Clinician Reviews

The incidence of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) may be rising, according to a prospective population-based study conducted in New Zealand.

From 2008 to 2016, the rising incidence of AIH led to a 40% increase in point prevalence, reported lead author Mehul Lamba, MD, of Christchurch (New Zealand) Hospital and colleagues.

The present study, which also assessed rates of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), adds data to an area of inquiry historically characterized by limited and inconsistent results, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. They suggested that mixed findings from previous studies may be because of differences in population and environmental factors, but also varying diagnostic criteria.

“The epidemiological trends of these autoimmune liver diseases therefore remain incompletely understood,” wrote Dr. Lamba and colleagues.

Their study evaluated trends in autoimmune liver diseases over a 9-year time frame in Canterbury, New Zealand. According to the investigators, this region is well suited to an epidemiological investigation because it is a clearly defined geographic area with approximately 600,000 people, most of whom rely on one tertiary care center: Christchurch Hospital. The bulk of the data therefore came from this center, while a minority of cases were gathered from local private gastroenterology practices, “making complete case ascertainment possible.”

Incidence of AIH, PBC, and PSC was assessed at three time points: 2008-2010, 2011-2013, and 2014-2016. AIH had the highest overall incidence, at 1.93 cases per 100,000 people, followed by PSC (0.92) and PBC (0.51).

While the rates of PBC and PSC did not change significantly over time, the incidence of AIH rose from 1.37 cases per 100,000 people in the period from 2008-2010 to 2.39 per 100,000 in 2014-2016 (P = .04), which computes to an incidence rate ratio of 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.84). Point prevalence was also significantly higher in 2016, compared with 2008, at 27.5 per 100,000 versus 19.7 per 100,000 (P < .01). The investigators described a bimodal age of presentation, with the first peak among patients younger than 20 years, and a second, larger peak among individuals aged 50-69 years.

According to the investigators, these findings “are concordant with the results observed in the European cohort,” citing a Danish study spanning 1994-2012 and a Dutch study spanning 2000-2010. They noted that the Danish study also reported a bimodal distribution of age incidence, as did a Swedish study, and another study from New Zealand. The stable levels of PBC and PSC align with two recent retrospective studies conducted in the United States and, they added.

“We believe that the observed differential trends in the incidence of these autoimmune liver diseases truly reflects their contemporary epidemiology,” the investigators wrote. They went on to suggest that the findings did not stem from an increase in diagnostic scrutiny because the study period did not include any significant changes in gastroenterology service, coding, or diagnostic criteria in the region studied.

“The increased incidence of AIH parallels rising incidence and prevalence of other autoimmune disorders such as [inflammatory bowel disease], type 1 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis in New Zealand, and it is unclear whether these autoimmune conditions share a common local environmental trigger,” they wrote. “Environmental factors likely play a central role augmenting phenotypic expression in genetically predisposed individuals.”

While Dr. Lamba and colleagues proposed several possible factors, such as increased exposure to pharmaceuticals, definitive factors remain elusive, which the authors cited as one limitation of their study. Another limitation they cited is the possibility that other etiologies were mistakenly classified as “probable” AIH; however, the chances of that are small, and the proportion of probable versus definitive AIH noted in this study do reflect those seen in other epidemiological studies.

“The reason for observed differential change in incidence of these autoimmune liver diseases is unclear,” they wrote, “and future collaborative prospective epidemiological study would be required to assess this further.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

The incidence of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) may be rising, according to a prospective population-based study conducted in New Zealand.

From 2008 to 2016, the rising incidence of AIH led to a 40% increase in point prevalence, reported lead author Mehul Lamba, MD, of Christchurch (New Zealand) Hospital and colleagues.

The present study, which also assessed rates of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), adds data to an area of inquiry historically characterized by limited and inconsistent results, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. They suggested that mixed findings from previous studies may be because of differences in population and environmental factors, but also varying diagnostic criteria.

“The epidemiological trends of these autoimmune liver diseases therefore remain incompletely understood,” wrote Dr. Lamba and colleagues.

Their study evaluated trends in autoimmune liver diseases over a 9-year time frame in Canterbury, New Zealand. According to the investigators, this region is well suited to an epidemiological investigation because it is a clearly defined geographic area with approximately 600,000 people, most of whom rely on one tertiary care center: Christchurch Hospital. The bulk of the data therefore came from this center, while a minority of cases were gathered from local private gastroenterology practices, “making complete case ascertainment possible.”

Incidence of AIH, PBC, and PSC was assessed at three time points: 2008-2010, 2011-2013, and 2014-2016. AIH had the highest overall incidence, at 1.93 cases per 100,000 people, followed by PSC (0.92) and PBC (0.51).

While the rates of PBC and PSC did not change significantly over time, the incidence of AIH rose from 1.37 cases per 100,000 people in the period from 2008-2010 to 2.39 per 100,000 in 2014-2016 (P = .04), which computes to an incidence rate ratio of 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.84). Point prevalence was also significantly higher in 2016, compared with 2008, at 27.5 per 100,000 versus 19.7 per 100,000 (P < .01). The investigators described a bimodal age of presentation, with the first peak among patients younger than 20 years, and a second, larger peak among individuals aged 50-69 years.

According to the investigators, these findings “are concordant with the results observed in the European cohort,” citing a Danish study spanning 1994-2012 and a Dutch study spanning 2000-2010. They noted that the Danish study also reported a bimodal distribution of age incidence, as did a Swedish study, and another study from New Zealand. The stable levels of PBC and PSC align with two recent retrospective studies conducted in the United States and, they added.

“We believe that the observed differential trends in the incidence of these autoimmune liver diseases truly reflects their contemporary epidemiology,” the investigators wrote. They went on to suggest that the findings did not stem from an increase in diagnostic scrutiny because the study period did not include any significant changes in gastroenterology service, coding, or diagnostic criteria in the region studied.

“The increased incidence of AIH parallels rising incidence and prevalence of other autoimmune disorders such as [inflammatory bowel disease], type 1 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis in New Zealand, and it is unclear whether these autoimmune conditions share a common local environmental trigger,” they wrote. “Environmental factors likely play a central role augmenting phenotypic expression in genetically predisposed individuals.”

While Dr. Lamba and colleagues proposed several possible factors, such as increased exposure to pharmaceuticals, definitive factors remain elusive, which the authors cited as one limitation of their study. Another limitation they cited is the possibility that other etiologies were mistakenly classified as “probable” AIH; however, the chances of that are small, and the proportion of probable versus definitive AIH noted in this study do reflect those seen in other epidemiological studies.

