User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
WHO to rename monkeypox because of stigma concerns
The virus has infected more than 1,600 people in 39 countries so far this year, the WHO said, including 32 countries where the virus isn’t typically detected.
“WHO is working with partners and experts from around the world on changing the name of monkeypox virus, its clades, and the disease it causes,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the WHO’s director-general, said during a press briefing.
“We will make announcements about the new names as soon as possible,” he said.
Last week, more than 30 international scientists urged the public health community to change the name of the virus. The scientists posted a letter on June 10, which included support from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, noting that the name should change with the ongoing transmission among humans this year.
“The prevailing perception in the international media and scientific literature is that MPXV is endemic in people in some African countries. However, it is well established that nearly all MPXV outbreaks in Africa prior to the 2022 outbreak have been the result of spillover from animals and humans and only rarely have there been reports of sustained human-to-human transmissions,” they wrote.
“In the context of the current global outbreak, continued reference to, and nomenclature of this virus being African is not only inaccurate but is also discriminatory and stigmatizing,” they added.
As one example, they noted, news outlets have used images of African patients to depict the pox lesions, although most stories about the current outbreak have focused on the global north. The Foreign Press Association of Africa has urged the global media to stop using images of Black people to highlight the outbreak in Europe.
“Although the origin of the new global MPXV outbreak is still unknown, there is growing evidence that the most likely scenario is that cross-continent, cryptic human transmission has been ongoing for longer than previously thought,” they wrote.
The WHO has listed two known clades of the monkeypox virus in recent updates – “one identified in West Africa and one in the Congo Basin region.” The group of scientists wrote that this approach is “counter to the best practice of avoiding geographic locations in the nomenclature of diseases and disease groups.”
The scientists proposed a new classification that would name three clades in order of detection – 1, 2, and 3 – for the viral genomes detected in Central Africa, Western Africa, and the localized spillover events detected this year in global north countries. More genome sequencing could uncover additional clades, they noted.
Even within the most recent clade, there is already notable diversity among the genomes, the scientists said. Like the new naming convention adopted for the coronavirus pandemic, the nomenclature for human monkeypox could be donated as “A.1, A.2, A.1.1,” they wrote.
The largest current outbreak is in the United Kingdom, where health officials have detected 524 cases, according to the latest update from the U.K. Health Security Agency.
As of June 15, 72 cases have been reported in the United States, including 15 in California and 15 in New York, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
Also on June 15, the WHO published interim guidance on the use of smallpox vaccines for monkeypox. The WHO doesn’t recommend mass vaccination against monkeypox and said vaccines should be used on a case-by-case basis.
The WHO will convene an emergency meeting next week to determine whether the spread of the virus should be considered a global public health emergency.
“The global outbreak of monkeypox is clearly unusual and concerning,” Dr. Tedros said June 15. “It’s for that reason that I have decided to convene the emergency committee under the International Health Regulations next week to assess whether this outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The virus has infected more than 1,600 people in 39 countries so far this year, the WHO said, including 32 countries where the virus isn’t typically detected.
“WHO is working with partners and experts from around the world on changing the name of monkeypox virus, its clades, and the disease it causes,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the WHO’s director-general, said during a press briefing.
“We will make announcements about the new names as soon as possible,” he said.
Last week, more than 30 international scientists urged the public health community to change the name of the virus. The scientists posted a letter on June 10, which included support from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, noting that the name should change with the ongoing transmission among humans this year.
“The prevailing perception in the international media and scientific literature is that MPXV is endemic in people in some African countries. However, it is well established that nearly all MPXV outbreaks in Africa prior to the 2022 outbreak have been the result of spillover from animals and humans and only rarely have there been reports of sustained human-to-human transmissions,” they wrote.
“In the context of the current global outbreak, continued reference to, and nomenclature of this virus being African is not only inaccurate but is also discriminatory and stigmatizing,” they added.
As one example, they noted, news outlets have used images of African patients to depict the pox lesions, although most stories about the current outbreak have focused on the global north. The Foreign Press Association of Africa has urged the global media to stop using images of Black people to highlight the outbreak in Europe.
“Although the origin of the new global MPXV outbreak is still unknown, there is growing evidence that the most likely scenario is that cross-continent, cryptic human transmission has been ongoing for longer than previously thought,” they wrote.
The WHO has listed two known clades of the monkeypox virus in recent updates – “one identified in West Africa and one in the Congo Basin region.” The group of scientists wrote that this approach is “counter to the best practice of avoiding geographic locations in the nomenclature of diseases and disease groups.”
The scientists proposed a new classification that would name three clades in order of detection – 1, 2, and 3 – for the viral genomes detected in Central Africa, Western Africa, and the localized spillover events detected this year in global north countries. More genome sequencing could uncover additional clades, they noted.
Even within the most recent clade, there is already notable diversity among the genomes, the scientists said. Like the new naming convention adopted for the coronavirus pandemic, the nomenclature for human monkeypox could be donated as “A.1, A.2, A.1.1,” they wrote.
The largest current outbreak is in the United Kingdom, where health officials have detected 524 cases, according to the latest update from the U.K. Health Security Agency.
As of June 15, 72 cases have been reported in the United States, including 15 in California and 15 in New York, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
Also on June 15, the WHO published interim guidance on the use of smallpox vaccines for monkeypox. The WHO doesn’t recommend mass vaccination against monkeypox and said vaccines should be used on a case-by-case basis.
The WHO will convene an emergency meeting next week to determine whether the spread of the virus should be considered a global public health emergency.
“The global outbreak of monkeypox is clearly unusual and concerning,” Dr. Tedros said June 15. “It’s for that reason that I have decided to convene the emergency committee under the International Health Regulations next week to assess whether this outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The virus has infected more than 1,600 people in 39 countries so far this year, the WHO said, including 32 countries where the virus isn’t typically detected.
“WHO is working with partners and experts from around the world on changing the name of monkeypox virus, its clades, and the disease it causes,” Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, PhD, the WHO’s director-general, said during a press briefing.
“We will make announcements about the new names as soon as possible,” he said.
Last week, more than 30 international scientists urged the public health community to change the name of the virus. The scientists posted a letter on June 10, which included support from the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, noting that the name should change with the ongoing transmission among humans this year.
“The prevailing perception in the international media and scientific literature is that MPXV is endemic in people in some African countries. However, it is well established that nearly all MPXV outbreaks in Africa prior to the 2022 outbreak have been the result of spillover from animals and humans and only rarely have there been reports of sustained human-to-human transmissions,” they wrote.
