., MI has not been banned from leave-on skin-care products, but recently, its use has markedly decreased,” Dr. Shaw commented. “Hopefully, the prevalence of MI contact allergy will also begin to decrease.”

New evidence is promising. In a related study published online in Dermatology, Joel G. DeKoven, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto and his colleagues reported the NACDG 2019-2020 patch test results for MI in North America. They found that 13.8% of patients tested positive for MI.

“For the first time, MI positivity did not increase between reporting periods,” they conclude. “The epidemic of MI contact allergy in North America may have reached a plateau.”

Information regarding funding for the study was not provided. Dr. Reeder has financial relationships with the American Contact Dermatitis Society and a publishing company. Several coauthors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Shaw, and Dr. Feldman report no relevant financial relationship.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

Young adults who survive cancer are more likely than cancer-free siblings to be lonely and to develop emotional distress, risky behaviors, and new chronic conditions as a result, findings from a large retrospective study suggest.

Young cancer survivors were more than twice as likely to report loneliness at study baseline and follow-up. Loneliness at these times was associated with an almost 10-fold increased risk for anxiety and a nearly 18-fold increased risk for depression.

“We observed an elevated prevalence of loneliness in survivors, compared to sibling controls, and found that loneliness was associated with emotional, behavioral, and physical health morbidities,” lead study author Chiara Papini, PhD, of St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, and her colleagues write. “Our results highlight the importance of identifying and screening young adult survivors of childhood cancer for loneliness and the need for targeted interventions to reduce loneliness.”

The article was published online in the journal Cancer.

Most young cancer survivors in the United States reach adulthood and need to play catch-up: make up for missed school and work, become reacquainted with old friends, and develop new friendships, social networks, and intimate relationships. Meeting these needs may be hindered by adverse physical and psychosocial problems that linger or develop after treatment, which may leave cancer survivors feeling isolated.

“Young adult survivors of childhood cancer are navigating a developmental period marked by increased social expectations, during which loneliness may have significant impact on physical and mental health,” Dr. Papini and colleagues say.

To better understand the risks for loneliness among young cancer survivors, Dr. Papini and her colleagues analyzed data from the retrospective Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, which followed young survivors who had been diagnosed with a range of cancers before age 21 years. Study participants had been treated at one of 31 study sites in North America and had survived 5 years or longer after diagnosis.

The 9,664 survivors and 2,221 randomly sampled siblings ranged in age from 19 to 39 years at the time they completed a survey that assessed emotional distress at baseline and at follow‐up a median of 6.6 years. At baseline, the median age of the survivors was 27 years, and a median of 17.5 years had passed from the time of their diagnosis.

The most common diagnoses were leukemia (35%), Hodgkin lymphoma (15%), central nervous system (CNS) tumors (14%), and bone tumors (10%). More than half (56%) had received radiation therapy.

Using multivariable models, the researchers found that survivors were more likely than siblings to report moderate to extreme loneliness at either baseline or follow‐up (prevalence ratio, 1.04) and were more than two times more likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up (PR, 2.21).

Loneliness at baseline and follow‐up was associated with a much greater risk for anxiety (relative risk, 9.75) and depression (RR, 17.86). Loneliness at follow‐up was linked with increased risks for suicidal ideation (RR, 1.52), heavy or risky alcohol consumption (RR, 1.27), and any grade 2-4 new‐onset chronic health condition (RR, 1.29), especially those that were neurologic (RR, 4.37).

Survivors of CNS tumors (odds ratio, 2.59) and leukemia (OR, 2.52) were most likely to report loneliness at both baseline and follow‐up, though survivors of four other cancer types also faced an elevated risk for loneliness: neuroblastoma (OR, 2.32), bone tumor (OR, 2.12), soft tissue sarcoma (OR, 1.78), and Hodgkin lymphoma (OR, 1.69).

Treatment type appeared to matter as well. Survivors who underwent amputation (OR, 1.82) or were treated with cranial radiation greater than or equal to 20 Gy (OR, 1.56) or corticosteroids (OR, 1.31) were more likely to report loneliness at baseline and follow‐up, compared with those who reported no loneliness at both time points.

The authors acknowledge limitations to the study, including the fact that roughly 90% of survivors and siblings were White, which limits the applicability of their results to diverse groups. In addition, the responses were self-reported without external validation.

Overall, though, the findings provide a framework for clinicians to understand and identify loneliness among young cancer survivors and help them cope with their emotions.

“The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study provides the largest and the most comprehensive dataset on childhood cancer survivors and healthy-sibling comparisons, giving us powerful data on survivorship, late effects, and psychosocial and health outcomes,” Rachel M. Moore, PhD, child psychologist at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, Mo., said in an interview.

Asking a simple question – “Are you feeling lonely?” – can identify at-risk survivors and enable health care teams to provide timely interventions that address young patients’ physical and psychological needs, said Dr. Moore, who was not involved in the study.

Dr. Moore noted that within her clinical practice, “adolescent and young adult survivors frequently discuss loneliness in their daily lives. They feel different from their peers and misunderstood. Having a conversation early in survivorship care about the experience of loneliness as a product of cancer treatment can open the door to regular screening and destigmatizing mental health services.”

Supporting young people throughout their survivorship journey is important, said Rusha Bhandari, MD, medical director of the Childhood, Adolescent, and Young Adult Cancer Survivorship Program at City of Hope, Duarte, Calif. This study can help ensure that clinicians “provide comprehensive care, including psychosocial screening and support, to meet the unique needs of our young adult survivors,” said Dr. Bhandari, who also was not involved in the research.

The National Cancer Institute and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities supported the study. One co-author reported receiving corporate consulting fees. Dr. Papini, the remaining co-authors, Dr. Moore, and Dr. Bhandari report no relevant financial involvements.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The debate about a possible link between food allergy (FA) and pediatric gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) continues, and more, better-designed research is needed, a position paper by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reports.

The report offers consensus-based recommendations and a graphical decision pathway to guide providers through assessing and treating food allergy–related GERD. And the authors call for further, better-designed related research.

Food allergy and GERD are common in babies under 1 year of age and can lead to bothersome GERD, the authors write.

“An extensive literature search has found that whilst food proteins, in particular cow milk protein, can be a contributing factor to FA-associated” GERD, distinguishing between FA and non–FA-associated GERD is difficult, lead author Rosan Meyer, RD, PhD, senior lecturer at Imperial College London, and colleagues from the Academy task force on non-IgE mediated allergy, write in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.
 

Consensus despite limited data

Dr. Meyer and colleagues developed clinical questions that addressed various aspects of the relationship between food allergy and GERD – pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis, dietary and medical management, prevalence, and impact on quality of life.

To address these issues, they systematically searched the literature for randomized controlled, observational, case-control, and retrospective studies of infants and children diagnosed with non-IgE gastrointestinal food allergies and GERD, published in English until February 2021.

Because of limited data in many of these areas, they used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus and provide practical advice on food allergy–associated GERD management.

The task force concludes:

• Food proteins, especially cow’s milk protein, can contribute to food allergy–associated GERD. The confirmation of food allergy is based on the elimination diet, always followed by reintroducing the offending allergen, and the diagnosis and treatment pathway should consider effects on quality of life.
• Breastfeeding should be supported in food allergy–associated GERD, and dietary advice should consider the potential nutritional impact on the breastfeeding mother. When breast milk is not available or is insufficient, formula and dietary advice to counteract the child’s nutrient deficiencies should be considered.
• Although some clarity exists about when GERD medications may be considered, they are often used inappropriately and may harm patients, especially infants.

Rigorous research needed

“Clinicians can use this algorithm to help them identify patients who may be affected by food allergy–related GERD,” Jonathan Tam, MD, medical director of the Gores Family Allergy Center at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, told this news organization by email.

“Clinicians who suspect their patients may have food allergy–related GERD now have clearer guidance on how to systemically evaluate their patients,” added Dr. Tam, who was not involved in developing the report.

“Many allergists fear that patients may be labeled with a food allergy unnecessarily. Because no biomarkers or tests for food allergy–related GERD are available, elimination diets are a crucial part of the evaluation,” he said.

Dr. Tam added that the authors point out two key parts of a trial elimination: First, the trial should last at least 2 weeks, but full resolution may not occur until 6 weeks. Second, targeted elimination must be followed by reintroduction to confirm that the food was causing the symptoms, not that time itself may have been responsible for the clinical change.

“The authors’ note on allergy testing is important,” he said. “Allergy testing is not necessary when a clinician is concerned about food allergy–related GERD unless there are other associated atopic comorbidities, like eczema or IgE-mediated immediate food allergies.”

Jonathan M. Spergel, MD, PhD, chief of the allergy section at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an email that families often ask whether food allergy is causing their child’s reflux.

“Both conditions are common and, in most cases, may not be related. As the report highlights, the risk of food allergy is increased if the patient has other atopic disease (atopic dermatitis), and standard allergy testing (skin testing, specific IgE) and IgG4 testing are not recommended,” he explained. “Food allergy in a patient with reflux can be considered if standard therapy is failing.”
 

Expert opinion on diagnosis and management

Dr. Spergel, also not involved in the report, joined the authors in advocating further, stronger studies. “While the expert opinion is a major strength,” he said, “with most available studies being neither randomized nor placebo-controlled, the true prevalence of food allergy reflux is unknown.”

Jay M. Portnoy, MD, specialist in pediatric allergy and immunology and medical director of telemedicine at Children’s Mercy Kansas City, said: “While most physicians believe that food allergy contributes to GERD, the evidence for the relationship is minimal. Reflux often occurs regardless of what food is eaten,” said Dr. Portnoy, who was not associated with the research.

Before removing a food from the diet, it’s important to determine whether that food is causing the problem, he urged.

“Blaming a food is easy. Food allergy is often suspected to cause symptoms it does not cause,” he said. “This unfounded blame can lead to unnecessary avoidance, reduce a family’s quality of life, and cause malnutrition.

“How a child is evaluated and treated depends as much on which physician they see as on whether the food is the culprit,” Dr. Portnoy said. “This report is an attempt to clarify the issues and to standardize an approach to the condition, so each provider evaluates and manages the condition in a consistent and evidence-based manner.

“It is important to see how well this report is incorporated into practice and whether following its guidance actually improves patient care,” Dr. Portnoy noted.