“The reason for observed differential change in incidence of these autoimmune liver diseases is unclear,” they wrote, “and future collaborative prospective epidemiological study would be required to assess this further.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

The incidence of autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) may be rising, according to a prospective population-based study conducted in New Zealand.

From 2008 to 2016, the rising incidence of AIH led to a 40% increase in point prevalence, reported lead author Mehul Lamba, MD, of Christchurch (New Zealand) Hospital and colleagues.

The present study, which also assessed rates of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), adds data to an area of inquiry historically characterized by limited and inconsistent results, the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. They suggested that mixed findings from previous studies may be because of differences in population and environmental factors, but also varying diagnostic criteria.

“The epidemiological trends of these autoimmune liver diseases therefore remain incompletely understood,” wrote Dr. Lamba and colleagues.

Their study evaluated trends in autoimmune liver diseases over a 9-year time frame in Canterbury, New Zealand. According to the investigators, this region is well suited to an epidemiological investigation because it is a clearly defined geographic area with approximately 600,000 people, most of whom rely on one tertiary care center: Christchurch Hospital. The bulk of the data therefore came from this center, while a minority of cases were gathered from local private gastroenterology practices, “making complete case ascertainment possible.”

Incidence of AIH, PBC, and PSC was assessed at three time points: 2008-2010, 2011-2013, and 2014-2016. AIH had the highest overall incidence, at 1.93 cases per 100,000 people, followed by PSC (0.92) and PBC (0.51).

While the rates of PBC and PSC did not change significantly over time, the incidence of AIH rose from 1.37 cases per 100,000 people in the period from 2008-2010 to 2.39 per 100,000 in 2014-2016 (P = .04), which computes to an incidence rate ratio of 1.69 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.84). Point prevalence was also significantly higher in 2016, compared with 2008, at 27.5 per 100,000 versus 19.7 per 100,000 (P < .01). The investigators described a bimodal age of presentation, with the first peak among patients younger than 20 years, and a second, larger peak among individuals aged 50-69 years.

According to the investigators, these findings “are concordant with the results observed in the European cohort,” citing a Danish study spanning 1994-2012 and a Dutch study spanning 2000-2010. They noted that the Danish study also reported a bimodal distribution of age incidence, as did a Swedish study, and another study from New Zealand. The stable levels of PBC and PSC align with two recent retrospective studies conducted in the United States and, they added.

“We believe that the observed differential trends in the incidence of these autoimmune liver diseases truly reflects their contemporary epidemiology,” the investigators wrote. They went on to suggest that the findings did not stem from an increase in diagnostic scrutiny because the study period did not include any significant changes in gastroenterology service, coding, or diagnostic criteria in the region studied.

“The increased incidence of AIH parallels rising incidence and prevalence of other autoimmune disorders such as [inflammatory bowel disease], type 1 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis in New Zealand, and it is unclear whether these autoimmune conditions share a common local environmental trigger,” they wrote. “Environmental factors likely play a central role augmenting phenotypic expression in genetically predisposed individuals.”

While Dr. Lamba and colleagues proposed several possible factors, such as increased exposure to pharmaceuticals, definitive factors remain elusive, which the authors cited as one limitation of their study. Another limitation they cited is the possibility that other etiologies were mistakenly classified as “probable” AIH; however, the chances of that are small, and the proportion of probable versus definitive AIH noted in this study do reflect those seen in other epidemiological studies.

“The reason for observed differential change in incidence of these autoimmune liver diseases is unclear,” they wrote, “and future collaborative prospective epidemiological study would be required to assess this further.”

The investigators reported no conflicts of interest.

COVID-19 infection altered the gut microbiota of adult patients and caused depletion of several types of bacteria with known immunomodulatory properties, based on data from a cohort study of 100 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infections from two hospitals.

“As the GI tract is the largest immunological organ in the body and its resident microbiota are known to modulate host immune responses, we hypothesized that the gut microbiota is associated with host inflammatory immune responses in COVID19,” wrote Yun Kit Yeoh, PhD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers investigated patient microbiota by collecting blood, stool, and patient records between February and May 2020 from 100 confirmed SARS-CoV-2–infected patients in Hong Kong during hospitalization, as well as follow-up stool samples from 27 patients up to 30 days after they cleared the COVID-19 virus; these observations were compared with 78 non–COVID-19 controls.

Overall, 274 stool samples were sequenced. Samples collected from patients during hospitalization for COVID-19 were compared with non–COVID-19 controls. The presence of phylum Bacteroidetes was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients compared with controls (23.9% vs. 12.8%; P < .001), as were Actinobacteria (26.1% vs. 19.0%; P < .001).

After controlling for antibiotics, the investigators found that “differences between cohorts were primarily linked to enrichment of taxa such as Parabacteroides, Sutterella wadsworthensis, and Bacteroides caccae and depletion of Adlercreutzia equolifaciens, Dorea formicigenerans, and Clostridium leptum in COVID-19 relative to non-COVID-19” (P < .05). In addition, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Bifidobacterium bifidum were negatively correlated with COVID-19 severity after investigators controlled for patient age and antibiotic use (P < .05).

The researchers also examined bacteria in COVID-19 patients and controls in the context of cytokines and other inflammatory markers. “We hypothesized that these compositional changes play a role in exacerbating disease by contributing to dysregulation of the immune response,” they said.

In fact, species depleted in COVID-19 patients including included B. adolescentis, E. rectale, and F. prausnitzii were negatively correlated with inflammatory markers including CXCL10, IL-10, TNF-alpha, and CCL2.

In addition, 42 stool samples from 27 patients showed significantly distinct gut microbiota from controls up to 30 days (median, 6 days) after virus clearance, regardless of antibiotics use (P < .05), the researchers said.
 

Long-term data needed

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential confounding of microbial signatures associated with COVID-19 because of heterogeneous patient management in the clinical setting and the potential that gut microbiota reflects a patient’s health with no impact on disease severity, as well as lack of data on the role of antibiotics for severe and critical patients, the researchers noted. In addition, “gut microbiota composition is highly heterogeneous across human populations and changes in compositions reported here may not necessarily be reflected in patients with COVID-19 from other biogeographies,” they wrote.

The “longer follow-up of patients with COVID-19 (e.g., 3 months to 1 year after clearing the virus) is needed to address questions related to the duration of gut microbiota dysbiosis post recovery, link between microbiota dysbiosis and long-term persistent symptoms, and whether the dysbiosis or enrichment/depletion of specific gut microorganisms predisposes recovered individuals to future health problems,” they wrote.