“In the context of the current global outbreak, continued reference to, and nomenclature of this virus being African is not only inaccurate but is also discriminatory and stigmatizing,” they added.
As one example, they noted, news outlets have used images of African patients to depict the pox lesions, although most stories about the current outbreak have focused on the global north. The Foreign Press Association of Africa has urged the global media to stop using images of Black people to highlight the outbreak in Europe.
“Although the origin of the new global MPXV outbreak is still unknown, there is growing evidence that the most likely scenario is that cross-continent, cryptic human transmission has been ongoing for longer than previously thought,” they wrote.
The WHO has listed two known clades of the monkeypox virus in recent updates – “one identified in West Africa and one in the Congo Basin region.” The group of scientists wrote that this approach is “counter to the best practice of avoiding geographic locations in the nomenclature of diseases and disease groups.”
The scientists proposed a new classification that would name three clades in order of detection – 1, 2, and 3 – for the viral genomes detected in Central Africa, Western Africa, and the localized spillover events detected this year in global north countries. More genome sequencing could uncover additional clades, they noted.
Even within the most recent clade, there is already notable diversity among the genomes, the scientists said. Like the new naming convention adopted for the coronavirus pandemic, the nomenclature for human monkeypox could be donated as “A.1, A.2, A.1.1,” they wrote.
The largest current outbreak is in the United Kingdom, where health officials have detected 524 cases, according to the latest update from the U.K. Health Security Agency.
As of June 15, 72 cases have been reported in the United States, including 15 in California and 15 in New York, according to the latest Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data.
Also on June 15, the WHO published interim guidance on the use of smallpox vaccines for monkeypox. The WHO doesn’t recommend mass vaccination against monkeypox and said vaccines should be used on a case-by-case basis.
The WHO will convene an emergency meeting next week to determine whether the spread of the virus should be considered a global public health emergency.
“The global outbreak of monkeypox is clearly unusual and concerning,” Dr. Tedros said June 15. “It’s for that reason that I have decided to convene the emergency committee under the International Health Regulations next week to assess whether this outbreak represents a public health emergency of international concern.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Blood test aims to measure COVID immunity
Scientists created a test that indirectly measures T-cell response – an important, long-term component of immunity that can last long after antibody levels fall off – to a challenge by the virus in whole blood.
The test mimics what can be done in a formal laboratory now but avoids some complicated steps and specialized training for lab personnel. This test, researchers said, is faster, can scale up to test many more people, and can be adapted to detect viral mutations as they emerge in the future.
The study explaining how all this works was published online in Nature Biotechnology.
The test, called dqTACT, could help predict the likelihood of “breakthrough” infections in people who are fully vaccinated and could help determine how frequently people who are immunocompromised might need to be revaccinated, the authors noted.
Infection with the coronavirus and other viruses can trigger a one-two punch from the immunity system – a fast antibody response followed by longer-lasting cellular immunity, including T cells, which “remember” the virus. Cellular immunity can trigger a quick response if the same virus ever shows up again.
The new test adds synthetic viral peptides – strings of amino acids that make up proteins – from the coronavirus to a blood sample. If there is no T-cell reaction within 24 hours, the test is negative. If the peptides trigger T cells, the test can measure the strength of the immune response.
The researchers validated the new test against traditional laboratory testing in 91 people, about half of whom never had COVID-19 and another half who were infected and recovered. The results matched well.
They also found the test predicted immune strength up to 8 months following a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, T-cell response was greater among people who received two doses of a vaccine versus others who received only one immunization.
Studies are ongoing and designed to meet authorization requirements as part of future licensing from the Food and Drug Administration.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Scientists created a test that indirectly measures T-cell response – an important, long-term component of immunity that can last long after antibody levels fall off – to a challenge by the virus in whole blood.
The test mimics what can be done in a formal laboratory now but avoids some complicated steps and specialized training for lab personnel. This test, researchers said, is faster, can scale up to test many more people, and can be adapted to detect viral mutations as they emerge in the future.
The study explaining how all this works was published online in Nature Biotechnology.
The test, called dqTACT, could help predict the likelihood of “breakthrough” infections in people who are fully vaccinated and could help determine how frequently people who are immunocompromised might need to be revaccinated, the authors noted.
Infection with the coronavirus and other viruses can trigger a one-two punch from the immunity system – a fast antibody response followed by longer-lasting cellular immunity, including T cells, which “remember” the virus. Cellular immunity can trigger a quick response if the same virus ever shows up again.
The new test adds synthetic viral peptides – strings of amino acids that make up proteins – from the coronavirus to a blood sample. If there is no T-cell reaction within 24 hours, the test is negative. If the peptides trigger T cells, the test can measure the strength of the immune response.
The researchers validated the new test against traditional laboratory testing in 91 people, about half of whom never had COVID-19 and another half who were infected and recovered. The results matched well.
They also found the test predicted immune strength up to 8 months following a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, T-cell response was greater among people who received two doses of a vaccine versus others who received only one immunization.
Studies are ongoing and designed to meet authorization requirements as part of future licensing from the Food and Drug Administration.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Scientists created a test that indirectly measures T-cell response – an important, long-term component of immunity that can last long after antibody levels fall off – to a challenge by the virus in whole blood.
The test mimics what can be done in a formal laboratory now but avoids some complicated steps and specialized training for lab personnel. This test, researchers said, is faster, can scale up to test many more people, and can be adapted to detect viral mutations as they emerge in the future.
The study explaining how all this works was published online in Nature Biotechnology.
The test, called dqTACT, could help predict the likelihood of “breakthrough” infections in people who are fully vaccinated and could help determine how frequently people who are immunocompromised might need to be revaccinated, the authors noted.
Infection with the coronavirus and other viruses can trigger a one-two punch from the immunity system – a fast antibody response followed by longer-lasting cellular immunity, including T cells, which “remember” the virus. Cellular immunity can trigger a quick response if the same virus ever shows up again.
The new test adds synthetic viral peptides – strings of amino acids that make up proteins – from the coronavirus to a blood sample. If there is no T-cell reaction within 24 hours, the test is negative. If the peptides trigger T cells, the test can measure the strength of the immune response.
The researchers validated the new test against traditional laboratory testing in 91 people, about half of whom never had COVID-19 and another half who were infected and recovered. The results matched well.
They also found the test predicted immune strength up to 8 months following a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, T-cell response was greater among people who received two doses of a vaccine versus others who received only one immunization.
Studies are ongoing and designed to meet authorization requirements as part of future licensing from the Food and Drug Administration.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
Hair disorder treatments are evolving
“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.
Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.
Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:
Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.
Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.
PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”
Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.
Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).
Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).
Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.
Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.
Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).