Funding information was not provided. Dr. Meyer and two coauthors report financial relationships with the nutritional health care industry. The full list can be found with the original article. The remaining authors and Dr. Tam, Dr. Spergel, and Dr. Portnoy report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) return to emergency departments – not to dermatology clinics – for their ongoing care, according to a study of a large national administrative data set.

“Patients with HS presenting to the ED for their disease exhibited high rates of ED return with low rates of dermatology follow-up after an initial ED visit,” lead study author Cynthia X. Wang, MD, MPHS, and colleagues in the division of dermatology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Patients who received opioid prescriptions and patients on Medicaid were more likely to return to the ED, they noted.

HS, a debilitating skin disease involving chronic follicular inflammation, frequently affects the axilla, anogenital, and inframammary areas, with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts that can form scars, the authors wrote. HS is linked with comorbidities including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, substance use, and psychiatric conditions, and is often misdiagnosed for an estimated 7-10 years.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues collected data from nationwide commercial and Medicaid databases. They included patients aged 18 to 64 years with two or more claims for HS and with at least one ED visit not resulting in admission for HS or a defined proxy (such as a related diagnosis of folliculitis, in a location typical for HS) between 2010 and 2019.

The median age of the 20,269 patients in the study was 32 years; most (82.9%) were female, and nearly 37% had commercial insurance and 63.2% had Medicaid. About half the patients on Medicaid were Black and 36.2% were White (race and ethnicity data were not available for commercially insured patients). In both insurance groups, the rates of comorbidities were high, including 22.5% with obesity and 11.9% with diabetes.

The researchers found that, at the index ED visit, 48.0% of patients had incision and drainage performed (51% among those with commercial insurance vs. 46.3% of those with Medicaid; P < .001); 72.6% of patients filled an oral antibiotic prescription within 7 days, with similar percentages in both insurance groups; and 48.9% filled an oral opioid medication prescription within 7 days (46.5% for commercial insurance vs. 50.3% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Regarding follow-up care, the investigators found that 17.2% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days (15.7% for commercial vs. 18.1% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 2.4% had a dermatology visit (5.3% for commercial vs. 0.7% for Medicaid; P < .001). In addition, 34% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days (27.2% for commercial insurance vs. 38% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 6.8% had a dermatology visit (14.1% for commercial vs. 2.5% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Patients with an opioid prescribed within 7 days of the ED visit were more likely to return to the ED, within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.80; P < .001), and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to have dermatology follow-up within 30 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95; P = .01) and within 180 days (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .001).

Medicaid patients were more likely to return to the ED within 30 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .009) and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to receive outpatient dermatology follow-up care within 30 days (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.15; P < .001) and within 180 days (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; P < .001).

“This study highlights potential areas of action to improve care for patients with HS,” the authors concluded, including cross-specialty education and interventions, and focus on patients most likely to return to the ED for care.

Findings are not surprising

Christopher Sayed, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview that the study results are expected. “Many patients have trouble establishing care with a dermatologist familiar with HS, so they seek more fragmented care at urgent cares and EDs,” he said.

“Some dermatologists are not familiar with HS or don’t accept insurance such as Medicaid,” Dr. Sayed added. “Many emergency room providers may not recognize that medical therapy for HS has evolved in a way that makes referral to a dermatologist more essential than ever. They may tell patients there is nothing else to do but return to the ED for the next flare. “Emergency medicine and dermatology training programs need to educate providers about appropriate long-term HS management.”

In an interview, Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said that the study describes a reality he and his colleagues know too well.

“The study gives a true snapshot of the disarray and inequality that exists for patients disproportionately affected by HS. Those who are African American and low income suffer from lack of HS primary dermatologic care and follow-up at much higher rates than do other demographic groups,” he said.

Doctors would like to see the current situation change, Dr. Glatter noted. “It’s frustrating for emergency physicians and for dermatologists, who know that optimal follow-up care for this chronic and disabling disease should be with a dermatologist (and other surgical specialists if necessary).

“It’s a broken system. Patients can’t get appointments in nonacademic private settings because the bulk of dermatologists will not accept Medicaid. And many academic practices will not see these patients, either,” he commented. “We end up becoming a safety net of care.”


 

Replace the broken system with an integrated process

A solution to address the problem would be to set up follow-up dermatology appointments when patients arrive in EDs during and after normal business hours, Dr. Glatter suggested. “Developing a coordinated, structured, streamlined process requires buy-in from all stakeholders, including private dermatologists, academic dermatology clinics, and the government.”

Having the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services study interventions for high utilizers of EDs for HS would also help with “the development of economic and logistical changes, including provider reimbursement and allocation of funds to address this ongoing disparity in care,” he added. 

Ideally, larger health care systems could collaborate with academic and nonacademic dermatologists to design a referral network that cares for all uninsured or underinsured patients, he said. “Balancing patient care and improved outcomes – while working on a framework for reimbursement – would be in everyone’s best interest.”

The study was partially funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported financial involvements with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wang, the remaining coauthors, as well as Dr. Sayed and Dr. Glatter reported no conflicts of interest with the study. Dr. Glatter is an editor and columnist at Medscape.
 

Many patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) return to emergency departments – not to dermatology clinics – for their ongoing care, according to a study of a large national administrative data set.

“Patients with HS presenting to the ED for their disease exhibited high rates of ED return with low rates of dermatology follow-up after an initial ED visit,” lead study author Cynthia X. Wang, MD, MPHS, and colleagues in the division of dermatology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Patients who received opioid prescriptions and patients on Medicaid were more likely to return to the ED, they noted.

HS, a debilitating skin disease involving chronic follicular inflammation, frequently affects the axilla, anogenital, and inframammary areas, with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts that can form scars, the authors wrote. HS is linked with comorbidities including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, substance use, and psychiatric conditions, and is often misdiagnosed for an estimated 7-10 years.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues collected data from nationwide commercial and Medicaid databases. They included patients aged 18 to 64 years with two or more claims for HS and with at least one ED visit not resulting in admission for HS or a defined proxy (such as a related diagnosis of folliculitis, in a location typical for HS) between 2010 and 2019.

The median age of the 20,269 patients in the study was 32 years; most (82.9%) were female, and nearly 37% had commercial insurance and 63.2% had Medicaid. About half the patients on Medicaid were Black and 36.2% were White (race and ethnicity data were not available for commercially insured patients). In both insurance groups, the rates of comorbidities were high, including 22.5% with obesity and 11.9% with diabetes.

The researchers found that, at the index ED visit, 48.0% of patients had incision and drainage performed (51% among those with commercial insurance vs. 46.3% of those with Medicaid; P < .001); 72.6% of patients filled an oral antibiotic prescription within 7 days, with similar percentages in both insurance groups; and 48.9% filled an oral opioid medication prescription within 7 days (46.5% for commercial insurance vs. 50.3% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Regarding follow-up care, the investigators found that 17.2% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days (15.7% for commercial vs. 18.1% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 2.4% had a dermatology visit (5.3% for commercial vs. 0.7% for Medicaid; P < .001). In addition, 34% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days (27.2% for commercial insurance vs. 38% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 6.8% had a dermatology visit (14.1% for commercial vs. 2.5% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Patients with an opioid prescribed within 7 days of the ED visit were more likely to return to the ED, within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.80; P < .001), and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to have dermatology follow-up within 30 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95; P = .01) and within 180 days (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .001).

Medicaid patients were more likely to return to the ED within 30 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .009) and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to receive outpatient dermatology follow-up care within 30 days (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.15; P < .001) and within 180 days (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; P < .001).

“This study highlights potential areas of action to improve care for patients with HS,” the authors concluded, including cross-specialty education and interventions, and focus on patients most likely to return to the ED for care.

Findings are not surprising

Christopher Sayed, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview that the study results are expected. “Many patients have trouble establishing care with a dermatologist familiar with HS, so they seek more fragmented care at urgent cares and EDs,” he said.

“Some dermatologists are not familiar with HS or don’t accept insurance such as Medicaid,” Dr. Sayed added. “Many emergency room providers may not recognize that medical therapy for HS has evolved in a way that makes referral to a dermatologist more essential than ever. They may tell patients there is nothing else to do but return to the ED for the next flare. “Emergency medicine and dermatology training programs need to educate providers about appropriate long-term HS management.”

In an interview, Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said that the study describes a reality he and his colleagues know too well.

“The study gives a true snapshot of the disarray and inequality that exists for patients disproportionately affected by HS. Those who are African American and low income suffer from lack of HS primary dermatologic care and follow-up at much higher rates than do other demographic groups,” he said.

Doctors would like to see the current situation change, Dr. Glatter noted. “It’s frustrating for emergency physicians and for dermatologists, who know that optimal follow-up care for this chronic and disabling disease should be with a dermatologist (and other surgical specialists if necessary).

“It’s a broken system. Patients can’t get appointments in nonacademic private settings because the bulk of dermatologists will not accept Medicaid. And many academic practices will not see these patients, either,” he commented. “We end up becoming a safety net of care.”


 

Replace the broken system with an integrated process

A solution to address the problem would be to set up follow-up dermatology appointments when patients arrive in EDs during and after normal business hours, Dr. Glatter suggested. “Developing a coordinated, structured, streamlined process requires buy-in from all stakeholders, including private dermatologists, academic dermatology clinics, and the government.”

Having the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services study interventions for high utilizers of EDs for HS would also help with “the development of economic and logistical changes, including provider reimbursement and allocation of funds to address this ongoing disparity in care,” he added. 

Ideally, larger health care systems could collaborate with academic and nonacademic dermatologists to design a referral network that cares for all uninsured or underinsured patients, he said. “Balancing patient care and improved outcomes – while working on a framework for reimbursement – would be in everyone’s best interest.”

The study was partially funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported financial involvements with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wang, the remaining coauthors, as well as Dr. Sayed and Dr. Glatter reported no conflicts of interest with the study. Dr. Glatter is an editor and columnist at Medscape.
 

Many patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) return to emergency departments – not to dermatology clinics – for their ongoing care, according to a study of a large national administrative data set.

“Patients with HS presenting to the ED for their disease exhibited high rates of ED return with low rates of dermatology follow-up after an initial ED visit,” lead study author Cynthia X. Wang, MD, MPHS, and colleagues in the division of dermatology and the Institute for Informatics, Washington University in St. Louis, wrote in JAMA Dermatology.