However, the results suggest a likely role for gut microorganisms in host inflammatory responses to COVID-19 infection, and “underscore an urgent need to understand the specific roles of gut microorganisms in human immune function and systemic inflammation,” they concluded.
 

More than infectious

“A growing body of evidence suggests that severity of illness from COVID-19 is largely determined by the patient’s aberrant immune response to the virus,” Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “Therefore, a critical question is: What patient factors determine this immune response? The gut microbiota closely interact with the host immune system and are altered in many immunological diseases,” he said. “Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects enterocytes in the intestine and causes symptomatic gastrointestinal disease in a subset of patients. Therefore, understanding a possible association between gut microbiota and COVID-19 may reveal microbial species involved in disease pathogenesis,” he emphasized.   

In the current study, “I was surprised to find that COVID-19 infection is associated with depletion of immunomodulatory gut bacteria,” said Dr. Roper. “An open question is whether these changes are caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and then result in altered immune response. Alternatively, the changes in gut microbiota may be a result of the immune response or other changes associated with the disease,” he said.

“COVID-19 is an immunological disease, not just an infectious disease,” explained Dr. Roper. “The gut microbiota may play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease. Thus, specific gut microbes could one day be analyzed to risk stratify patients, or even modified to treat the disease,” he noted.
 

Beyond COVID-19

“Given the impact of the gut microbiota on health and disease, as well as the impact of diseases on the microbiota, I am not at all surprised to find that there were significant changes in the microbiota of COVID-19 patients and that these changes are associated with inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and blood markers of tissue damage,” said Anthony Sung, MD, also of Duke University.

According to Dr. Sung, researchers have already been investigating possible connections between gut microbiota and other conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, and it’s been hypothesized that these connections are mediated by interactions between the gut microbiota and the immune system.

“While this is an important paper in our understanding of COVID-19, and highlights the microbiome as a potential therapeutic target, we need to conduct clinical trials of microbiota-based interventions before we can fully realize the clinical implications of these findings,” he said.

The study was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund, the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and donations from Hui Hoy & Chow Sin Lan Charity Fund Limited, Pine and Crane Company Limited, Mr. Hui Ming, and The D.H. Chen Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Roper and Dr. Sung had no financial conflicts to disclose.

COVID-19 infection altered the gut microbiota of adult patients and caused depletion of several types of bacteria with known immunomodulatory properties, based on data from a cohort study of 100 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infections from two hospitals.

“As the GI tract is the largest immunological organ in the body and its resident microbiota are known to modulate host immune responses, we hypothesized that the gut microbiota is associated with host inflammatory immune responses in COVID19,” wrote Yun Kit Yeoh, PhD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers investigated patient microbiota by collecting blood, stool, and patient records between February and May 2020 from 100 confirmed SARS-CoV-2–infected patients in Hong Kong during hospitalization, as well as follow-up stool samples from 27 patients up to 30 days after they cleared the COVID-19 virus; these observations were compared with 78 non–COVID-19 controls.

Overall, 274 stool samples were sequenced. Samples collected from patients during hospitalization for COVID-19 were compared with non–COVID-19 controls. The presence of phylum Bacteroidetes was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients compared with controls (23.9% vs. 12.8%; P < .001), as were Actinobacteria (26.1% vs. 19.0%; P < .001).

After controlling for antibiotics, the investigators found that “differences between cohorts were primarily linked to enrichment of taxa such as Parabacteroides, Sutterella wadsworthensis, and Bacteroides caccae and depletion of Adlercreutzia equolifaciens, Dorea formicigenerans, and Clostridium leptum in COVID-19 relative to non-COVID-19” (P < .05). In addition, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Bifidobacterium bifidum were negatively correlated with COVID-19 severity after investigators controlled for patient age and antibiotic use (P < .05).

The researchers also examined bacteria in COVID-19 patients and controls in the context of cytokines and other inflammatory markers. “We hypothesized that these compositional changes play a role in exacerbating disease by contributing to dysregulation of the immune response,” they said.

In fact, species depleted in COVID-19 patients including included B. adolescentis, E. rectale, and F. prausnitzii were negatively correlated with inflammatory markers including CXCL10, IL-10, TNF-alpha, and CCL2.

In addition, 42 stool samples from 27 patients showed significantly distinct gut microbiota from controls up to 30 days (median, 6 days) after virus clearance, regardless of antibiotics use (P < .05), the researchers said.
 

Long-term data needed

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential confounding of microbial signatures associated with COVID-19 because of heterogeneous patient management in the clinical setting and the potential that gut microbiota reflects a patient’s health with no impact on disease severity, as well as lack of data on the role of antibiotics for severe and critical patients, the researchers noted. In addition, “gut microbiota composition is highly heterogeneous across human populations and changes in compositions reported here may not necessarily be reflected in patients with COVID-19 from other biogeographies,” they wrote.

The “longer follow-up of patients with COVID-19 (e.g., 3 months to 1 year after clearing the virus) is needed to address questions related to the duration of gut microbiota dysbiosis post recovery, link between microbiota dysbiosis and long-term persistent symptoms, and whether the dysbiosis or enrichment/depletion of specific gut microorganisms predisposes recovered individuals to future health problems,” they wrote.

However, the results suggest a likely role for gut microorganisms in host inflammatory responses to COVID-19 infection, and “underscore an urgent need to understand the specific roles of gut microorganisms in human immune function and systemic inflammation,” they concluded.
 

More than infectious

“A growing body of evidence suggests that severity of illness from COVID-19 is largely determined by the patient’s aberrant immune response to the virus,” Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “Therefore, a critical question is: What patient factors determine this immune response? The gut microbiota closely interact with the host immune system and are altered in many immunological diseases,” he said. “Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects enterocytes in the intestine and causes symptomatic gastrointestinal disease in a subset of patients. Therefore, understanding a possible association between gut microbiota and COVID-19 may reveal microbial species involved in disease pathogenesis,” he emphasized.   

In the current study, “I was surprised to find that COVID-19 infection is associated with depletion of immunomodulatory gut bacteria,” said Dr. Roper. “An open question is whether these changes are caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and then result in altered immune response. Alternatively, the changes in gut microbiota may be a result of the immune response or other changes associated with the disease,” he said.

“COVID-19 is an immunological disease, not just an infectious disease,” explained Dr. Roper. “The gut microbiota may play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease. Thus, specific gut microbes could one day be analyzed to risk stratify patients, or even modified to treat the disease,” he noted.
 