In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.
“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.
She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.
“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.
Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.
Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:
Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.
Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.
PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”
Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.
Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).
Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).
Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.
Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.
Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).
In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.
“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.
She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.
“No matter who the patient is, whether a child, adolescent, or adult, the key to figuring out hair disease is getting a good history,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said at the Medscape Live Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
. She also urged physicians and other health care providers to use the electronic medical record and to be thorough in documenting information – noting nutrition, hair care habits, supplement use, and other details.
Lab tests should be selected based on that history, she said. For instance, low iron stores can be associated with hair shedding; and thyroid function studies might be needed.
Other highlights of her presentation included comments on different types of alopecia, and some new treatment approaches:
Androgenetic alopecia. In a meta-analysis and systematic review published in 2017, all treatments tested (2% and 5% minoxidil in men, 1 mg finasteride in men, 2% minoxidil in women, and low-level laser light therapy in men) were superior to placebo. Several photobiomodulation (PBM) devices (also known as low-level laser light) for home use have been cleared for androgenetic alopecia by the Food and Drug Administration; a clinician’s guide, published in 2018, provides information on these devices.
Hair and hormones. Combination therapy for female-pattern hair loss – low-dose minoxidil and spironolactone – is important to know about, she said, adding there are data from an observational pilot study supporting this treatment. Women should not become pregnant while on this treatment, Dr. Hordinsky cautioned.
PRP (platelet rich plasma). This treatment for hair loss can be costly, she cautioned, as it’s viewed as a cosmetic technique, “but it actually can work rather well.”
Hair regrowth measures. Traditionally, measures center on global assessment, the patient’s self-assessment, investigator assessment, and an independent photo review. Enter the dermatoscope. “We can now get pictures as a baseline. Patients can see, and also see the health of their scalp,” and if treatments make it look better or worse, she noted.
Alopecia areata (AA). Patients and families need to be made aware that this is an autoimmune disease that can recur, and if it does recur, the extent of hair loss is not predictable. According to Dr. Hordinsky, the most widely used tool to halt disease activity has been treatment with a corticosteroid (topical, intralesional, oral, or even intravenous corticosteroids).
Clinical trials and publications from 2018 to 2020 have triggered interest in off-label use and further studies of JAK inhibitors for treating AA, which include baricitinib, ruxolitinib, and tofacitinib. At the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in March 2022, results of the ALLEGRO phase 2b/3 trial found that the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib (50 mg or 20 mg daily, with or without a 200-mg loading dose), was efficacious in adults and adolescents with AA, compared with placebo, with no safety concerns noted. “This looks to be very, very promising,” she said, “and also very safe.” Two phase 3 trials of baricitinib also presented at the same meeting found it was superior to placebo for hair regrowth in adults with severe AA at 36 weeks. (On June 13, shortly after Dr. Hordinsky spoke at the meeting, the FDA approved baricitinib for treating AA in adults, making this the first systemic treatment to be approved for AA).
Research on topical JAK inhibitors for AA has been disappointing, Dr. Hordinsky said.
Alopecia areata and atopic dermatitis. For patients with both AA and AD, dupilumab may provide relief, she said. She referred to a recently published phase 2a trial in patients with AA (including some with both AA and AD), which found that Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores improved after 48 weeks of treatment, with higher response rates among those with baseline IgE levels of 200 IU/mL or higher. “If your patient has both, and their immunoglobulin-E level is greater than 200, then they may be a good candidate for dupilumab and both diseases may respond,” she said.
Scalp symptoms. It can be challenging when patients complain of itch, pain, or burning on the scalp, but have no obvious skin disease, Dr. Hordinsky said. Her tips: Some of these patients may be experiencing scalp symptoms secondary to a neuropathy; others may have mast cell degranulation, but for others, the basis of the symptoms may be unclear. Special nerve studies may be needed. For relief, a trial of antihistamines or topical or oral gabapentin may be needed, she said.
Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). This condition, first described in postmenopausal women, is now reported in men and in younger women. While sunscreen has been suspected, there are no good data that have proven that link, she said. Cosmetics are also considered a possible culprit. For treatment, “the first thing we try to do is treat the inflammation,” Dr. Hordinsky said. Treatment options include topical high-potency corticosteroids, intralesional steroids, and topical nonsteroid anti-inflammatory creams (tier 1); hydroxychloroquine, low-dose antibiotics, and acitretin (tier 2); and cyclosporin and mycophenolate mofetil (tier 3).
In an observational study of mostly women with FFA, she noted, treatment with dutasteride was more effective than commonly used systemic treatments.
“Don’t forget to address the psychosocial needs of the hair loss patient,” Dr. Hordinsky advised. “Hair loss patients are very distressed, and you have to learn how to be fast and nimble and address those needs.” Working with a behavioral health specialist or therapist can help, she said.
She also recommended directing patients to appropriate organizations such as the National Alopecia Areata Foundation and the Scarring Alopecia Foundation, as well as conferences, such as the upcoming NAAF conference in Washington. “These organizations do give good information that should complement what you are doing.”
Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Hordinsky reported no disclosures.
FROM MEDSCAPELIVE WOMEN’S & PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Is hepatitis C an STI?
A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.
She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?
A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus
B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus
C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia
D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia
E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia
HIV risk estimate
The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.
In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.1 The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
Studies of hepatitis C transmission
Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.2
Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.3 Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.4
Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.5 None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.
Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.6 HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
Summary
In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.
The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.
Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.
2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.
3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.
5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.
6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.
A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.
She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?
A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus
B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus
C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia
D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia
E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia
HIV risk estimate
The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.
In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.1 The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
Studies of hepatitis C transmission
Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.2
Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.3 Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.4
Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.5 None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.
Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.6 HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
Summary
In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.
The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.
Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.
2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.
3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.
5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.
6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.
A 32-year-old woman had sex with a man she met while on vacation 6 weeks ago. She was intoxicated at the time and does not know much about the person. She recalls having engaged in vaginal intercourse without a condom. She does not have any symptoms.
She previously received baseline lab testing per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines 2 years ago with a negative HIV test and negative hepatitis C test. She asks for testing for STIs. What would you recommend?
A. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and human papillomavirus
B. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes simplex virus
C. HIV, hepatitis C, gonorrhea, and chlamydia
D. HIV, gonorrhea, and chlamydia
E. Gonorrhea and chlamydia
HIV risk estimate
The most practical answer is E, check for gonorrhea and chlamydia. Many protocols in place for evaluating people for STIs will test for hepatitis C as well as HIV with single exposures. In this column, we will look at the lack of evidence of heterosexual sexual transmission of hepatitis C.