Patients who received opioid prescriptions and patients on Medicaid were more likely to return to the ED, they noted.

HS, a debilitating skin disease involving chronic follicular inflammation, frequently affects the axilla, anogenital, and inframammary areas, with painful nodules, abscesses, and sinus tracts that can form scars, the authors wrote. HS is linked with comorbidities including inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, substance use, and psychiatric conditions, and is often misdiagnosed for an estimated 7-10 years.

In the retrospective cohort study, Dr. Wang and colleagues collected data from nationwide commercial and Medicaid databases. They included patients aged 18 to 64 years with two or more claims for HS and with at least one ED visit not resulting in admission for HS or a defined proxy (such as a related diagnosis of folliculitis, in a location typical for HS) between 2010 and 2019.

The median age of the 20,269 patients in the study was 32 years; most (82.9%) were female, and nearly 37% had commercial insurance and 63.2% had Medicaid. About half the patients on Medicaid were Black and 36.2% were White (race and ethnicity data were not available for commercially insured patients). In both insurance groups, the rates of comorbidities were high, including 22.5% with obesity and 11.9% with diabetes.

The researchers found that, at the index ED visit, 48.0% of patients had incision and drainage performed (51% among those with commercial insurance vs. 46.3% of those with Medicaid; P < .001); 72.6% of patients filled an oral antibiotic prescription within 7 days, with similar percentages in both insurance groups; and 48.9% filled an oral opioid medication prescription within 7 days (46.5% for commercial insurance vs. 50.3% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Regarding follow-up care, the investigators found that 17.2% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 30 days (15.7% for commercial vs. 18.1% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 2.4% had a dermatology visit (5.3% for commercial vs. 0.7% for Medicaid; P < .001). In addition, 34% of patients had at least one return ED visit for HS or proxy within 180 days (27.2% for commercial insurance vs. 38% for Medicaid; P < .001), while 6.8% had a dermatology visit (14.1% for commercial vs. 2.5% for Medicaid; P < .001).

Patients with an opioid prescribed within 7 days of the ED visit were more likely to return to the ED, within 30 days (odds ratio, 1.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.54-1.80; P < .001), and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to have dermatology follow-up within 30 days (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95; P = .01) and within 180 days (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.91; P < .001).

Medicaid patients were more likely to return to the ED within 30 days (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03-1.22; P = .009) and within 180 days (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.38-1.58; P < .001). But they were less likely to receive outpatient dermatology follow-up care within 30 days (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.09-0.15; P < .001) and within 180 days (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.14-0.18; P < .001).

“This study highlights potential areas of action to improve care for patients with HS,” the authors concluded, including cross-specialty education and interventions, and focus on patients most likely to return to the ED for care.

Findings are not surprising

Christopher Sayed, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview that the study results are expected. “Many patients have trouble establishing care with a dermatologist familiar with HS, so they seek more fragmented care at urgent cares and EDs,” he said.

“Some dermatologists are not familiar with HS or don’t accept insurance such as Medicaid,” Dr. Sayed added. “Many emergency room providers may not recognize that medical therapy for HS has evolved in a way that makes referral to a dermatologist more essential than ever. They may tell patients there is nothing else to do but return to the ED for the next flare. “Emergency medicine and dermatology training programs need to educate providers about appropriate long-term HS management.”

In an interview, Robert Glatter, MD, an emergency medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Hofstra University, Hempstead, N.Y., said that the study describes a reality he and his colleagues know too well.

“The study gives a true snapshot of the disarray and inequality that exists for patients disproportionately affected by HS. Those who are African American and low income suffer from lack of HS primary dermatologic care and follow-up at much higher rates than do other demographic groups,” he said.

Doctors would like to see the current situation change, Dr. Glatter noted. “It’s frustrating for emergency physicians and for dermatologists, who know that optimal follow-up care for this chronic and disabling disease should be with a dermatologist (and other surgical specialists if necessary).

“It’s a broken system. Patients can’t get appointments in nonacademic private settings because the bulk of dermatologists will not accept Medicaid. And many academic practices will not see these patients, either,” he commented. “We end up becoming a safety net of care.”


 

Replace the broken system with an integrated process

A solution to address the problem would be to set up follow-up dermatology appointments when patients arrive in EDs during and after normal business hours, Dr. Glatter suggested. “Developing a coordinated, structured, streamlined process requires buy-in from all stakeholders, including private dermatologists, academic dermatology clinics, and the government.”

Having the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services study interventions for high utilizers of EDs for HS would also help with “the development of economic and logistical changes, including provider reimbursement and allocation of funds to address this ongoing disparity in care,” he added. 

Ideally, larger health care systems could collaborate with academic and nonacademic dermatologists to design a referral network that cares for all uninsured or underinsured patients, he said. “Balancing patient care and improved outcomes – while working on a framework for reimbursement – would be in everyone’s best interest.”

The study was partially funded by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. One author reported financial involvements with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wang, the remaining coauthors, as well as Dr. Sayed and Dr. Glatter reported no conflicts of interest with the study. Dr. Glatter is an editor and columnist at Medscape.
 

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

Rheumatologists tend to order the same types of tests to monitor their patients’ responses to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), but they vary widely in how often they order tests and how they respond to abnormal results, responses to a survey suggest.

“The study found that, although guidelines exist, people didn’t follow them consistently. They also responded to abnormal test results in wildly different ways,” senior study author Philip C. Robinson, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Queensland, Herston, Australia, said in an interview.

“The take-home message of this study is that everyone is doing something different, which means that the system likely has a lot of low-value activity and that money is being wasted,” he added. “However, we don’t have the evidence to guide people to make better choices.”

The literature on laboratory monitoring of people taking csDMARDs for rheumatic disease is scant, the authors wrote in BMC Rheumatology, and current guidelines on csDMARD monitoring vary, likely because of the lack of high-quality evidence for specific monitoring regimens.

“An enormous amount of money is spent on DMARD monitoring with little evidence to support current practices,” Dr. Robinson said. So he and his colleagues asked rheumatologists and rheumatology trainees about their attitudes and practices related to laboratory monitoring of csDMARDs in an online questionnaire.

They used the Australian Rheumatology Association newsletter to invite around 530 Australian rheumatologists and trainees, around 4,500 of Dr. Robinson’s Twitter followers, and 25 Australian and overseas email contacts, to respond to questions about csDMARDs they prescribed, frequency and patterns of monitoring, influences of additional factors and combination therapy, responses to abnormal tests, and attitudes toward monitoring frequency.

The researchers based their questions on csDMARD monitoring guidelines published by the American College of Rheumatology (which recommends monitoring every 2-4 weeks from initiation to 3 months, every 8-12 weeks during months 3-6, and every 12 weeks from 6 months onward), and from the British Society for Rheumatology (whose guidance is similar but bases monitoring frequency on how long DMARD doses remain stable).

The 221 valid responses they collected included 53 from Australia and 39 from the United States. Overall, 53% of respondents were in public practice, 56% were women, and 56% had practiced rheumatology for 11 or more years.

Respondents reported more frequent monitoring of patients with multiple comorbidities and those taking csDMARD combinations, including methotrexate and leflunomide. Responses to abnormal monitoring results varied widely, and 40% of respondents reported that monitoring tests are performed too often. Compared with females, males reported greater tolerance of significant test abnormalities before acting. They also were more likely to report that guidelines recommend, and doctors perform, tests too frequently.
 

Testing, monitoring patterns can differ from current guidelines

Rheumatologists who were asked to comment on the survey welcomed its results.

They came as no surprise to Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“Most guidelines point out in the introduction that they are recommendations and need to be modified by specific patient and environmental needs,” he noted in an interview.

Stephen Myers, MD, assistant professor of clinical medicine in the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said: “The findings seem generally consistent with my observed practices and those of my peers, with the exception of sulfasalazine, which we tend to monitor every 3 months, similar to the way we monitor other csDMARDs.”

Caoilfhionn Connolly, MD, MSc, postdoctoral fellow in rheumatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, called “the variability in monitoring somewhat surprising given that both the American College of Rheumatology and the British Society for Rheumatology provide guidance statements on optimal monitoring.

“As the authors highlight,” she added, “the variability in monitoring and response to lab abnormalities is likely driven by the lack of a high-quality evidence base, which should ideally be derived from clinical trials.”

Medication monitoring is critical to ensuring patient safety in rheumatology and other specialties, said Puja Khanna, MD, MPH, a rheumatologist and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Dr. Khanna described how in 2018, the Michigan Medicine health care system revisited its processes and protocols for medication monitoring.

Previously, “we were reliant on society guidelines that were not used consistently across the academic and community rheumatology practices,” she said. “Using lean thinking methodology, we found that we lacked familiarity with laboratory monitoring protocols amongst the interdisciplinary teams involved in the process and that we had a clear need for consensus.

“A consistent departmental protocol was created to help streamline the workflow for ancillary support staff, to close identified operational gaps, and to reduce delays in monitoring that impacted safe practice patterns,” Dr. Khanna added.

“We developed standardized medication- and disease-based monitoring protocols for eight medical specialties, where the person who writes a prescription that requires monitoring can utilize standard work flows to enroll the patient in the medication monitoring program and have dedicated ancillary support staff follow the results periodically and alert clinicians in a timely manner,” she explained. “Almost 15,000 patients are currently monitored in this collaborative program involving clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, and IT and administrative teams.”
 

Guidelines may not capture clinical realities of csDMARD monitoring

Dr. Myers and colleagues may monitor testing more intensively if, for example, a patient becomes ill, has side effects, or has taken medication incorrectly. But they’ll less intensively monitor a patient who’s been stable on a csDMARD.

“In my current academic practice, deciding lab monitoring frequency is left up to physicians. In my previous private practice experience, lab monitoring seemed to be more frequent than the current guidelines for many patients, compared to public or academic practice,” he said. “It would be interesting to compare monitoring practices in private, public, and academic settings.

“The clinical reality is that frequent monitoring depends on the regular follow-up, which for some patients is difficult, due to socioeconomic factors including lack of childcare and public transport,” Dr. Myers added.

Dr. Khanna mentioned that “guidelines tend to provide details of extant practice patterns, usually taken from evidence-based data. With monitoring, however, that is tough to achieve, unless substantial data can be found in large national registries of patients on immunosuppressive medications.”