Beyond COVID-19

“Given the impact of the gut microbiota on health and disease, as well as the impact of diseases on the microbiota, I am not at all surprised to find that there were significant changes in the microbiota of COVID-19 patients and that these changes are associated with inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and blood markers of tissue damage,” said Anthony Sung, MD, also of Duke University.

According to Dr. Sung, researchers have already been investigating possible connections between gut microbiota and other conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, and it’s been hypothesized that these connections are mediated by interactions between the gut microbiota and the immune system.

“While this is an important paper in our understanding of COVID-19, and highlights the microbiome as a potential therapeutic target, we need to conduct clinical trials of microbiota-based interventions before we can fully realize the clinical implications of these findings,” he said.

The study was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund, the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and donations from Hui Hoy & Chow Sin Lan Charity Fund Limited, Pine and Crane Company Limited, Mr. Hui Ming, and The D.H. Chen Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Roper and Dr. Sung had no financial conflicts to disclose.

COVID-19 infection altered the gut microbiota of adult patients and caused depletion of several types of bacteria with known immunomodulatory properties, based on data from a cohort study of 100 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infections from two hospitals.

“As the GI tract is the largest immunological organ in the body and its resident microbiota are known to modulate host immune responses, we hypothesized that the gut microbiota is associated with host inflammatory immune responses in COVID19,” wrote Yun Kit Yeoh, PhD, of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues.

In a study published in Gut, the researchers investigated patient microbiota by collecting blood, stool, and patient records between February and May 2020 from 100 confirmed SARS-CoV-2–infected patients in Hong Kong during hospitalization, as well as follow-up stool samples from 27 patients up to 30 days after they cleared the COVID-19 virus; these observations were compared with 78 non–COVID-19 controls.

Overall, 274 stool samples were sequenced. Samples collected from patients during hospitalization for COVID-19 were compared with non–COVID-19 controls. The presence of phylum Bacteroidetes was significantly higher in COVID-19 patients compared with controls (23.9% vs. 12.8%; P < .001), as were Actinobacteria (26.1% vs. 19.0%; P < .001).

After controlling for antibiotics, the investigators found that “differences between cohorts were primarily linked to enrichment of taxa such as Parabacteroides, Sutterella wadsworthensis, and Bacteroides caccae and depletion of Adlercreutzia equolifaciens, Dorea formicigenerans, and Clostridium leptum in COVID-19 relative to non-COVID-19” (P < .05). In addition, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Bifidobacterium bifidum were negatively correlated with COVID-19 severity after investigators controlled for patient age and antibiotic use (P < .05).

The researchers also examined bacteria in COVID-19 patients and controls in the context of cytokines and other inflammatory markers. “We hypothesized that these compositional changes play a role in exacerbating disease by contributing to dysregulation of the immune response,” they said.

In fact, species depleted in COVID-19 patients including included B. adolescentis, E. rectale, and F. prausnitzii were negatively correlated with inflammatory markers including CXCL10, IL-10, TNF-alpha, and CCL2.

In addition, 42 stool samples from 27 patients showed significantly distinct gut microbiota from controls up to 30 days (median, 6 days) after virus clearance, regardless of antibiotics use (P < .05), the researchers said.
 

Long-term data needed

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential confounding of microbial signatures associated with COVID-19 because of heterogeneous patient management in the clinical setting and the potential that gut microbiota reflects a patient’s health with no impact on disease severity, as well as lack of data on the role of antibiotics for severe and critical patients, the researchers noted. In addition, “gut microbiota composition is highly heterogeneous across human populations and changes in compositions reported here may not necessarily be reflected in patients with COVID-19 from other biogeographies,” they wrote.

The “longer follow-up of patients with COVID-19 (e.g., 3 months to 1 year after clearing the virus) is needed to address questions related to the duration of gut microbiota dysbiosis post recovery, link between microbiota dysbiosis and long-term persistent symptoms, and whether the dysbiosis or enrichment/depletion of specific gut microorganisms predisposes recovered individuals to future health problems,” they wrote.

However, the results suggest a likely role for gut microorganisms in host inflammatory responses to COVID-19 infection, and “underscore an urgent need to understand the specific roles of gut microorganisms in human immune function and systemic inflammation,” they concluded.
 

More than infectious

“A growing body of evidence suggests that severity of illness from COVID-19 is largely determined by the patient’s aberrant immune response to the virus,” Jatin Roper, MD, of Duke University, Durham, N.C., said in an interview. “Therefore, a critical question is: What patient factors determine this immune response? The gut microbiota closely interact with the host immune system and are altered in many immunological diseases,” he said. “Furthermore, the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects enterocytes in the intestine and causes symptomatic gastrointestinal disease in a subset of patients. Therefore, understanding a possible association between gut microbiota and COVID-19 may reveal microbial species involved in disease pathogenesis,” he emphasized.   

In the current study, “I was surprised to find that COVID-19 infection is associated with depletion of immunomodulatory gut bacteria,” said Dr. Roper. “An open question is whether these changes are caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and then result in altered immune response. Alternatively, the changes in gut microbiota may be a result of the immune response or other changes associated with the disease,” he said.

“COVID-19 is an immunological disease, not just an infectious disease,” explained Dr. Roper. “The gut microbiota may play an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease. Thus, specific gut microbes could one day be analyzed to risk stratify patients, or even modified to treat the disease,” he noted.
 

Beyond COVID-19

“Given the impact of the gut microbiota on health and disease, as well as the impact of diseases on the microbiota, I am not at all surprised to find that there were significant changes in the microbiota of COVID-19 patients and that these changes are associated with inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, and blood markers of tissue damage,” said Anthony Sung, MD, also of Duke University.

According to Dr. Sung, researchers have already been investigating possible connections between gut microbiota and other conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, and it’s been hypothesized that these connections are mediated by interactions between the gut microbiota and the immune system.

“While this is an important paper in our understanding of COVID-19, and highlights the microbiome as a potential therapeutic target, we need to conduct clinical trials of microbiota-based interventions before we can fully realize the clinical implications of these findings,” he said.