In regards to HIV risk, the estimated risk of transmission male to female from an HIV-infected individual is 0.08% per sexual encounter.1 The prevalence in the United States – where HIV occurs in about 0.5% of the adult population – was used to estimate the risk of a person with unknown HIV status acquiring HIV. The calculated risk from one sexual encounter would be 0.0004 (1 in 250,000).
Studies of hepatitis C transmission
Tahan and colleagues did a prospective study of 600 heterosexual couples where one partner had hepatitis C and the other didn’t. Over a mean of 3 years of follow-up, none of the seronegative spouses developed hepatitis C.2
Terrault and colleagues completed a cross-sectional study of hepatitis C virus (HCV)–positive individuals and their monogamous heterosexual partners to evaluate risk of sexual transmission of HCV.3 Based on 8,377 person-years of follow-up, the estimated maximum transmission rate was 0.07%/year, which was about 1/190,000 sexual contacts. No specific sexual practices were associated with transmission. The authors of this study concurred with CDC recommendations that persons with HCV infection in long-term monogamous relationships need not change their sexual practices.4
Vandelli and colleagues followed 776 heterosexual partners of HCV-infected individuals over 10 years.5 None of the couples reported condom use. Over the follow up period, three HCV infections occurred, but based on discordance of the typing of viral isolates, sexual transmission was excluded.
Jin and colleagues completed a systematic review of studies looking at possible sexual transmission of HCV in gay and bisexual men.6 HIV-positive men had a HCV incidence of 6.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 0.4 per 1000 person-years in HIV-negative men. The authors discussed several possible causes for increased transmission risk in HIV-infected individuals including coexisting STIs and higher HCV viral load in semen of HIV-infected individuals, as well as lower immunity.
Summary
In hepatitis C–discordant heterosexual couples, hepatitis C does not appear to be sexually transmitted.
The risk of sexual transmission of hepatitis C to non–HIV-infected individuals appears to be exceedingly low.
Many thanks to Hunter Handsfield, MD, for suggesting this topic and sharing supporting articles.
Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and he serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. He is a member of the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News. Dr. Paauw has no conflicts to disclose. Contact him at [email protected].
1. Boily MC et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009 Feb;9(2):118-29.
2. Tahan V et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100:821-4.
3. Terrault NA et al. Hepatology. 2013;57:881-9
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1998;47:1-38.
5. Vandelli C et al. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99:855-9.
6. Jin F et al. Sexual Health.2017;14:28-41.
Exercise of any type boosts type 1 diabetes time in range
Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.
Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).
Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.
The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).
The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.
A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.
Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)
“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.
The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.
“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.
Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.
Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise
“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.
“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.
“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”
The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.
As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.
The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.
Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.
Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).
Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.
The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).
The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.
A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.
Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)
“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.
The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.
“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.
Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.
Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise
“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.
“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.
“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”
The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.
As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.
The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.
Adults with type 1 diabetes had significantly better glycemic control on days they exercised, regardless of exercise type, compared to days when they were inactive, according to a prospective study in nearly 500 individuals.
Different types of exercise, such as aerobic workouts, interval training, or resistance training, may have different immediate glycemic effects in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D), but the impact of exercise type on the percentage of time diabetes patients maintain glucose in the 70-180 mg/dL range on days when they are active vs. inactive has not been well studied, Zoey Li said in a presentation at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.
In the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative (T1DEXI) study, Ms. Li and colleagues examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) data from 497 adults with T1D. The observational study included self-referred adults aged 18 years and older who had been living with T1D for at least 2 years. Participants were assigned to programs of aerobic exercise (defined as a target heart rate of 70%-80% of age-predicted maximum), interval exercise (defined as an interval heart rate of 80%-90% of age-predicted maximum), or resistance exercise (defined as muscle group fatigue after three sets of eight repetitions).
Participants completed the workouts at home via 30-minute videos at least six times over the 4-week study period. The study design involved an activity goal of at least 150 minutes per week, including the videos and self-reported usual activity, such as walking. The data were collected through an app designed for the study, a heart rate monitor, and a CGM.
The researchers compared glucose levels on days when the participants reported being active compared to days when they were sedentary. The goal of the study was to assess the effect of exercise type on time spent with glucose in the range of 70-180 mg/dL, defined as time in range (TIR).
The mean age of the participants was 37 years; 89% were White. The mean duration of diabetes was 18 years, and the mean hemoglobin A1c was 6.6%. “An astounding 95% were current continuous glucose monitoring [CGM] users,” said Ms. Li, a statistician at the Jaeb Center for Health Research in Tampa, Fla.
A total of 398 participants reported at least one exercise day and one sedentary day, for a total of 1,302 exercise days and 2,470 sedentary days.
Overall, the mean TIR was significantly higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (75% vs. 70%, P < .001). The median time above 180 mg/dL also was significantly lower on exercise days compared to sedentary days (17% vs. 23%, P < .001), and mean glucose levels were 10 mg/dL lower on exercise days (145 mg/dL vs. 155 mg/dL)
“This all came with a slight hit to their time below range,” Ms. Li noted. The median time below 70 mg/dL was 1.1% on exercise days compared to 0.4% on sedentary days (P < .001). The percentage of days with hypoglycemic events was higher on exercise days compared to sedentary days (47% vs. 40%, P < .001), as they are related to time below 70 mg/dL, she added.
The differences for mean glucose level and TIR between exercise days and sedentary days were significant for each of the three exercise types, Ms. Li said.
“After establishing these glycemic trends, we looked at whether there were any factors that influenced the glycemic differences on exercise vs. sedentary days,” Ms. Li said.
Regardless of exercise type, age, sex, baseline A1c, diabetes duration, body mass index, insulin modality, CGM use, and percentage of time below range in the past 24 hours, there was higher TIR and higher hypoglycemia on exercise days compared to sedentary days.
Although the study was limited in part by the observational design, “with these data, we can better understand the glycemic benefits and disadvantages of exercise in adults with type 1 diabetes,” Ms. Li said.
Don’t forget the negative effects of exercise
“It is well known that the three types of exercise can modulate glucose levels. This can be very useful when attempting to reduce excessively high glucose levels, and when encouraging people to engage in frequent, regular, and consistent physical activity and exercise for general cardiovascular pulmonary and musculoskeletal health,” Helena W. Rodbard, MD, an endocrinologist in private practice in Rockville, Md., said in an interview.
“However, it was not known what effects various types of exercise would have on time in range (70-180 mg/dL) and time below range (< 70 mg/dL) measured over a full 24-hour period in people with type 1 diabetes,” said Dr. Rodbard, who was not involved with the study.