Experience and comfort with using immunosuppressive medications, and medicolegal liability considerations, especially because many immunomodulatory agents confer adverse effects, can contribute to clinicians’ behaviors varying from guidelines, she added.
 

A good scoping review, and further research needed

“This article did what it was supposed to do: Define the various approaches to monitoring,” Dr. Furst said. “It is the next steps that will make a difference in practice.

“Next steps ... may require delving into large observational data sets such as registries to ascertain the consequences of different monitoring strategies for various patient groups and disparate drugs and drug combinations,” added Dr. Furst, who coauthored a 2017 review summarizing guidelines for laboratory monitoring in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

“A significant oversight is the lack of consideration regarding monitoring for corticosteroids, which are well known to have very consequential adverse events and require careful monitoring,” Dr. Furst observed.

“The difference between men’s and women’s monitoring strategies is of some interest,” he added, “but will only be important if it leads to an understanding of and change in monitoring recommendations.”

Dr. Connolly also noted the differences in strategies between male and female respondents.

“Of interest, male respondents were more likely to feel that monitoring was performed too frequently and were also more tolerant of significant abnormalities,” she said. “This begs the question of whether rheumatologist gender differentially impacts other areas of clinical practice.”

Despite the small sample size that limits generalizability, the results provide preliminary insight into the varied practices among rheumatologists worldwide, Dr. Connolly added.

“Given the frequency of csDMARD prescription, the study highlights the clinical unmet need for a more robust evidence base to guide clinical practice,” she said. “The study also adds to important efforts to provide high-value care to patients with rheumatic diseases and may form the basis for larger studies to facilitate the pragmatic utilization of lab monitoring and ultimately optimize both the quality and value of rheumatological care globally.”

Dr. Robinson and coauthors urged further research. “We need more studies of higher quality to help inform the best strategy for protecting our patients from harm from our commonly used rheumatic medicines,” he said.

Dr. Robinson and two coauthors reported relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors and all uninvolved sources, who commented by email, reported no relevant relationships. The study received no funding.

The asthma medication tezepelumab, added to subcutaneous immunotherapy treatment (SCIT), may provide better, longer-lasting symptom relief than allergy shots alone for patients with allergic rhinitis caused by cat allergens, according to results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

“One year of allergen immunotherapy [AIT] combined with tezepelumab was significantly more effective than SCIT alone in reducing the nasal response to allergen challenge both at the end of treatment and one year after stopping treatment,” lead study author Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues wrote in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“This persistent improvement in clinical response was paralleled by reductions in nasal transcripts for multiple immunologic pathways, including mast cell activation.”

The study was cited in a news release from the National Institutes of Health that said that the approach may work in a similar way with other allergens.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma in people aged 12 years and older. Tezelumab, a monoclonal antibody, works by blocking the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP).

“Cells that cover the surface of organs like the skin and intestines or that line the inside of the nose and lungs rapidly secrete TSLP in response to signals of potential danger,” according to the NIH news release. “In allergic disease, TSLP helps initiate an overreactive immune response to otherwise harmless substances like cat dander, provoking airway inflammation that leads to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.”
 

Testing an enhanced strategy

The double-blind CATNIP trial was conducted by Dr. Corren and colleagues at nine sites in the United States. The trial included patients aged 18-65 years who’d had moderate to severe cat-induced allergic rhinitis for at least 2 years from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers excluded patients with recurrent acute or chronic sinusitis. They excluded patients who had undergone SCIT with cat allergen within the past 10 years or seasonal or perennial allergen sensitivity during nasal challenges. They also excluded persons with a history of persistent asthma.

In the parallel-design study, 121 participants were randomly allocated into four groups: 32 patients were treated with intravenous tezepelumab plus cat SCIT, 31 received the allergy shots alone, 30 received tezepelumab alone, and 28 received placebo alone for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation.

Participants received SCIT (10,000 bioequivalent allergy units per milliliter) or matched placebo via subcutaneous injections weekly in increasing doses for around 12 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance injections (4,000 BAU or maximum tolerated dose) until week 48.

They received tezepelumab (700 mg IV) or matched placebo 1-3 days prior to the SCIT or placebo SCIT injections once every 4 weeks through week 24, then before or on the same day as the SCIT or placebo injections through week 48.
 

Measures of effectiveness

Participants were also given nasal allergy challenges – one spritz of a nasal spray containing cat allergen extract in each nostril at screening, baseline, and weeks 26, 52, 78, and 104. The researchers recorded participants’ total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after being sprayed and hourly for up to 6 hours post challenge. Blood and nasal cell samples were also collected.

The research team performed skin prick tests using serial dilutions of cat extract and an intradermal skin test (IDST) using the concentration of allergen that produced an early response of at least 15 mm at baseline. They measured early-phase responses for the both tests at 15 minutes and late-phase response to the IDST at 6 hours.

They measured serum levels of cat dander–specific IgE, IgG4, and total IgE using fluoroenzyme immunoassay. They measured serum interleukin-5 and IL-13 using high-sensitivity single-molecule digital immunoassay and performed nasal brushing using a 3-mm cytology brush 6 hours after a nasal allergy challenge. They performed whole-genome transcriptional profiling on the extracted RNA.
 

Combination therapy worked better and longer

The combined therapy worked better while being administered. Although the allergy shots alone stopped working after they were discontinued, the combination continued to benefit participants 1 year after that therapy ended.

At week 52, statistically significant reductions in TNSS induced by nasal allergy challenges occurred in patients receiving tezepelumab plus SCIT compared with patients receiving SCIT alone.

At week 104, 1 year after treatment ended, the primary endpoint TNSS was not significantly different in the tezepelumab-plus-SCIT group than in the SCIT-alone group, but TNSS peak 0–1 hour was significantly lower in the combination treatment group than in the SCIT-alone group.

In analysis of gene expression from nasal epithelial samples, participants who had been treated with the combination but not with either therapy by itself showed persistent modulation of the nasal immunologic environment, including diminished mast cell function. This was explained in large part by decreased transcription of the gene TPSAB1 (tryptase). Tryptase protein in nasal fluid was also decreased in the combination group, compared with the SCIT-alone group.

Adverse and serious adverse events, including infections and infestations as well as respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, immune system, and nervous system disorders, did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
 

Four independent experts welcome the results

Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., found the results, especially the 1-year posttreatment response durability, surprising.

“AIT is a very effective treatment that often provides prolonged symptom improvement and is ‘curative’ in many cases,” she said in an interview. “If further studies show that tezepelumab offers long-term results, more patients might opt for combination therapy.

“A significant strength of the study is its evaluation of responses of the combination therapy on cellular output and gene expression,” Dr. Lugar added. “The mechanism by which AIT modulates the allergic response is largely understood. Tezepelumab may augment this modulation to alter the Th2 response upon exposure to the allergens.”
 

Will payors cover the prohibitively costly biologic?

Scott Frank, MD, associate professor in the department of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, called the study well designed and rigorous.

“The practicality of the approach may be limited by the need for intravenous administration of tezepelumab in addition to the traditional allergy shot,” he noted by email, “and the cost of this therapeutic approach is not addressed.”

Christopher Brooks, MD, clinical assistant professor of allergy and immunology in the department of otolaryngology at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, also pointed out the drug’s cost.

“Tezepelumab is currently an expensive biologic, so it remains to be seen whether patients and payors will be willing to pay for this add-on medication when AIT by itself still remains very effective,” he said by email.

“AIT is most effective when given for 5 years, so it also remains to be seen whether the results and conclusions of this study would still hold true if done for the typical 5-year treatment period,” he added.

Stokes Peebles, MD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., called the study “very well designed by a highly respected group of investigators using well-matched study populations.

“Tezepelumab has been shown to work in asthma, and there is no reason to think it would not work in allergic rhinitis,” he said in an interview.

“However, while the results of the combined therapy were statistically significant, their clinical significance was not clear. Patients do not care about statistical significance. They want to know whether a drug will be clinically significant,” he added.

Many people avoid cat allergy symptoms by avoiding cats and, in some cases, by avoiding people who live with cats, he said. Medical therapy, usually involving nasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, helps most people avoid cat allergy symptoms.

“Patients with bad allergies who have not done well with SCIT may consider adding tezepelumab, but it incurs a major cost. If medical therapy doesn’t work, allergy shots are available at roughly $3,000 per year. Adding tezepelumab costs around $40,000 more per year,” he explained. “Does the slight clinical benefit justify the greatly increased cost?”

The authors and uninvolved experts recommend further related research.

The research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. AstraZeneca and Amgen donated the drug used in the study. Dr. Corren reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The asthma medication tezepelumab, added to subcutaneous immunotherapy treatment (SCIT), may provide better, longer-lasting symptom relief than allergy shots alone for patients with allergic rhinitis caused by cat allergens, according to results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

“One year of allergen immunotherapy [AIT] combined with tezepelumab was significantly more effective than SCIT alone in reducing the nasal response to allergen challenge both at the end of treatment and one year after stopping treatment,” lead study author Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues wrote in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“This persistent improvement in clinical response was paralleled by reductions in nasal transcripts for multiple immunologic pathways, including mast cell activation.”

The study was cited in a news release from the National Institutes of Health that said that the approach may work in a similar way with other allergens.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma in people aged 12 years and older. Tezelumab, a monoclonal antibody, works by blocking the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP).

“Cells that cover the surface of organs like the skin and intestines or that line the inside of the nose and lungs rapidly secrete TSLP in response to signals of potential danger,” according to the NIH news release. “In allergic disease, TSLP helps initiate an overreactive immune response to otherwise harmless substances like cat dander, provoking airway inflammation that leads to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.”
 

Testing an enhanced strategy

The double-blind CATNIP trial was conducted by Dr. Corren and colleagues at nine sites in the United States. The trial included patients aged 18-65 years who’d had moderate to severe cat-induced allergic rhinitis for at least 2 years from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers excluded patients with recurrent acute or chronic sinusitis. They excluded patients who had undergone SCIT with cat allergen within the past 10 years or seasonal or perennial allergen sensitivity during nasal challenges. They also excluded persons with a history of persistent asthma.