The study was supported by the Health and Medical Research Fund, the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and donations from Hui Hoy & Chow Sin Lan Charity Fund Limited, Pine and Crane Company Limited, Mr. Hui Ming, and The D.H. Chen Foundation. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Roper and Dr. Sung had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

The COVID-19 variants that have emerged in the United Kingdom, Brazil, South Africa and now Southern California are eliciting two notably distinct responses from U.S. public health officials.

janiecbros/iStock/Getty Images Plus

First, broad concern. A variant that wreaked havoc in the United Kingdom, leading to a spike in cases and hospitalizations, is surfacing in a growing number of places in the United States. During the week of Jan. 24, another worrisome variant seen in Brazil surfaced in Minnesota. If these or other strains significantly change the way the virus transmits and attacks the body, as scientists fear they might, they could cause yet another prolonged surge in illness and death in the U.S., even as cases have begun to plateau and vaccines are rolling out.

On the other hand, variants aren’t novel or even uncommon in viral illnesses. The viruses that trigger common colds and flus regularly evolve. Even if a mutated strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, makes it more contagious or makes people sicker, the basic public health response stays the same: Monitor the virus, and any mutations, as it moves across communities. Use masking, testing, physical distancing, and quarantine to contain the spread.

The problem is that the U.S. has struggled with every step of its public health response in its first year of battle against COVID-19. And that raises the question of whether the nation will devote the attention and resources needed to outflank the virus as it evolves.

Researchers are quick to stress that a coronavirus mutation in itself is no cause for alarm. In the course of making millions and billions of copies as part of the infection process, small changes to a virus’s genome happen all the time as a function of evolutionary biology.

“The word ‘variant’ and the word ‘mutation’ have these scary connotations, and they aren’t necessarily scary,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious disease programs for the Association of Public Health Laboratories.

When a mutation rings public health alarms, it’s typically because it has combined with other mutations and, collectively, changed how the virus behaves. At that point, it may be named a variant. A variant can make a virus spread faster, or more easily jump between species. It can make a virus more successful at making people sicker, or change how our immune systems respond.

SARS-CoV-2 has been mutating for as long as we’ve known about it; mutations were identified by scientists throughout 2020. Though relevant scientifically – mutations can actually be helpful, acting like a fingerprint that allows scientists to track a virus’s spread – the identified strains mostly carried little concern for public health.

Then came the end of the year, when several variants began drawing scrutiny. One of the most concerning, first detected in the United Kingdom, appears to make the virus more transmissible. Emerging evidence suggests it also could be deadlier, though scientists are still debating that.

We know more about the U.K. variant than others not because it’s necessarily worse, but because the British have one of the best virus surveillance programs in the world, said William Hanage, PhD, an epidemiologist and a professor at Harvard University.

By contrast, the U.S. has one of the weakest genomic surveillance programs of any rich country, Dr. Hanage said. “As it is, people like me cobble together partnerships with places and try and beg them” for samples, he said on a recent call with reporters.

Other variant strains were identified in South Africa and Brazil, and they share some mutations with the U.K. variant. That those changes evolved independently in several parts of the world suggests they might present an evolutionary advantage for the virus. Yet another strain was recently identified in Southern California and flagged due to its increasing presence in hard-hit cities like Los Angeles.

The Southern California strain was detected because a team of researchers at Cedars-Sinai, a hospital and research center in Los Angeles, has unfettered access to patient samples. They were able to see that the strain made up a growing share of cases at the hospital in recent weeks, as well as among the limited number of other samples haphazardly collected at a network of labs in the region.

Not only does the U.S. do less genomic sequencing than most wealthy countries, but it also does its surveillance by happenstance. That means it takes longer to detect new strains and draw conclusions about them. It’s not yet clear, for example, whether that Southern California strain was truly worthy of a press release.

Vast swaths of America’s privatized and decentralized system of health care aren’t set up to send samples to public health or academic labs. “I’m more concerned about the systems to detect variants than I am these particular variants,” said Mark Pandori, PhD, director of Nevada’s public health laboratory and associate professor at the University of Nevada-Reno School of Medicine.

Limited genomic surveillance of viruses is yet another side effect of a fragmented and underfunded public health system that’s struggled to test, track contacts and get COVID-19 under control throughout the pandemic, Ms. Wroblewski said.

The nation’s public health infrastructure, generally funded on a disease-by-disease basis, has decent systems set up to sequence flu, foodborne illnesses and tuberculosis, but there has been no national strategy on COVID-19. “To look for variants, it needs to be a national picture if it’s going to be done well,” Ms. Wroblewski said.

The Biden administration has outlined a strategy for a national response to COVID-19, which includes expanded surveillance for variants.

So far, vaccines for COVID-19 appear to protect against the known variants. Moderna has said its vaccine is effective against the U.K. and South African strains, though it yields fewer antibodies in the face of the latter. The company is working to develop a revised dose of the vaccine that could be added to the current two-shot regimen as a precaution.

But a lot of damage can be done in the time it will take to roll out the current vaccine, let alone an update.

Even with limited sampling, the U.K. variant has been detected in more than two dozen U.S. states, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has warned it could be the predominant strain in the U.S. by March. When it took off in the United Kingdom at the end of last year, it caused a swell in cases, overwhelmed hospitals, and led to a holiday lockdown. Whether the U.S. faces the same fate could depend on which strains it is competing against, and how the public behaves in the weeks ahead.

Already risky interactions among people could, on average, get a little riskier. Many researchers are calling for better masks and better indoor ventilation. But any updates on recommendations likely would play at the margins. Even if variants spread more easily, the same recommendations public health experts have been espousing for months – masking, physical distancing, and limiting time indoors with others – will be the best way to ward them off, said Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, MD, a physician and professor at the University of California, San Francisco.

“It’s very unsexy what the solutions are,” Dr. Bibbins-Domingo said. “But we need everyone to do them.”

That doesn’t make the task simple. Masking remains controversial in many states, and the public’s patience for maintaining physical distance has worn thin.

Adding to the concerns: Though case numbers stabilized in many parts of the U.S. in January, they have stabilized at rates many times what they were during previous periods in the pandemic or in other parts of the world. Having all that virus in so many bodies creates more opportunities for new mutations and new variants to emerge.

“If we keep letting this thing sneak around, it’s going to get around all the measures we take against it, and that’s the worst possible thing,” said Nevada’s Dr. Pandori.

Compared with less virulent strains, a more contagious variant likely will require that more people be vaccinated before a community can see the benefits of widespread immunity. It’s a bleak outlook for a nation already falling behind in the race to vaccinate enough people to bring the pandemic under control.

“When your best solution is to ask people to do the things that they don’t like to do anyway, that’s very scary,” said Dr. Bibbins-Domingo.
 

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Are pediatric atopic dermatitis and atopic dermatitis the same disease?

“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.

Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.

Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”

AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).

Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).

Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”

AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).