“I was surprised to see that the effect of the three different types of exercise were so similar,” Dr. Rodbard noted. “There had been previous reports suggesting that the time course of glucose could be different for these three types of exercise.”
The current study confirms prior knowledge that exercise can help reduce blood glucose, and increase TIR, said Dr. Rodbard. The study shows that TIR increases by roughly 5-7 percentage points (about 1 hour per day) and reduces mean glucose by 9-13 mg/dL irrespective of the three types of exercise,” she said. “There was a suggestion that the risk of increasing hypoglycemia below 70 mg/dL was less likely for resistance exercise than for the interval or aerobic types of exercise,” she noted.
As for additional research, “This study did not address the various ways in which one can mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of exercise, specifically with reference to rates of hypoglycemia, even mild symptomatic biochemical hypoglycemia,” said Dr. Rodbard. “Since the actual amount of time below 70 mg/dL is usually so small (0.3%-0.7% of the 1,440 minutes in the day, or about 5-10 minutes per day on average), it is difficult to measure and there is considerable variability between different people,” she emphasized. “Finding optimal and robust ways to achieve consistency in the reduction of glucose, between days within subjects, and between subjects, will need further examination of various types of protocols for diet, exercise and insulin administration, and of various methods for education of the patient,” she said.
The study was supported in part by the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. Ms. Li and Dr. Rodbard had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Rodbard serves on the editorial advisory board of Clinical Endocrinology News.
FROM ADA 2022
Bimekizumab calms psoriatic arthritis in phase 3 ‘BE’ trials
COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.
The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.
As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
BE COMPLETE efficacy
Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.
Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.
As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).
In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.
BE OPTIMAL efficacy
In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.
This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).
In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
Safety
More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.
The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.
Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
Clues to efficacy
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”
Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”
The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.
The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.
As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
BE COMPLETE efficacy
Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.
Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.
As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).
In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.
BE OPTIMAL efficacy
In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.
This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).
In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
Safety
More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.
The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.
Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
Clues to efficacy
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”
Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”
The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COPENHAGEN – For patients with active psoriatic arthritis for whom tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors failed to produce an adequate response, use of the dual interleukin-17 (IL-17) inhibitor bimekizumab (Bimzelx) was associated with significant improvement in joint, skin, and health-related quality-of-life parameters, compared with placebo, reported investigators in the phase 3, double-blind, randomized BE COMPLETE trial.
The primary endpoint, which was the percentage of patients who had 50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR50) at 16 weeks, was achieved in 43.4% of patients assigned to receive bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, compared with 6.8% among patients who received placebo, reported Joseph F. Merola, MD, a dermatologist and rheumatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
“The high-level and exciting take-home [message is] that BE COMPLETE did meet all primary and all ranked secondary endpoints at week 16,” he said at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.
Also at the congress, Iain McInnes, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Infection, Immunity, and Inflammation at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, presented data from a second phase 3, double-blind, randomized trial called BE OPTIMAL that showed similar benefits for patients with psoriatic arthritis who had not previously received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.
“This is a new mode of action, inhibiting two cytokines simultaneously,” he said in a late-breaking oral abstract session.
As previously reported by this news organization, use of bimekizumab led to rapid reductions in signs and symptoms of radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in the phase 3 trial called BE MOBILE 2.
Bimekizumab is a monoclonal immunoglobulin G1 antibody that selectively inhibits IL-17A and IL-17F. It is approved in the European Union for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis.
BE COMPLETE efficacy
Inclusion criteria comprised adult-onset psoriatic arthritis meeting Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR) for at least 6 months; tender and swollen joint counts of at least 3/68; one or more active psoriatic lesions; and/or a documented history of psoriasis characterized by intolerance to one or two TNF inhibitors or failure of TNF inhibitors. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks (n = 267) or placebo (n = 133) for 16 weeks.
Some participants are being followed in the extension BE VITAL study, which will evaluate response to treatment and long-term safety. Patients who do enroll in the extension study will be followed for safety for a period of 20 weeks after the last dose.
As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint of a significant improvement over placebo in ACR50 (hazard ratio, 11.1; P < .001).
In addition, the trial met all ranked secondary endpoints, including the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index change from baseline, 90% improvement in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI90), Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey, and minimal disease activity (P < .001 for all comparisons).
Improvement with bimekizumab was rapid; curves began to separate from placebo by week 4, Dr. Merola said.
BE OPTIMAL efficacy
In this study, which had the same eligibility criteria as BE COMPLETE, patients were randomly assigned in a 2:3:1 ratio to receive 16 weeks of treatment with either placebo, bimekizumab 160 mg every 4 weeks, or adalimumab 40 mg every 2 weeks as a reference treatment.
This trial also met its primary and ranked secondary endpoints, which were similar to those of BE COMPLETE but also included measures of pooled resolution of enthesitis and dactylitis and change from baseline in van der Heijde modified total Sharp score (P < .001 for all comparisons).
In all, 43.9% of patients who received bimekizumab and 45.7% who received adalimumab achieved ACR50 at week 16, compared with 10% of patients who received placebo. The difference between the placebo and bimekizumab groups was significant (P < .001).
Safety
More patients who received the two active agents in this trial had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in comparison with those in the placebo arm, but the incidence of serious TEAEs was less than 2% in each arm.
The most frequent events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, diarrhea, and hypertension.
Patients tolerated bimekizumab well, and there were no unexpected safety signals, Dr. McInnes said.
Clues to efficacy
In the question-and-answer session following Dr. McInnes’ presentation, Ronald Van Vollenhoven, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, said, “I have a question that is sort of generic in studies of psoriatic arthritis, so it does not only apply to this study, but the skin responses seem to be excellent – PASI90 sounds wonderful – but given that this is the case, is it reasonable to claim that the study is double-blinded in respect to the joints?”
Dr. McInnes replied that while he has considered this conundrum for many years in trials of drugs for psoriatic arthritis, “it doesn’t seem to be a major determinant of the outcome.”
The studies were supported by UCB Pharma. Dr. Merola and Dr. McInnes have consulted for UCB and other pharmaceutical companies that market drugs for psoriatic arthritis and psoriasis. Dr. Van Vollenhoven has received research support, has consulted for, and has spoken on behalf of UCB and other pharmaceutical companies.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT THE EULAR 2022 CONGRESS
For cancer prevention, not all plant-based diets are equal
researchers have found.
The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.
“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”
Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.
Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.
Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.
Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.
“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”
Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers have found.
The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.
“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”
Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.
Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.
Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.
Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.
“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”
Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
researchers have found.