In the parallel-design study, 121 participants were randomly allocated into four groups: 32 patients were treated with intravenous tezepelumab plus cat SCIT, 31 received the allergy shots alone, 30 received tezepelumab alone, and 28 received placebo alone for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation.

Participants received SCIT (10,000 bioequivalent allergy units per milliliter) or matched placebo via subcutaneous injections weekly in increasing doses for around 12 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance injections (4,000 BAU or maximum tolerated dose) until week 48.

They received tezepelumab (700 mg IV) or matched placebo 1-3 days prior to the SCIT or placebo SCIT injections once every 4 weeks through week 24, then before or on the same day as the SCIT or placebo injections through week 48.
 

Measures of effectiveness

Participants were also given nasal allergy challenges – one spritz of a nasal spray containing cat allergen extract in each nostril at screening, baseline, and weeks 26, 52, 78, and 104. The researchers recorded participants’ total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after being sprayed and hourly for up to 6 hours post challenge. Blood and nasal cell samples were also collected.

The research team performed skin prick tests using serial dilutions of cat extract and an intradermal skin test (IDST) using the concentration of allergen that produced an early response of at least 15 mm at baseline. They measured early-phase responses for the both tests at 15 minutes and late-phase response to the IDST at 6 hours.

They measured serum levels of cat dander–specific IgE, IgG4, and total IgE using fluoroenzyme immunoassay. They measured serum interleukin-5 and IL-13 using high-sensitivity single-molecule digital immunoassay and performed nasal brushing using a 3-mm cytology brush 6 hours after a nasal allergy challenge. They performed whole-genome transcriptional profiling on the extracted RNA.
 

Combination therapy worked better and longer

The combined therapy worked better while being administered. Although the allergy shots alone stopped working after they were discontinued, the combination continued to benefit participants 1 year after that therapy ended.

At week 52, statistically significant reductions in TNSS induced by nasal allergy challenges occurred in patients receiving tezepelumab plus SCIT compared with patients receiving SCIT alone.

At week 104, 1 year after treatment ended, the primary endpoint TNSS was not significantly different in the tezepelumab-plus-SCIT group than in the SCIT-alone group, but TNSS peak 0–1 hour was significantly lower in the combination treatment group than in the SCIT-alone group.

In analysis of gene expression from nasal epithelial samples, participants who had been treated with the combination but not with either therapy by itself showed persistent modulation of the nasal immunologic environment, including diminished mast cell function. This was explained in large part by decreased transcription of the gene TPSAB1 (tryptase). Tryptase protein in nasal fluid was also decreased in the combination group, compared with the SCIT-alone group.

Adverse and serious adverse events, including infections and infestations as well as respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, immune system, and nervous system disorders, did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
 

Four independent experts welcome the results

Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., found the results, especially the 1-year posttreatment response durability, surprising.

“AIT is a very effective treatment that often provides prolonged symptom improvement and is ‘curative’ in many cases,” she said in an interview. “If further studies show that tezepelumab offers long-term results, more patients might opt for combination therapy.

“A significant strength of the study is its evaluation of responses of the combination therapy on cellular output and gene expression,” Dr. Lugar added. “The mechanism by which AIT modulates the allergic response is largely understood. Tezepelumab may augment this modulation to alter the Th2 response upon exposure to the allergens.”
 

Will payors cover the prohibitively costly biologic?

Scott Frank, MD, associate professor in the department of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, called the study well designed and rigorous.

“The practicality of the approach may be limited by the need for intravenous administration of tezepelumab in addition to the traditional allergy shot,” he noted by email, “and the cost of this therapeutic approach is not addressed.”

Christopher Brooks, MD, clinical assistant professor of allergy and immunology in the department of otolaryngology at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, also pointed out the drug’s cost.

“Tezepelumab is currently an expensive biologic, so it remains to be seen whether patients and payors will be willing to pay for this add-on medication when AIT by itself still remains very effective,” he said by email.

“AIT is most effective when given for 5 years, so it also remains to be seen whether the results and conclusions of this study would still hold true if done for the typical 5-year treatment period,” he added.

Stokes Peebles, MD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., called the study “very well designed by a highly respected group of investigators using well-matched study populations.

“Tezepelumab has been shown to work in asthma, and there is no reason to think it would not work in allergic rhinitis,” he said in an interview.

“However, while the results of the combined therapy were statistically significant, their clinical significance was not clear. Patients do not care about statistical significance. They want to know whether a drug will be clinically significant,” he added.

Many people avoid cat allergy symptoms by avoiding cats and, in some cases, by avoiding people who live with cats, he said. Medical therapy, usually involving nasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, helps most people avoid cat allergy symptoms.

“Patients with bad allergies who have not done well with SCIT may consider adding tezepelumab, but it incurs a major cost. If medical therapy doesn’t work, allergy shots are available at roughly $3,000 per year. Adding tezepelumab costs around $40,000 more per year,” he explained. “Does the slight clinical benefit justify the greatly increased cost?”

The authors and uninvolved experts recommend further related research.

The research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. AstraZeneca and Amgen donated the drug used in the study. Dr. Corren reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The asthma medication tezepelumab, added to subcutaneous immunotherapy treatment (SCIT), may provide better, longer-lasting symptom relief than allergy shots alone for patients with allergic rhinitis caused by cat allergens, according to results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial.

“One year of allergen immunotherapy [AIT] combined with tezepelumab was significantly more effective than SCIT alone in reducing the nasal response to allergen challenge both at the end of treatment and one year after stopping treatment,” lead study author Jonathan Corren, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues wrote in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

“This persistent improvement in clinical response was paralleled by reductions in nasal transcripts for multiple immunologic pathways, including mast cell activation.”

The study was cited in a news release from the National Institutes of Health that said that the approach may work in a similar way with other allergens.

The Food and Drug Administration recently approved tezepelumab for the treatment of severe asthma in people aged 12 years and older. Tezelumab, a monoclonal antibody, works by blocking the cytokine thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP).

“Cells that cover the surface of organs like the skin and intestines or that line the inside of the nose and lungs rapidly secrete TSLP in response to signals of potential danger,” according to the NIH news release. “In allergic disease, TSLP helps initiate an overreactive immune response to otherwise harmless substances like cat dander, provoking airway inflammation that leads to the symptoms of allergic rhinitis.”
 

Testing an enhanced strategy

The double-blind CATNIP trial was conducted by Dr. Corren and colleagues at nine sites in the United States. The trial included patients aged 18-65 years who’d had moderate to severe cat-induced allergic rhinitis for at least 2 years from 2015 to 2019.

The researchers excluded patients with recurrent acute or chronic sinusitis. They excluded patients who had undergone SCIT with cat allergen within the past 10 years or seasonal or perennial allergen sensitivity during nasal challenges. They also excluded persons with a history of persistent asthma.

In the parallel-design study, 121 participants were randomly allocated into four groups: 32 patients were treated with intravenous tezepelumab plus cat SCIT, 31 received the allergy shots alone, 30 received tezepelumab alone, and 28 received placebo alone for 52 weeks, followed by 52 weeks of observation.

Participants received SCIT (10,000 bioequivalent allergy units per milliliter) or matched placebo via subcutaneous injections weekly in increasing doses for around 12 weeks, followed by monthly maintenance injections (4,000 BAU or maximum tolerated dose) until week 48.

They received tezepelumab (700 mg IV) or matched placebo 1-3 days prior to the SCIT or placebo SCIT injections once every 4 weeks through week 24, then before or on the same day as the SCIT or placebo injections through week 48.
 

Measures of effectiveness

Participants were also given nasal allergy challenges – one spritz of a nasal spray containing cat allergen extract in each nostril at screening, baseline, and weeks 26, 52, 78, and 104. The researchers recorded participants’ total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and peak nasal inspiratory flow at 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after being sprayed and hourly for up to 6 hours post challenge. Blood and nasal cell samples were also collected.

The research team performed skin prick tests using serial dilutions of cat extract and an intradermal skin test (IDST) using the concentration of allergen that produced an early response of at least 15 mm at baseline. They measured early-phase responses for the both tests at 15 minutes and late-phase response to the IDST at 6 hours.

They measured serum levels of cat dander–specific IgE, IgG4, and total IgE using fluoroenzyme immunoassay. They measured serum interleukin-5 and IL-13 using high-sensitivity single-molecule digital immunoassay and performed nasal brushing using a 3-mm cytology brush 6 hours after a nasal allergy challenge. They performed whole-genome transcriptional profiling on the extracted RNA.
 

Combination therapy worked better and longer

The combined therapy worked better while being administered. Although the allergy shots alone stopped working after they were discontinued, the combination continued to benefit participants 1 year after that therapy ended.

At week 52, statistically significant reductions in TNSS induced by nasal allergy challenges occurred in patients receiving tezepelumab plus SCIT compared with patients receiving SCIT alone.

At week 104, 1 year after treatment ended, the primary endpoint TNSS was not significantly different in the tezepelumab-plus-SCIT group than in the SCIT-alone group, but TNSS peak 0–1 hour was significantly lower in the combination treatment group than in the SCIT-alone group.

In analysis of gene expression from nasal epithelial samples, participants who had been treated with the combination but not with either therapy by itself showed persistent modulation of the nasal immunologic environment, including diminished mast cell function. This was explained in large part by decreased transcription of the gene TPSAB1 (tryptase). Tryptase protein in nasal fluid was also decreased in the combination group, compared with the SCIT-alone group.

Adverse and serious adverse events, including infections and infestations as well as respiratory, thoracic, mediastinal, gastrointestinal, immune system, and nervous system disorders, did not differ significantly between treatment groups.
 

Four independent experts welcome the results

Patricia Lynne Lugar, MD, associate professor of medicine in the division of pulmonology, allergy, and critical care medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., found the results, especially the 1-year posttreatment response durability, surprising.

“AIT is a very effective treatment that often provides prolonged symptom improvement and is ‘curative’ in many cases,” she said in an interview. “If further studies show that tezepelumab offers long-term results, more patients might opt for combination therapy.

“A significant strength of the study is its evaluation of responses of the combination therapy on cellular output and gene expression,” Dr. Lugar added. “The mechanism by which AIT modulates the allergic response is largely understood. Tezepelumab may augment this modulation to alter the Th2 response upon exposure to the allergens.”
 

Will payors cover the prohibitively costly biologic?