According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”

Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

[email protected]

Are pediatric atopic dermatitis and atopic dermatitis the same disease?

“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.

Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.

Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”

AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).

Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).

Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”

AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).

According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”

Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

[email protected]

Are pediatric atopic dermatitis and atopic dermatitis the same disease?

“Maybe not,” Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, said during the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, based his comments largely on a review that he and his colleagues carried out to understand how features of atopic dermatitis (AD) vary by region globally as well as by age. They identified 101 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis and stratified the results by pediatric and adult age groups.

Several signs and symptoms occurred with similar frequency among pediatric and adult patients, including pruritus, xerosis, flexural involvement, extensor involvement, early onset of disease, comorbid atopy, head and neck involvement, and ophthalmic comorbidities. However, adults were found to have more signs of chronic disease, more hand eczema, different patterns of hand eczema, and a stronger relationship of disease activity with emotional factors. Meanwhile, children were found to have more exudative or weeping lesions, more perifollicular eczema, and more pityriasis alba.

Dr. Silverberg showed photos of three adults with varied presentations of extensor involvement, including one “who had a lot of lichenification and thickening of the skin, but over knees where you might think about psoriasis,” he said. “All three of these patients were of Southeast Asian descent. That happens to be a region where this feature was reported much more commonly. It may even tie to some underlying immunopathophysiologic differences of the disease across different patient populations.”

AD signs that occur more commonly in adults than children include lichenification (100% vs. 48%), urticaria (32% vs. 20%), popular lichenoid lesions (46% vs. 8%), Hertoghe’s sign (25% vs. 2%), erythroderma (29% vs. 1%), and nodular prurigo (18% vs. 4%).

Hand eczema features also differ between adults and children, including hand or foot dermatitis (44% vs. 25%), dyshidrosis/pompholyx (21% vs. 3%), knuckle dermatitis (25% vs. 8%), nail involvement (15% vs. 8%), and fissured heels. However, ventral wrist dermatitis was found to be more than twice as common in children, compared with adults (34% vs. 15%).

Other signs of AD were more common in children, compared with adults, including exudative eczema (61% vs. 42%), pityriasis alba (28% vs. 18%), Dennie-Morgan infraorbital folds (47% vs. 36%), seborrheic dermatitis–like lesions (40% vs. 18%), and perifollicular accentuation (37% vs. 21%). “This is such an important sign to wrap your head around and get comfortable assessing,” he said. “I have seen patients who are erythrodermic with follicular eczema who were told that they were crazy and had psychogenic itch, and they should go to a shrink.”

AD triggers can differ between adults and children as well, including course influenced by emotions/environmental factors (72% vs. 32%), worsening itch worse (65% vs. 49%), course influenced by environment (62% vs. 37%), and course influenced by emotions (70% vs. 15%).

According to Dr. Silverberg, emerging research suggests that there may be differences in the immune pathways activated in pediatric versus adult AD. Specifically, more Th17 and interferon-gamma in AD lesions have been observed in children, compared with adults, and more Th22 and Th17 in nonlesional AD have been seen in children, compared with adults. “This leads to a question: Will children respond differently than adults to treatment?” Dr. Silverberg said. “We see that omalizumab doesn’t seem to help much in adults, yet a recent study suggested that it might work reasonably well for children. Dupilumab has different dosing requirements and potentially different responses between the pediatric and adult populations.”

Age differences in AD may also be related to differences in the skin microbiome. In 2016, researchers led by Richard L. Gallo, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, University of California, San Diego, compared the skin microbiome between adults and children with AD by swabbing the volar forearm and performing 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The study included 59 young children, 13 teenagers, and 56 adults with AD as well as 68 age-matched non-atopic healthy controls. The researchers found a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Granulicatella, Gemella, Rothia, and Haemophilus in young children, compared with adults, while Propionibacterium, Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Lactobacillus, Finegoldia, and Anaerococcus were more abundant in adults, compared with children.

Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

[email protected]

Marius Pharmaceuticals has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for Kyzatrex, an oral testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

With this NDA, the company is seeking approval for Kyzatrex as a treatment for adult men with primary and secondary hypogonadism, also known as testosterone deficiency. Marius has requested a priority review that, if accepted, would result in an anticipated 6-month review period.

Current treatment options for hypogonadal men consist of therapies with safety concerns, such as cardiovascular and metabolic risks, that make patient adherence to treatment very low.

Kyzatrex is a novel oral formulation of testosterone undecanoate administered twice daily in a soft gelatin capsule.

“TRT remains a therapeutic challenge because there are worrisome and conflicting data related to increased cardiovascular disease risk, which has special relevance to high-risk diabetic populations,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization. Furthermore, “injectable depot testosterone may be associated with peak supraphysiological levels and a substantial increase in hemoglobin. Topical testosterone offers more stable levels without a peak and trough, but in some men achieving physiologic levels may be difficult.”

The NDA is supported by results from a 6-month treatment extension of the pivotal phase 3 MRS-TU-2019 study (NCT04467697). Final results from this study have not been presented, but the company wrote in a press release that the results will be published some time in 2021.

They further reported that Kyzatrex was well tolerated by patients, with more than 96% of study participants completing 90 days of treatment in the pivotal phase 3 study. Study patients achieved average testosterone levels in the normal range.

Across the pooled phase 3 trials, the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was hypertension, and no serious TEAEs were considered treatment related.

“We are extremely proud to have generated compelling efficacy and safety data in our phase 3 trials,” said Om Dhingra, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Marius. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA on the review of our application, and if approved, Kyzatrex has the potential to become the standard of care for the treatment of primary and secondary hypogonadism globally.”

“An oral [testosterone] preparation with steady state physiologic levels would be a welcome addition to our choices for therapy assuming, of course, the absence of adverse effects,” explained Dr. Jellinger. “However, the greater challenge of testosterone therapy is the appropriate selection of those suited for testosterone replacement therapy.”

The company also plans to submit a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency in the first half of 2022.

Marius Pharmaceuticals has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for Kyzatrex, an oral testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

With this NDA, the company is seeking approval for Kyzatrex as a treatment for adult men with primary and secondary hypogonadism, also known as testosterone deficiency. Marius has requested a priority review that, if accepted, would result in an anticipated 6-month review period.

Current treatment options for hypogonadal men consist of therapies with safety concerns, such as cardiovascular and metabolic risks, that make patient adherence to treatment very low.

Kyzatrex is a novel oral formulation of testosterone undecanoate administered twice daily in a soft gelatin capsule.