The study of more than 65,000 people showed that plant-based diets that were high in whole grains, fruits, and vegetables appear to be more protective against breast cancer than diets rich in processed plant-based products, such as juice and chips.
“Results suggest that the best plant-based diet for breast cancer prevention could be a healthy plant-based diet comprising fruit, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, and legumes,” said Sanam Shah, MBBS, FCPS, MPH, a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at Paris-Saclay University, who is the lead author of the new study. “In contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet comprising higher intakes of primarily processed products of plant origin, such as refined grains, fruit juices, sweets, desserts, and potatoes, would be worse for breast cancer prevention.”
Dr. Shah’s group is presenting their research online at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.
Although the role of plant-based diets in cancer prevention has received extensive attention, Dr. Shah said few studies have assessed the influence of the quality of those diets on the risk of breast cancer.
Dr. Shah and colleagues conducted a prospective cohort study to investigate the link between healthy and unhealthy plant-based diets and breast cancer risk. Unlike other studies, the researchers also evaluated the effect of a gradual decrease in animal products in diets on health.
Dr. Shah’s group followed 65,574 postmenopausal women in France (mean age, 52.8 years) from 1993 to 2014. The researchers used self-reported food questionnaires to classify women into groups on the basis of adherence to a mostly plant or animal diet. Plant-based diets did not exclude meat but had more plant than animal products, Dr. Shah said. The researchers also grouped women on the basis of how healthy the plant-based diets were.
Over the 21-year study period, 3,968 women were diagnosed with breast cancer. Those who adhered to a more healthful plant-based diet had a 14% lower risk than average of developing breast cancer, while those who adhered to a less healthful plant-based diet had a 20% greater risk of developing the disease.
Nutritional quality varies greatly across plant-based foods. Quality plant-based diets should focus on variety to avoid nutritional deficiencies in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamin B12, Dr. Shah said.
“The study by Shah and coworkers underscores the importance of considering more global aspects of the diet rather than single components when examining relationships between diet and health,” said Megan McCrory, PhD, research associate professor of nutrition at Boston University. “As the study illustrates, plant-based diets as a whole are not always healthy and may also contain less desirable nutrients and foods.”
Abstracts in the conference have been selected by a board of experts for presentation but have not yet been peer reviewed. All findings are to be regarded as preliminary until they are published in peer-reviewed articles. Dr. Shah and Dr. McCrory disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NUTRITION 2022
Sleep, not smoke, the key to COPD exacerbations?
, according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.
Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.
COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.
Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.
There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).
In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
Surprising findings
These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.
“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.
The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.
, according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.
Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.
COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.
Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.
There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).
In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
Surprising findings
These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.
“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.
The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.
, according to a study reported online in the journal Sleep.
Researchers followed 1,647 patients with confirmed COPD who were enrolled in the Subpopulations and Intermediate Outcome Measures in COPD Study (SPIROMICS). SPIROMICS is a multicenter study funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the COPD Foundation and is designed to evaluate COPD subpopulations, outcomes, and biomarkers. All participants in the study were current or former smokers with confirmed COPD.
COPD exacerbations over a 3-year follow-up period were compared against reported sleep quality. The researchers used the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a combination of seven sleep measures, including sleep duration, timing of sleep, and frequency of disturbances. The higher the score, the worse the quality of sleep.
Individuals who self-reported having poor-quality sleep had a 25%-95% higher risk of COPD exacerbations, compared with those who reported good-quality sleep, according to the results.
There was a significant association between PSQI score and total and mean exacerbations in the unadjusted analysis (incidence rate ratios, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.13) and the analysis adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidities, disease severity, medication usage, and socioeconomic environmental exposure (IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13).
In addition, the PSQI score was independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization, with a 7% increase in risk of hospitalization with each 1-point increase in PSQI, according to the researchers.
Surprising findings
These findings suggest that sleep quality may be a better predictor of flare-ups than the patient’s history of smoking, according to the researchers.
“Among those who already have COPD, knowing how they sleep at night will tell me much more about their risk of a flare-up than knowing whether they smoked for 40 versus 60 years. … That is very surprising and is not necessarily what I expected going into this study. Smoking is such a central process to COPD that I would have predicted it would be the more important predictor in the case of exacerbations,” said lead study author Aaron Baugh, MD, a practicing pulmonologist, and a clinical fellow at the University of California, San Francisco, in a National Institutes of Health press release on the study.
The study findings were applicable to all races and ethnicities studied, however the results may be particularly relevant to Black Americans, Dr. Baugh indicated, because past studies have shown that Black Americans tend to have poorer sleep quality than other races and ethnicities. With poorer sleep linked to worse COPD outcomes, the current study may help explain why Black Americans as a group tend to do worse when they have COPD, compared with other racial and ethnic groups, the researchers suggested.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the COPD Foundation. SPIROMICS was supported by NIH and the COPD Foundation as well as numerous pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. The authors reported no other financial disclosures.
FROM SLEEP
Can too much sleep raise the risk of cancer?
The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer.
The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”
Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.
The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer.
The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.
A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.
To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.
In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.
In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).
Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).
The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.
Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.
It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.
Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer.
The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”
Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.
The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer.
The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.
A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.
To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.
In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.
In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).
Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).
The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.
Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.
It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.
Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The findings reveal that sleeping 10-plus hours may increase a woman’s risk of getting cancer and both men and women’s risk of dying from cancer.
The researchers say their findings may help refine sleep recommendations in Japan, which currently advise working, middle-aged adults to sleep “as long as they can.”
Based on the new findings, a sleep duration of 6-8 hours for men and 6-9 hours for women “may be the safest” regarding cancer incidence and mortality risk among Japanese adults, the authors conclude.
The findings were published online in the International Journal of Cancer.
The literature on sleep time and cancer risk is mixed. A trio of meta-analyses conducted between 2016 and 2019 found that long sleep duration, but not short, was associated with a slightly elevated risk of all cancer mortality in Asians.
A separate meta-analysis conducted in 2018 found that both short and long sleep durations were not related to cancer incidence. But in the stratified analysis, shorter sleep time was associated with 36% increased cancer risk among Asians.
To investigate further, the researchers pooled data from six population-based cohorts that included 271,694 adults – 126,930 men and 144,764 women – with 40,751 total incident cancer cases and 18,323 total cancer deaths during a follow-up lasting about 5.9 million person-years.
In the multivariable analysis, longer sleep duration was not associated with total cancer incidence in men. In women, however, sleeping 10 or more hours vs. 7 was associated with a 19% increased risk of cancer.
In addition, sleeping 10 or more hours was associated with an increased risk of dying from cancer in women (hazard ratio, 1.44) and men (HR, 1.18).