Scott Frank, MD, associate professor in the department of family medicine and community health at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, called the study well designed and rigorous.

“The practicality of the approach may be limited by the need for intravenous administration of tezepelumab in addition to the traditional allergy shot,” he noted by email, “and the cost of this therapeutic approach is not addressed.”

Christopher Brooks, MD, clinical assistant professor of allergy and immunology in the department of otolaryngology at Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, also pointed out the drug’s cost.

“Tezepelumab is currently an expensive biologic, so it remains to be seen whether patients and payors will be willing to pay for this add-on medication when AIT by itself still remains very effective,” he said by email.

“AIT is most effective when given for 5 years, so it also remains to be seen whether the results and conclusions of this study would still hold true if done for the typical 5-year treatment period,” he added.

Stokes Peebles, MD, professor of medicine in the division of allergy, pulmonary, and critical care medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., called the study “very well designed by a highly respected group of investigators using well-matched study populations.

“Tezepelumab has been shown to work in asthma, and there is no reason to think it would not work in allergic rhinitis,” he said in an interview.

“However, while the results of the combined therapy were statistically significant, their clinical significance was not clear. Patients do not care about statistical significance. They want to know whether a drug will be clinically significant,” he added.

Many people avoid cat allergy symptoms by avoiding cats and, in some cases, by avoiding people who live with cats, he said. Medical therapy, usually involving nasal corticosteroids and antihistamines, helps most people avoid cat allergy symptoms.

“Patients with bad allergies who have not done well with SCIT may consider adding tezepelumab, but it incurs a major cost. If medical therapy doesn’t work, allergy shots are available at roughly $3,000 per year. Adding tezepelumab costs around $40,000 more per year,” he explained. “Does the slight clinical benefit justify the greatly increased cost?”

The authors and uninvolved experts recommend further related research.

The research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. AstraZeneca and Amgen donated the drug used in the study. Dr. Corren reported financial relationships with AstraZeneca, and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies. The remaining coauthors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contact allergy to cobalt, chromium, and especially nickel, may be higher in European metalworkers than in all European male patients with allergic contact dermatitis, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Metal allergy to all three metals was significantly more common in European metalworkers with dermatitis attending patch test clinics as compared to ESSCA [European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies] data, indicating a relationship to occupational exposures,” senior study author Jeanne D. Johansen, MD, professor, department of dermatology and allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen wrote in Contact Dermatitis. “However, confounders could not be accounted for.”

How common is metal allergy in metalworkers?

Occupational hand eczema is known to be common in metalworkers. Touching oils, greases, metals, leather gloves, rubber materials, and metalworking fluids as they repeatedly cut, shape, and process raw metals and minerals derived from ore mining exposes metalworkers to allergens and skin irritants, the authors wrote. But the prevalence of allergy to certain metals has not been well characterized.

So they searched PubMed for full-text studies in English that reported metal allergy prevalence in metalworkers, from the database’s inception through April 2022.

They included studies with absolute numbers or proportions of metal allergy to cobalt, chromium, or nickel, in all metalworkers with suspected allergic contact dermatitis who attended outpatient clinics or who worked at metalworking plants participating in workplace studies.

The researchers performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of metal allergy. Because 85%-90% of metalworkers in Denmark are male, they compared the estimates they found with ESSCA data on 13,382 consecutively patch-tested males with dermatitis between 2015 and 2018.

Of the 1,667 records they screened, they analyzed data from 29 that met their inclusion criteria: 22 patient studies and 7 workplace studies involving 5,691 patients overall from 22 studies from Europe, 5 studies from Asia, and 1 from Africa. Regarding European metalworkers, the authors found:

• Pooled proportions of allergy in European metalworkers with dermatitis referred to patch test clinics were 8.2% to cobalt (95% confidence interval, 5.3%-11.7%), 8.0% to chromium (95% CI, 5.1%-11.4%), and 11.0% to nickel (95% CI, 7.3%-15.4%).
• In workplace studies, the pooled proportions of allergy in unselected European metalworkers were 4.9% to cobalt, (95% CI, 2.4%-8.1%), 5.2% to chromium (95% CI, 1.0% - 12.6%), and 7.6% to nickel (95% CI, 3.8%-12.6%).
• By comparison, ESSCA data on metal allergy prevalence showed 3.9% allergic to cobalt (95% CI, 3.6%-4.2%), 4.4% allergic to chromium (95% CI, 4.1%-4.8%), and 6.7% allergic to nickel (95% CI, 6.3%-7.0%).
• Data on sex, age, body piercings, and atopic dermatitis were scant.

Thorough histories, protective regulations and equipment

Providers need to ask their dermatitis patients about current and past occupations and hobbies, and employers need to provide employees with equipment that protects them from exposure, Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

“Repeated exposure to an allergen is required for sensitization to develop,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the study. “Metalworkers, who are continually exposed to metals and metalworking fluids, have a higher risk of allergic contact dermatitis to cobalt, chromium, and nickel.”

“The primary treatment for allergic contact dermatitis is preventing continued exposure to the allergen,” she added. “This study highlights the importance of asking about metal or metalworking fluid in the workplace and of elucidating whether the employer is providing appropriate protective gear.”

To prevent occupational dermatitis, workplaces need to apply regulatory measures and provide their employees with protective equipment, Dr. Tyler advised.

“Body piercings are a common sensitizer in patients with metal allergy, and the prevalence of body piercings among metalworkers was not included in the study,” she noted.

The results of the study may not be generalizable to patients in the United States, she added, because regulations and requirements to provide protective gear here may differ.

“Taking a thorough patient history is crucial when investigating potential causes of dermatitis, especially in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis,” Dr. Tyler urged.

Funding and conflict-of-interest details were not provided. Dr. Tyler reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contact allergy to cobalt, chromium, and especially nickel, may be higher in European metalworkers than in all European male patients with allergic contact dermatitis, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Metal allergy to all three metals was significantly more common in European metalworkers with dermatitis attending patch test clinics as compared to ESSCA [European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies] data, indicating a relationship to occupational exposures,” senior study author Jeanne D. Johansen, MD, professor, department of dermatology and allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen wrote in Contact Dermatitis. “However, confounders could not be accounted for.”

How common is metal allergy in metalworkers?

Occupational hand eczema is known to be common in metalworkers. Touching oils, greases, metals, leather gloves, rubber materials, and metalworking fluids as they repeatedly cut, shape, and process raw metals and minerals derived from ore mining exposes metalworkers to allergens and skin irritants, the authors wrote. But the prevalence of allergy to certain metals has not been well characterized.

So they searched PubMed for full-text studies in English that reported metal allergy prevalence in metalworkers, from the database’s inception through April 2022.

They included studies with absolute numbers or proportions of metal allergy to cobalt, chromium, or nickel, in all metalworkers with suspected allergic contact dermatitis who attended outpatient clinics or who worked at metalworking plants participating in workplace studies.

The researchers performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of metal allergy. Because 85%-90% of metalworkers in Denmark are male, they compared the estimates they found with ESSCA data on 13,382 consecutively patch-tested males with dermatitis between 2015 and 2018.

Of the 1,667 records they screened, they analyzed data from 29 that met their inclusion criteria: 22 patient studies and 7 workplace studies involving 5,691 patients overall from 22 studies from Europe, 5 studies from Asia, and 1 from Africa. Regarding European metalworkers, the authors found:

• Pooled proportions of allergy in European metalworkers with dermatitis referred to patch test clinics were 8.2% to cobalt (95% confidence interval, 5.3%-11.7%), 8.0% to chromium (95% CI, 5.1%-11.4%), and 11.0% to nickel (95% CI, 7.3%-15.4%).
• In workplace studies, the pooled proportions of allergy in unselected European metalworkers were 4.9% to cobalt, (95% CI, 2.4%-8.1%), 5.2% to chromium (95% CI, 1.0% - 12.6%), and 7.6% to nickel (95% CI, 3.8%-12.6%).
• By comparison, ESSCA data on metal allergy prevalence showed 3.9% allergic to cobalt (95% CI, 3.6%-4.2%), 4.4% allergic to chromium (95% CI, 4.1%-4.8%), and 6.7% allergic to nickel (95% CI, 6.3%-7.0%).
• Data on sex, age, body piercings, and atopic dermatitis were scant.

Thorough histories, protective regulations and equipment

Providers need to ask their dermatitis patients about current and past occupations and hobbies, and employers need to provide employees with equipment that protects them from exposure, Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

“Repeated exposure to an allergen is required for sensitization to develop,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the study. “Metalworkers, who are continually exposed to metals and metalworking fluids, have a higher risk of allergic contact dermatitis to cobalt, chromium, and nickel.”

“The primary treatment for allergic contact dermatitis is preventing continued exposure to the allergen,” she added. “This study highlights the importance of asking about metal or metalworking fluid in the workplace and of elucidating whether the employer is providing appropriate protective gear.”

To prevent occupational dermatitis, workplaces need to apply regulatory measures and provide their employees with protective equipment, Dr. Tyler advised.

“Body piercings are a common sensitizer in patients with metal allergy, and the prevalence of body piercings among metalworkers was not included in the study,” she noted.

The results of the study may not be generalizable to patients in the United States, she added, because regulations and requirements to provide protective gear here may differ.

“Taking a thorough patient history is crucial when investigating potential causes of dermatitis, especially in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis,” Dr. Tyler urged.

Funding and conflict-of-interest details were not provided. Dr. Tyler reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Contact allergy to cobalt, chromium, and especially nickel, may be higher in European metalworkers than in all European male patients with allergic contact dermatitis, a systematic review and meta-analysis reports.

“Metal allergy to all three metals was significantly more common in European metalworkers with dermatitis attending patch test clinics as compared to ESSCA [European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies] data, indicating a relationship to occupational exposures,” senior study author Jeanne D. Johansen, MD, professor, department of dermatology and allergy, Copenhagen University Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, and colleagues at the University of Copenhagen wrote in Contact Dermatitis. “However, confounders could not be accounted for.”

How common is metal allergy in metalworkers?

Occupational hand eczema is known to be common in metalworkers. Touching oils, greases, metals, leather gloves, rubber materials, and metalworking fluids as they repeatedly cut, shape, and process raw metals and minerals derived from ore mining exposes metalworkers to allergens and skin irritants, the authors wrote. But the prevalence of allergy to certain metals has not been well characterized.