“TRT remains a therapeutic challenge because there are worrisome and conflicting data related to increased cardiovascular disease risk, which has special relevance to high-risk diabetic populations,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization. Furthermore, “injectable depot testosterone may be associated with peak supraphysiological levels and a substantial increase in hemoglobin. Topical testosterone offers more stable levels without a peak and trough, but in some men achieving physiologic levels may be difficult.”

The NDA is supported by results from a 6-month treatment extension of the pivotal phase 3 MRS-TU-2019 study (NCT04467697). Final results from this study have not been presented, but the company wrote in a press release that the results will be published some time in 2021.

They further reported that Kyzatrex was well tolerated by patients, with more than 96% of study participants completing 90 days of treatment in the pivotal phase 3 study. Study patients achieved average testosterone levels in the normal range.

Across the pooled phase 3 trials, the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was hypertension, and no serious TEAEs were considered treatment related.

“We are extremely proud to have generated compelling efficacy and safety data in our phase 3 trials,” said Om Dhingra, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Marius. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA on the review of our application, and if approved, Kyzatrex has the potential to become the standard of care for the treatment of primary and secondary hypogonadism globally.”

“An oral [testosterone] preparation with steady state physiologic levels would be a welcome addition to our choices for therapy assuming, of course, the absence of adverse effects,” explained Dr. Jellinger. “However, the greater challenge of testosterone therapy is the appropriate selection of those suited for testosterone replacement therapy.”

The company also plans to submit a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency in the first half of 2022.

Marius Pharmaceuticals has submitted a new drug application (NDA) to the Food and Drug Administration for Kyzatrex, an oral testosterone replacement therapy (TRT).

With this NDA, the company is seeking approval for Kyzatrex as a treatment for adult men with primary and secondary hypogonadism, also known as testosterone deficiency. Marius has requested a priority review that, if accepted, would result in an anticipated 6-month review period.

Current treatment options for hypogonadal men consist of therapies with safety concerns, such as cardiovascular and metabolic risks, that make patient adherence to treatment very low.

Kyzatrex is a novel oral formulation of testosterone undecanoate administered twice daily in a soft gelatin capsule.

“TRT remains a therapeutic challenge because there are worrisome and conflicting data related to increased cardiovascular disease risk, which has special relevance to high-risk diabetic populations,” Paul S. Jellinger, MD, professor of clinical medicine at the University of Miami, told this news organization. Furthermore, “injectable depot testosterone may be associated with peak supraphysiological levels and a substantial increase in hemoglobin. Topical testosterone offers more stable levels without a peak and trough, but in some men achieving physiologic levels may be difficult.”

The NDA is supported by results from a 6-month treatment extension of the pivotal phase 3 MRS-TU-2019 study (NCT04467697). Final results from this study have not been presented, but the company wrote in a press release that the results will be published some time in 2021.

They further reported that Kyzatrex was well tolerated by patients, with more than 96% of study participants completing 90 days of treatment in the pivotal phase 3 study. Study patients achieved average testosterone levels in the normal range.

Across the pooled phase 3 trials, the most frequent treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was hypertension, and no serious TEAEs were considered treatment related.

“We are extremely proud to have generated compelling efficacy and safety data in our phase 3 trials,” said Om Dhingra, PhD, cofounder and CEO of Marius. “We look forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the FDA on the review of our application, and if approved, Kyzatrex has the potential to become the standard of care for the treatment of primary and secondary hypogonadism globally.”

“An oral [testosterone] preparation with steady state physiologic levels would be a welcome addition to our choices for therapy assuming, of course, the absence of adverse effects,” explained Dr. Jellinger. “However, the greater challenge of testosterone therapy is the appropriate selection of those suited for testosterone replacement therapy.”

The company also plans to submit a marketing authorization application with the European Medicines Agency in the first half of 2022.

Offering a combination of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), either in sequence or by choice, may significantly increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, according to a prospective study involving more than 12,000 individuals in Poland.

Still, greater participation did not lead to significantly higher rates of advanced disease detection, reported lead author Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, MD, of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

According to the investigators, screening programs that offer colonoscopy and FIT are more effective than those that offer colonoscopy alone, but an optimal combination protocol has yet to be established, and some parts of the world still rely upon a single diagnostic method.

“In Europe, CRC screening programs often implement only one screening modality: colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool testing, depending on the health care provider,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. They noted, however, that national guidelines in the United States recommend strategies that include more than one screening method. “‘One-size-fits-all’ approaches to CRC screening do not result in satisfactory participation” because of behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among individuals.

To improve understanding of the best ways to improve participation, the investigators conducted a prospective randomized trial, PICCOLINO, via the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. In total, 12,485 eligible individuals aged between 55 and 64 years received postal invitations to participate in CRC screening. Individuals were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into one of three mailing protocols, each of which involved an initial invitation, and, if needed, a second invitation that offered the following:

• Control group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again
• Sequential group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders or refusers receiving a second invitation that offered FIT
• Choice group: choice between colonoscopy or FIT, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again

The primary outcome was participation in screening within 18 weeks of enrollment. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for either advanced adenoma or CRC.

Out of the three groups, the control group had the lowest participation rate, at 17.5%, compared with 25.8% for the sequential group and 26.5% for the choice group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that individuals in the sequential and choice groups had 64% and 70% higher rates of participation, respectively. Across all groups, age of 60 years or older predicted 12% higher likelihood of participation; in contrast, location more than 40 kilometers from a testing center was associated with an 18% decrease in participation, compared with individuals who lived less than 20 kilometers away.

While the control and sequential groups had similar rates of colonoscopy participation, at 17.5% and 15.9%, respectively (P = .788), this rate was significantly lower, at 8.5%, in the choice group (P = .001). Conversely, the sequential group had a significantly lower rate of FITs than the choice group, at 9.9% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = .001). Among participants with a positive FIT, diagnostic work-up colonoscopies were performed in 70.0% of those in the sequential group and 73.3% in the choice group, “despite active call-recall efforts.”

Across all invited individuals, advanced disease detection rates were similar across groups, at 1.1% for both the control and the sequential group and 1.2% for the choice group. Among those who were actually screened, the control group had a slightly higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia, at 6.5%, compared with 4.2% in the sequential group and 4.4% in the choice group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, significantly more adenomas of any kind were detected in the control and sequential groups (5.6% for both) than the choice group (3.9%) (P < .001).

“Although the strategies which included FIT showed higher participation rates than the strategy of offering colonoscopy alone, these strategies did not result in increased detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the intention to screen analysis,” the investigators wrote. “An absolute increase in participation rates of 8%-10% seems insufficient to translate into higher advanced neoplasia detection at the population level.”