Sleeping for 5 hours or fewer, compared with 7, was not associated with cancer incidence and mortality. However, among postmenopausal women, shorter sleep durations did increase the risk of dying from cancer (HR, 1.15).
The authors highlight several strengths of the analysis, including a large sample size as well as stratification of the results by body mass index and menopause status, which has rarely been done in previous studies.
Limitations include self-reported sleep durations and lack of data on sleep quality. The researchers note that the mechanism by which sleep time may influence cancer incidence and mortality is unclear but likely to be complex and cancer site specific.
It’s also possible that reverse causation could explain associations between sleep duration and cancer occurrence and mortality – with pain from cancer, for instance, impairing sleep duration and quality. However, the sensitivity analysis found no evidence of reverse causality or other confounding factors.
Based on these findings, the researchers say sleep duration “may be an important variable to include in cancer incidence and mortality risk prediction models.”
The study had no specific funding. The authors declared no relevant conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
‘Forever chemicals’ linked to hypertension in middle-aged women
In a large, prospective study, researchers found an association between higher blood levels of PFAS and increased risk of hypertension in middle-aged women. Women in the highest tertile of overall PFAS concentrations had a 71% increased risk of developing hypertension.
“Our findings suggest that long-term cumulative exposure, even before midlife, may increase the risk of high blood pressure, and therefore, the benefit of reducing the population exposure to PFAS and potential prevention of high blood pressure and other health conditions would be enormous,” Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
The study was published online in Hypertension.
Everywhere and forever
“PFAS are forever chemicals as well as everywhere chemicals,” Dr. Park noted.
Possible sources of PFAS exposure run the gamut from nonstick cookware, food wrappers, and waterproof fabrics to cosmetics and drinking water. They have been detected in the blood of most people and have been linked to a variety of health concerns.
“A few studies showed an association between PFAS and hypertension, but those were cross-sectional and examined prevalence of hypertension. It was unclear whether PFAS are associated with the development (incidence) of hypertension,” Dr. Park explained.
For their study, the researchers examined the association between serum concentrations of PFAS and risks of incident hypertension in 1,058 initially normotensive women participating in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation-Multi-Pollutant Study (SWAN-MPS). They were followed annually between 1999 and 2017.
During 11,722 person-years of follow-up, 470 of the women developed hypertension, at a rate of 40.1 cases per 1,000 person-years. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg systolic or at least 90 mm Hg diastolic or receiving antihypertensive treatment.
Women in the highest tertile of baseline serum concentration of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) had a 42% higher risk of developing hypertension, compared with peers in the lowest tertile (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.68; P trend = .01).
Similar results were found for perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and 2-N-ethyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetate (EtFOSAA), with 47% (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75; P trend = .01) and 42% (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.19-1.70; P trend = .01) higher risks of incident hypertension, comparing the highest to the lowest tertiles.
The risks persisted after adjusting for various factors, including race, study site, education, financial strain, smoking status, alcohol use, total calorie intake, and menopausal status.
In the PFAS “mixture” analysis, women in the highest tertile of overall PFAS concentrations were 71% more likely to develop hypertension during follow-up, compared with women in the lowest tertile (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.15-2.54; P trend = .008).
“These findings suggest that PFAS might be an underappreciated contributing factor to women’s cardiovascular disease risk,” the researchers write.
They caution that the study only included middle-aged women and that it is unclear whether the findings hold for middle-aged men.
“This is an important question, but the answer is that we do not know,” Dr. Park told this news organization.
“Women become more susceptible to metabolic changes and hypertension risk during the menopausal transition. Our findings suggest that PFAS may play a role in the development of hypertension in women during this critical life stage,” Dr. Park said.
The researchers say more research is needed to confirm and expand the findings and to find ways to reduce PFAS exposure.
“If confirmed in future studies, these findings suggest that understanding human exposure to PFAS and developing effective strategies to reduce PFAS exposure may help prevent the development of hypertension and thereby reduce the global burden of CVD,” the researchers write.
‘The more we learn, the worse it gets’
This is an “interesting” study and shows that “the more we learn about PFAS, the worse it seems to get,” Ankur Shah, MD, division of kidney disease and hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview.
“This multisite, multiracial and multiethnic, community-based longitudinal study establishes an association between PFAS and hypertension,” said Dr. Shah, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“This adds to a growing literature base of associations of PFAS with illnesses, including malignancy, thyroid disorders, diabetes, ulcerative colitis, hyperlipidemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension,” he noted.
Dr. Shah also noted that the authors adjusted for race and ethnicity, study site, education, financial strain, smoking status, environmental tobacco smoke, alcohol consumption, total calorie intake, and menopausal status “and still found a strong association.”
“Still to be determined are both whether PFAS are the causative agent or if there is an unmeasured/unadjusted for entity which has resulted in both increased PFAS exposure and hypertension, as well as if PFAS are causative, if reduction in PFAS exposure would be result in blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Shah added.
The study had no sources of funding. Dr. Park and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large, prospective study, researchers found an association between higher blood levels of PFAS and increased risk of hypertension in middle-aged women. Women in the highest tertile of overall PFAS concentrations had a 71% increased risk of developing hypertension.
“Our findings suggest that long-term cumulative exposure, even before midlife, may increase the risk of high blood pressure, and therefore, the benefit of reducing the population exposure to PFAS and potential prevention of high blood pressure and other health conditions would be enormous,” Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
The study was published online in Hypertension.
Everywhere and forever
“PFAS are forever chemicals as well as everywhere chemicals,” Dr. Park noted.
Possible sources of PFAS exposure run the gamut from nonstick cookware, food wrappers, and waterproof fabrics to cosmetics and drinking water. They have been detected in the blood of most people and have been linked to a variety of health concerns.
“A few studies showed an association between PFAS and hypertension, but those were cross-sectional and examined prevalence of hypertension. It was unclear whether PFAS are associated with the development (incidence) of hypertension,” Dr. Park explained.
For their study, the researchers examined the association between serum concentrations of PFAS and risks of incident hypertension in 1,058 initially normotensive women participating in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation-Multi-Pollutant Study (SWAN-MPS). They were followed annually between 1999 and 2017.
During 11,722 person-years of follow-up, 470 of the women developed hypertension, at a rate of 40.1 cases per 1,000 person-years. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg systolic or at least 90 mm Hg diastolic or receiving antihypertensive treatment.
Women in the highest tertile of baseline serum concentration of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) had a 42% higher risk of developing hypertension, compared with peers in the lowest tertile (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.68; P trend = .01).