So they searched PubMed for full-text studies in English that reported metal allergy prevalence in metalworkers, from the database’s inception through April 2022.

They included studies with absolute numbers or proportions of metal allergy to cobalt, chromium, or nickel, in all metalworkers with suspected allergic contact dermatitis who attended outpatient clinics or who worked at metalworking plants participating in workplace studies.

The researchers performed a random-effects meta-analysis to calculate the pooled prevalence of metal allergy. Because 85%-90% of metalworkers in Denmark are male, they compared the estimates they found with ESSCA data on 13,382 consecutively patch-tested males with dermatitis between 2015 and 2018.

Of the 1,667 records they screened, they analyzed data from 29 that met their inclusion criteria: 22 patient studies and 7 workplace studies involving 5,691 patients overall from 22 studies from Europe, 5 studies from Asia, and 1 from Africa. Regarding European metalworkers, the authors found:

• Pooled proportions of allergy in European metalworkers with dermatitis referred to patch test clinics were 8.2% to cobalt (95% confidence interval, 5.3%-11.7%), 8.0% to chromium (95% CI, 5.1%-11.4%), and 11.0% to nickel (95% CI, 7.3%-15.4%).
• In workplace studies, the pooled proportions of allergy in unselected European metalworkers were 4.9% to cobalt, (95% CI, 2.4%-8.1%), 5.2% to chromium (95% CI, 1.0% - 12.6%), and 7.6% to nickel (95% CI, 3.8%-12.6%).
• By comparison, ESSCA data on metal allergy prevalence showed 3.9% allergic to cobalt (95% CI, 3.6%-4.2%), 4.4% allergic to chromium (95% CI, 4.1%-4.8%), and 6.7% allergic to nickel (95% CI, 6.3%-7.0%).
• Data on sex, age, body piercings, and atopic dermatitis were scant.

Thorough histories, protective regulations and equipment

Providers need to ask their dermatitis patients about current and past occupations and hobbies, and employers need to provide employees with equipment that protects them from exposure, Kelly Tyler, MD, associate professor of dermatology, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, said in an interview.

“Repeated exposure to an allergen is required for sensitization to develop,” said Dr. Tyler, who was not involved in the study. “Metalworkers, who are continually exposed to metals and metalworking fluids, have a higher risk of allergic contact dermatitis to cobalt, chromium, and nickel.”

“The primary treatment for allergic contact dermatitis is preventing continued exposure to the allergen,” she added. “This study highlights the importance of asking about metal or metalworking fluid in the workplace and of elucidating whether the employer is providing appropriate protective gear.”

To prevent occupational dermatitis, workplaces need to apply regulatory measures and provide their employees with protective equipment, Dr. Tyler advised.

“Body piercings are a common sensitizer in patients with metal allergy, and the prevalence of body piercings among metalworkers was not included in the study,” she noted.

The results of the study may not be generalizable to patients in the United States, she added, because regulations and requirements to provide protective gear here may differ.

“Taking a thorough patient history is crucial when investigating potential causes of dermatitis, especially in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis,” Dr. Tyler urged.

Funding and conflict-of-interest details were not provided. Dr. Tyler reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People with gout, especially women, appear to be at higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status, researchers suggest.

“We found that the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 30-day hospitalization, and 30-day death among individuals with gout were higher than the general population irrespective of the vaccination status,” lead study author Dongxing Xie, MD, PhD, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and his colleagues write in their large population study. “This finding informs individuals with gout, especially women, that additional measures, even after vaccination, should be considered in order to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe sequelae.”

People with gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, often have other conditions that are linked to higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes as well, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease, the authors write. And elevated serum urate may contribute to inflammation and possible COVID-19 complications. But unlike in the case of diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, little is known about SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among patients with gout.

As reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Xie and his research team used the Health Improvement Network ([THIN], now called IQVIA Medical Research Database) repository of medical conditions, demographics, and other details of around 17 million people in the United Kingdom to estimate the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death in people with gout. They compared those outcomes with outcomes of people without gout and compared outcomes of vaccinated vs. nonvaccinated participants.

From December 2020 through October 2021, the researchers investigated the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in vaccinated people between age 18 and 90 years who had gout and were hospitalized within 30 days after the infection diagnosis or who died within 30 days after the diagnosis. They compared these outcomes with the outcomes of people in the general population without gout after COVID-19 vaccination. They also compared the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe outcomes between individuals with gout and the general population among unvaccinated people.

They weighted these comparisons on the basis of age, sex, body mass index, socioeconomic deprivation index score, region, and number of previous COVID-19 tests in one model. A more fully adjusted model also weighted the comparisons for lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and healthcare utilization.

The vaccinated cohort consisted of 54,576 people with gout and 1,336,377 without gout from the general population. The unvaccinated cohort included 61,111 individuals with gout and 1,697,168 individuals without gout from the general population.
 

Women more likely to be hospitalized and die

The risk for breakthrough infection in the vaccinated cohort was significantly higher among people with gout than among those without gout in the general population, particularly for men, who had hazard ratios (HRs) ranging from 1.22 with a fully adjusted exposure score to 1.30 with a partially adjusted score, but this was not seen in women. The overall incidence of breakthrough infection per 1,000 person-months for these groups was 4.68 with gout vs. 3.76 without gout.

The researchers showed a similar pattern of a higher rate of hospitalizations for people with gout vs. without (0.42/1,000 person-months vs. 0.28); in this case, women had higher risks than did men, with HRs for women ranging from 1.55 with a fully adjusted exposure score to 1.91 with a partially adjusted score, compared with 1.22 and 1.43 for men, respectively.

People with gout had significantly higher mortality than did those without (0.06/1,000 person-months vs. 0.04), but the risk for death was only higher for women, with HRs calculated to be 2.23 in fully adjusted exposure scores and 3.01 in partially adjusted scores.

These same comparisons in the unvaccinated cohort all went in the same direction as did those in the vaccinated cohort but showed higher rates for infection (8.69/1,000 person-months vs. 6.89), hospitalization (2.57/1,000 person-months vs. 1.71), and death (0.65/1,000 person-months vs. 0.53). Similar sex-specific links between gout and risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death were seen in the unvaccinated cohort.
 

Patients with gout and COVID-19 need close monitoring

Four experts who were not involved in the study encourage greater attention to the needs of patients with gout.

Earlier studies show links between gout and severe COVID-19 outcomes

Lead author Kanon Jatuworapruk, MD, PhD, of Thammasat University in Pathumthani, Thailand, and his colleagues investigated characteristics and outcomes of people with gout who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 2020 and October 2021, using data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry.

“This cohort of people with gout and COVID-19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death,” the authors write in ACR Open Rheumatology . “This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID-19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.”

In their study, the average age of the 163 patients was 63 years, and 85% were men. Most lived in the Western Pacific Region and North America, and 46% had two or more comorbidities, most commonly hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and obesity. The researchers found that:

• Sixty-eight percent of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization.
• Sixteen percent of deaths were related to COVID-19, with 73% of deaths occurring in people with two or more comorbidities.

Ruth K. Topless, assistant research fellow in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, is the lead author on a study she and her colleagues are conducting using the UK Biobank databases of 459,837 participants in the United Kingdom, including 15,871 people with gout, through April 6, 2021, to investigate whether gout is a risk factor for diagnosis of COVID-19 and COVID-19–related death.

“Gout is a risk factor for COVID-19-related death in the UK Biobank cohort, with an increased risk in women with gout, which was driven by risk factors independent of the metabolic comorbidities of gout,” the researchers conclude in The Lancet Rheumatology.

In their study, gout was linked with COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29) but not with risk for COVID-19–related death in the group of patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.96-1.51). In the entire cohort, gout was linked with COVID-19–related death (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.56); women with gout were at increased risk for COVID-19–related death (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.34-2.94), but men with gout were not (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45). The risk for COVID-19 diagnosis was significant in the nonvaccinated group (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30) but not in the vaccinated group (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.65-1.85).
 

Editorial authors join in recommending further related research

In a commentary in The Lancet Rheumatology about the UK Biobank and other related research, Christoffer B. Nissen, MD, of University Hospital of Southern Denmark in Sonderborg, and his co-authors call the Topless and colleagues study “an elegantly conducted analysis of data from the UK Biobank supporting the hypothesis that gout needs attention in patients with COVID-19.”

Further studies are needed to investigate to what degree a diagnosis of gout is a risk factor for COVID-19 and whether treatment modifies the risk of a severe disease course,” they write. “However, in the interim, the results of this study could be considered when risk stratifying patients with gout in view of vaccination recommendations and early treatment interventions.”

Each of the three studies received grant funding. Several of the authors of the studies report financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. All outside experts commented by email and report no relevant financial involvements.

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

People with gout, especially women, appear to be at higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status, researchers suggest.

“We found that the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 30-day hospitalization, and 30-day death among individuals with gout were higher than the general population irrespective of the vaccination status,” lead study author Dongxing Xie, MD, PhD, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and his colleagues write in their large population study. “This finding informs individuals with gout, especially women, that additional measures, even after vaccination, should be considered in order to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe sequelae.”

People with gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, often have other conditions that are linked to higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes as well, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease, the authors write. And elevated serum urate may contribute to inflammation and possible COVID-19 complications. But unlike in the case of diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, little is known about SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among patients with gout.

As reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Xie and his research team used the Health Improvement Network ([THIN], now called IQVIA Medical Research Database) repository of medical conditions, demographics, and other details of around 17 million people in the United Kingdom to estimate the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death in people with gout. They compared those outcomes with outcomes of people without gout and compared outcomes of vaccinated vs. nonvaccinated participants.

From December 2020 through October 2021, the researchers investigated the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in vaccinated people between age 18 and 90 years who had gout and were hospitalized within 30 days after the infection diagnosis or who died within 30 days after the diagnosis. They compared these outcomes with the outcomes of people in the general population without gout after COVID-19 vaccination. They also compared the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe outcomes between individuals with gout and the general population among unvaccinated people.

They weighted these comparisons on the basis of age, sex, body mass index, socioeconomic deprivation index score, region, and number of previous COVID-19 tests in one model. A more fully adjusted model also weighted the comparisons for lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and healthcare utilization.