Similar results were found for perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and 2-N-ethyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetate (EtFOSAA), with 47% (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75; P trend = .01) and 42% (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.19-1.70; P trend = .01) higher risks of incident hypertension, comparing the highest to the lowest tertiles.
The risks persisted after adjusting for various factors, including race, study site, education, financial strain, smoking status, alcohol use, total calorie intake, and menopausal status.
In the PFAS “mixture” analysis, women in the highest tertile of overall PFAS concentrations were 71% more likely to develop hypertension during follow-up, compared with women in the lowest tertile (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.15-2.54; P trend = .008).
“These findings suggest that PFAS might be an underappreciated contributing factor to women’s cardiovascular disease risk,” the researchers write.
They caution that the study only included middle-aged women and that it is unclear whether the findings hold for middle-aged men.
“This is an important question, but the answer is that we do not know,” Dr. Park told this news organization.
“Women become more susceptible to metabolic changes and hypertension risk during the menopausal transition. Our findings suggest that PFAS may play a role in the development of hypertension in women during this critical life stage,” Dr. Park said.
The researchers say more research is needed to confirm and expand the findings and to find ways to reduce PFAS exposure.
“If confirmed in future studies, these findings suggest that understanding human exposure to PFAS and developing effective strategies to reduce PFAS exposure may help prevent the development of hypertension and thereby reduce the global burden of CVD,” the researchers write.
‘The more we learn, the worse it gets’
This is an “interesting” study and shows that “the more we learn about PFAS, the worse it seems to get,” Ankur Shah, MD, division of kidney disease and hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview.
“This multisite, multiracial and multiethnic, community-based longitudinal study establishes an association between PFAS and hypertension,” said Dr. Shah, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“This adds to a growing literature base of associations of PFAS with illnesses, including malignancy, thyroid disorders, diabetes, ulcerative colitis, hyperlipidemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension,” he noted.
Dr. Shah also noted that the authors adjusted for race and ethnicity, study site, education, financial strain, smoking status, environmental tobacco smoke, alcohol consumption, total calorie intake, and menopausal status “and still found a strong association.”
“Still to be determined are both whether PFAS are the causative agent or if there is an unmeasured/unadjusted for entity which has resulted in both increased PFAS exposure and hypertension, as well as if PFAS are causative, if reduction in PFAS exposure would be result in blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Shah added.
The study had no sources of funding. Dr. Park and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a large, prospective study, researchers found an association between higher blood levels of PFAS and increased risk of hypertension in middle-aged women. Women in the highest tertile of overall PFAS concentrations had a 71% increased risk of developing hypertension.
“Our findings suggest that long-term cumulative exposure, even before midlife, may increase the risk of high blood pressure, and therefore, the benefit of reducing the population exposure to PFAS and potential prevention of high blood pressure and other health conditions would be enormous,” Sung Kyun Park, ScD, MPH, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, said in an interview.
The study was published online in Hypertension.
Everywhere and forever
“PFAS are forever chemicals as well as everywhere chemicals,” Dr. Park noted.
Possible sources of PFAS exposure run the gamut from nonstick cookware, food wrappers, and waterproof fabrics to cosmetics and drinking water. They have been detected in the blood of most people and have been linked to a variety of health concerns.
“A few studies showed an association between PFAS and hypertension, but those were cross-sectional and examined prevalence of hypertension. It was unclear whether PFAS are associated with the development (incidence) of hypertension,” Dr. Park explained.
For their study, the researchers examined the association between serum concentrations of PFAS and risks of incident hypertension in 1,058 initially normotensive women participating in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation-Multi-Pollutant Study (SWAN-MPS). They were followed annually between 1999 and 2017.
During 11,722 person-years of follow-up, 470 of the women developed hypertension, at a rate of 40.1 cases per 1,000 person-years. Hypertension was defined as blood pressure of at least 140 mm Hg systolic or at least 90 mm Hg diastolic or receiving antihypertensive treatment.
Women in the highest tertile of baseline serum concentration of perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) had a 42% higher risk of developing hypertension, compared with peers in the lowest tertile (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-1.68; P trend = .01).
Similar results were found for perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and 2-N-ethyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido acetate (EtFOSAA), with 47% (aHR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.24-1.75; P trend = .01) and 42% (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.19-1.70; P trend = .01) higher risks of incident hypertension, comparing the highest to the lowest tertiles.
The risks persisted after adjusting for various factors, including race, study site, education, financial strain, smoking status, alcohol use, total calorie intake, and menopausal status.
In the PFAS “mixture” analysis, women in the highest tertile of overall PFAS concentrations were 71% more likely to develop hypertension during follow-up, compared with women in the lowest tertile (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.15-2.54; P trend = .008).
“These findings suggest that PFAS might be an underappreciated contributing factor to women’s cardiovascular disease risk,” the researchers write.
They caution that the study only included middle-aged women and that it is unclear whether the findings hold for middle-aged men.
“This is an important question, but the answer is that we do not know,” Dr. Park told this news organization.
“Women become more susceptible to metabolic changes and hypertension risk during the menopausal transition. Our findings suggest that PFAS may play a role in the development of hypertension in women during this critical life stage,” Dr. Park said.
The researchers say more research is needed to confirm and expand the findings and to find ways to reduce PFAS exposure.
“If confirmed in future studies, these findings suggest that understanding human exposure to PFAS and developing effective strategies to reduce PFAS exposure may help prevent the development of hypertension and thereby reduce the global burden of CVD,” the researchers write.
‘The more we learn, the worse it gets’
This is an “interesting” study and shows that “the more we learn about PFAS, the worse it seems to get,” Ankur Shah, MD, division of kidney disease and hypertension, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, R.I., said in an interview.
“This multisite, multiracial and multiethnic, community-based longitudinal study establishes an association between PFAS and hypertension,” said Dr. Shah, who wasn’t involved in the study.
“This adds to a growing literature base of associations of PFAS with illnesses, including malignancy, thyroid disorders, diabetes, ulcerative colitis, hyperlipidemia, and pregnancy-induced hypertension,” he noted.
Dr. Shah also noted that the authors adjusted for race and ethnicity, study site, education, financial strain, smoking status, environmental tobacco smoke, alcohol consumption, total calorie intake, and menopausal status “and still found a strong association.”
“Still to be determined are both whether PFAS are the causative agent or if there is an unmeasured/unadjusted for entity which has resulted in both increased PFAS exposure and hypertension, as well as if PFAS are causative, if reduction in PFAS exposure would be result in blood pressure reduction,” Dr. Shah added.
The study had no sources of funding. Dr. Park and Dr. Shah have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM HYPERTENSION