The vaccinated cohort consisted of 54,576 people with gout and 1,336,377 without gout from the general population. The unvaccinated cohort included 61,111 individuals with gout and 1,697,168 individuals without gout from the general population.
 

Women more likely to be hospitalized and die

The risk for breakthrough infection in the vaccinated cohort was significantly higher among people with gout than among those without gout in the general population, particularly for men, who had hazard ratios (HRs) ranging from 1.22 with a fully adjusted exposure score to 1.30 with a partially adjusted score, but this was not seen in women. The overall incidence of breakthrough infection per 1,000 person-months for these groups was 4.68 with gout vs. 3.76 without gout.

The researchers showed a similar pattern of a higher rate of hospitalizations for people with gout vs. without (0.42/1,000 person-months vs. 0.28); in this case, women had higher risks than did men, with HRs for women ranging from 1.55 with a fully adjusted exposure score to 1.91 with a partially adjusted score, compared with 1.22 and 1.43 for men, respectively.

People with gout had significantly higher mortality than did those without (0.06/1,000 person-months vs. 0.04), but the risk for death was only higher for women, with HRs calculated to be 2.23 in fully adjusted exposure scores and 3.01 in partially adjusted scores.

These same comparisons in the unvaccinated cohort all went in the same direction as did those in the vaccinated cohort but showed higher rates for infection (8.69/1,000 person-months vs. 6.89), hospitalization (2.57/1,000 person-months vs. 1.71), and death (0.65/1,000 person-months vs. 0.53). Similar sex-specific links between gout and risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death were seen in the unvaccinated cohort.
 

Patients with gout and COVID-19 need close monitoring

Four experts who were not involved in the study encourage greater attention to the needs of patients with gout.

Earlier studies show links between gout and severe COVID-19 outcomes

Lead author Kanon Jatuworapruk, MD, PhD, of Thammasat University in Pathumthani, Thailand, and his colleagues investigated characteristics and outcomes of people with gout who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 2020 and October 2021, using data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry.

“This cohort of people with gout and COVID-19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death,” the authors write in ACR Open Rheumatology . “This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID-19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.”

In their study, the average age of the 163 patients was 63 years, and 85% were men. Most lived in the Western Pacific Region and North America, and 46% had two or more comorbidities, most commonly hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and obesity. The researchers found that:

• Sixty-eight percent of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization.
• Sixteen percent of deaths were related to COVID-19, with 73% of deaths occurring in people with two or more comorbidities.

Ruth K. Topless, assistant research fellow in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, is the lead author on a study she and her colleagues are conducting using the UK Biobank databases of 459,837 participants in the United Kingdom, including 15,871 people with gout, through April 6, 2021, to investigate whether gout is a risk factor for diagnosis of COVID-19 and COVID-19–related death.

“Gout is a risk factor for COVID-19-related death in the UK Biobank cohort, with an increased risk in women with gout, which was driven by risk factors independent of the metabolic comorbidities of gout,” the researchers conclude in The Lancet Rheumatology.

In their study, gout was linked with COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29) but not with risk for COVID-19–related death in the group of patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.96-1.51). In the entire cohort, gout was linked with COVID-19–related death (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.56); women with gout were at increased risk for COVID-19–related death (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.34-2.94), but men with gout were not (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45). The risk for COVID-19 diagnosis was significant in the nonvaccinated group (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30) but not in the vaccinated group (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.65-1.85).
 

Editorial authors join in recommending further related research

In a commentary in The Lancet Rheumatology about the UK Biobank and other related research, Christoffer B. Nissen, MD, of University Hospital of Southern Denmark in Sonderborg, and his co-authors call the Topless and colleagues study “an elegantly conducted analysis of data from the UK Biobank supporting the hypothesis that gout needs attention in patients with COVID-19.”

Further studies are needed to investigate to what degree a diagnosis of gout is a risk factor for COVID-19 and whether treatment modifies the risk of a severe disease course,” they write. “However, in the interim, the results of this study could be considered when risk stratifying patients with gout in view of vaccination recommendations and early treatment interventions.”

Each of the three studies received grant funding. Several of the authors of the studies report financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. All outside experts commented by email and report no relevant financial involvements.

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

People with gout, especially women, appear to be at higher risk for poor COVID-19 outcomes, including hospitalization and death, regardless of COVID-19 vaccination status, researchers suggest.

“We found that the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 30-day hospitalization, and 30-day death among individuals with gout were higher than the general population irrespective of the vaccination status,” lead study author Dongxing Xie, MD, PhD, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China, and his colleagues write in their large population study. “This finding informs individuals with gout, especially women, that additional measures, even after vaccination, should be considered in order to mitigate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe sequelae.”

People with gout, the most common inflammatory arthritis, often have other conditions that are linked to higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and poor outcomes as well, including obesity, cardiovascular disease, and chronic kidney disease, the authors write. And elevated serum urate may contribute to inflammation and possible COVID-19 complications. But unlike in the case of diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, little is known about SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among patients with gout.

As reported in Arthritis & Rheumatology, Dr. Xie and his research team used the Health Improvement Network ([THIN], now called IQVIA Medical Research Database) repository of medical conditions, demographics, and other details of around 17 million people in the United Kingdom to estimate the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death in people with gout. They compared those outcomes with outcomes of people without gout and compared outcomes of vaccinated vs. nonvaccinated participants.

From December 2020 through October 2021, the researchers investigated the risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection in vaccinated people between age 18 and 90 years who had gout and were hospitalized within 30 days after the infection diagnosis or who died within 30 days after the diagnosis. They compared these outcomes with the outcomes of people in the general population without gout after COVID-19 vaccination. They also compared the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and its severe outcomes between individuals with gout and the general population among unvaccinated people.

They weighted these comparisons on the basis of age, sex, body mass index, socioeconomic deprivation index score, region, and number of previous COVID-19 tests in one model. A more fully adjusted model also weighted the comparisons for lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and healthcare utilization.

The vaccinated cohort consisted of 54,576 people with gout and 1,336,377 without gout from the general population. The unvaccinated cohort included 61,111 individuals with gout and 1,697,168 individuals without gout from the general population.
 

Women more likely to be hospitalized and die

The risk for breakthrough infection in the vaccinated cohort was significantly higher among people with gout than among those without gout in the general population, particularly for men, who had hazard ratios (HRs) ranging from 1.22 with a fully adjusted exposure score to 1.30 with a partially adjusted score, but this was not seen in women. The overall incidence of breakthrough infection per 1,000 person-months for these groups was 4.68 with gout vs. 3.76 without gout.

The researchers showed a similar pattern of a higher rate of hospitalizations for people with gout vs. without (0.42/1,000 person-months vs. 0.28); in this case, women had higher risks than did men, with HRs for women ranging from 1.55 with a fully adjusted exposure score to 1.91 with a partially adjusted score, compared with 1.22 and 1.43 for men, respectively.

People with gout had significantly higher mortality than did those without (0.06/1,000 person-months vs. 0.04), but the risk for death was only higher for women, with HRs calculated to be 2.23 in fully adjusted exposure scores and 3.01 in partially adjusted scores.

These same comparisons in the unvaccinated cohort all went in the same direction as did those in the vaccinated cohort but showed higher rates for infection (8.69/1,000 person-months vs. 6.89), hospitalization (2.57/1,000 person-months vs. 1.71), and death (0.65/1,000 person-months vs. 0.53). Similar sex-specific links between gout and risks for SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and death were seen in the unvaccinated cohort.
 

Patients with gout and COVID-19 need close monitoring

Four experts who were not involved in the study encourage greater attention to the needs of patients with gout.

Earlier studies show links between gout and severe COVID-19 outcomes

Lead author Kanon Jatuworapruk, MD, PhD, of Thammasat University in Pathumthani, Thailand, and his colleagues investigated characteristics and outcomes of people with gout who were hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 2020 and October 2021, using data from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance registry.

“This cohort of people with gout and COVID-19 who were hospitalized had high frequencies of ventilatory support and death,” the authors write in ACR Open Rheumatology . “This suggests that patients with gout who were hospitalized for COVID-19 may be at risk of poor outcomes, perhaps related to known risk factors for poor outcomes, such as age and presence of comorbidity.”

In their study, the average age of the 163 patients was 63 years, and 85% were men. Most lived in the Western Pacific Region and North America, and 46% had two or more comorbidities, most commonly hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and obesity. The researchers found that:

• Sixty-eight percent of the cohort required supplemental oxygen or ventilatory support during hospitalization.
• Sixteen percent of deaths were related to COVID-19, with 73% of deaths occurring in people with two or more comorbidities.

Ruth K. Topless, assistant research fellow in the department of biochemistry at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, is the lead author on a study she and her colleagues are conducting using the UK Biobank databases of 459,837 participants in the United Kingdom, including 15,871 people with gout, through April 6, 2021, to investigate whether gout is a risk factor for diagnosis of COVID-19 and COVID-19–related death.

“Gout is a risk factor for COVID-19-related death in the UK Biobank cohort, with an increased risk in women with gout, which was driven by risk factors independent of the metabolic comorbidities of gout,” the researchers conclude in The Lancet Rheumatology.

In their study, gout was linked with COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.29) but not with risk for COVID-19–related death in the group of patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.96-1.51). In the entire cohort, gout was linked with COVID-19–related death (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.56); women with gout were at increased risk for COVID-19–related death (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.34-2.94), but men with gout were not (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.93-1.45). The risk for COVID-19 diagnosis was significant in the nonvaccinated group (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.30) but not in the vaccinated group (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.65-1.85).
 

Editorial authors join in recommending further related research

In a commentary in The Lancet Rheumatology about the UK Biobank and other related research, Christoffer B. Nissen, MD, of University Hospital of Southern Denmark in Sonderborg, and his co-authors call the Topless and colleagues study “an elegantly conducted analysis of data from the UK Biobank supporting the hypothesis that gout needs attention in patients with COVID-19.”

Further studies are needed to investigate to what degree a diagnosis of gout is a risk factor for COVID-19 and whether treatment modifies the risk of a severe disease course,” they write. “However, in the interim, the results of this study could be considered when risk stratifying patients with gout in view of vaccination recommendations and early treatment interventions.”

Each of the three studies received grant funding. Several of the authors of the studies report financial involvements with pharmaceutical companies. All outside experts commented by email and report no relevant financial involvements.

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