Dr. Pilonis and colleagues also suggested that the relatively low rate of diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT contributed to the suboptimal diagnostic yield.

“These rates are unsatisfactory taking into account significant call-recall efforts, but are within the range reported in other studies,” they wrote.

They also wrote that their study compared participation and detection between one-time colonoscopy and one-time screening strategies combining colonoscopy and FIT. In acknowledging this, they noted that these approaches have different screening intervals and uptake over time: “FIT has been shown to achieve higher participation rates than colonoscopy for one time screening, but its uptake over several rounds may not be superior to one time colonoscopy.” Furthermore, detection rates of the sequential or choice strategies for advanced disease may rise over time with further implementation, so the one-time screening may not be sufficient to reveal what could become significant differences.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health, the Polish Foundation of Gastroenterology, and the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education in Warsaw. FITs, materials, and reagents were provided by Eiken Chemical. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Olympus, and others.

Offering a combination of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), either in sequence or by choice, may significantly increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, according to a prospective study involving more than 12,000 individuals in Poland.

Still, greater participation did not lead to significantly higher rates of advanced disease detection, reported lead author Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, MD, of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

According to the investigators, screening programs that offer colonoscopy and FIT are more effective than those that offer colonoscopy alone, but an optimal combination protocol has yet to be established, and some parts of the world still rely upon a single diagnostic method.

“In Europe, CRC screening programs often implement only one screening modality: colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool testing, depending on the health care provider,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. They noted, however, that national guidelines in the United States recommend strategies that include more than one screening method. “‘One-size-fits-all’ approaches to CRC screening do not result in satisfactory participation” because of behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among individuals.

To improve understanding of the best ways to improve participation, the investigators conducted a prospective randomized trial, PICCOLINO, via the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. In total, 12,485 eligible individuals aged between 55 and 64 years received postal invitations to participate in CRC screening. Individuals were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into one of three mailing protocols, each of which involved an initial invitation, and, if needed, a second invitation that offered the following:

• Control group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again
• Sequential group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders or refusers receiving a second invitation that offered FIT
• Choice group: choice between colonoscopy or FIT, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again

The primary outcome was participation in screening within 18 weeks of enrollment. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for either advanced adenoma or CRC.

Out of the three groups, the control group had the lowest participation rate, at 17.5%, compared with 25.8% for the sequential group and 26.5% for the choice group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that individuals in the sequential and choice groups had 64% and 70% higher rates of participation, respectively. Across all groups, age of 60 years or older predicted 12% higher likelihood of participation; in contrast, location more than 40 kilometers from a testing center was associated with an 18% decrease in participation, compared with individuals who lived less than 20 kilometers away.

While the control and sequential groups had similar rates of colonoscopy participation, at 17.5% and 15.9%, respectively (P = .788), this rate was significantly lower, at 8.5%, in the choice group (P = .001). Conversely, the sequential group had a significantly lower rate of FITs than the choice group, at 9.9% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = .001). Among participants with a positive FIT, diagnostic work-up colonoscopies were performed in 70.0% of those in the sequential group and 73.3% in the choice group, “despite active call-recall efforts.”

Across all invited individuals, advanced disease detection rates were similar across groups, at 1.1% for both the control and the sequential group and 1.2% for the choice group. Among those who were actually screened, the control group had a slightly higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia, at 6.5%, compared with 4.2% in the sequential group and 4.4% in the choice group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, significantly more adenomas of any kind were detected in the control and sequential groups (5.6% for both) than the choice group (3.9%) (P < .001).

“Although the strategies which included FIT showed higher participation rates than the strategy of offering colonoscopy alone, these strategies did not result in increased detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the intention to screen analysis,” the investigators wrote. “An absolute increase in participation rates of 8%-10% seems insufficient to translate into higher advanced neoplasia detection at the population level.”

Dr. Pilonis and colleagues also suggested that the relatively low rate of diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT contributed to the suboptimal diagnostic yield.

“These rates are unsatisfactory taking into account significant call-recall efforts, but are within the range reported in other studies,” they wrote.

They also wrote that their study compared participation and detection between one-time colonoscopy and one-time screening strategies combining colonoscopy and FIT. In acknowledging this, they noted that these approaches have different screening intervals and uptake over time: “FIT has been shown to achieve higher participation rates than colonoscopy for one time screening, but its uptake over several rounds may not be superior to one time colonoscopy.” Furthermore, detection rates of the sequential or choice strategies for advanced disease may rise over time with further implementation, so the one-time screening may not be sufficient to reveal what could become significant differences.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health, the Polish Foundation of Gastroenterology, and the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education in Warsaw. FITs, materials, and reagents were provided by Eiken Chemical. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Olympus, and others.

Offering a combination of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT), either in sequence or by choice, may significantly increase participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, according to a prospective study involving more than 12,000 individuals in Poland.

Still, greater participation did not lead to significantly higher rates of advanced disease detection, reported lead author Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, MD, of the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, and colleagues in Gastroenterology.

According to the investigators, screening programs that offer colonoscopy and FIT are more effective than those that offer colonoscopy alone, but an optimal combination protocol has yet to be established, and some parts of the world still rely upon a single diagnostic method.

“In Europe, CRC screening programs often implement only one screening modality: colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or stool testing, depending on the health care provider,” the investigators wrote in Gastroenterology. They noted, however, that national guidelines in the United States recommend strategies that include more than one screening method. “‘One-size-fits-all’ approaches to CRC screening do not result in satisfactory participation” because of behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic variation among individuals.

To improve understanding of the best ways to improve participation, the investigators conducted a prospective randomized trial, PICCOLINO, via the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program. In total, 12,485 eligible individuals aged between 55 and 64 years received postal invitations to participate in CRC screening. Individuals were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into one of three mailing protocols, each of which involved an initial invitation, and, if needed, a second invitation that offered the following:

• Control group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again
• Sequential group: colonoscopy, with nonresponders or refusers receiving a second invitation that offered FIT
• Choice group: choice between colonoscopy or FIT, with nonresponders receiving the same invitation again

The primary outcome was participation in screening within 18 weeks of enrollment. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield for either advanced adenoma or CRC.

Out of the three groups, the control group had the lowest participation rate, at 17.5%, compared with 25.8% for the sequential group and 26.5% for the choice group. Multivariable logistic regression showed that individuals in the sequential and choice groups had 64% and 70% higher rates of participation, respectively. Across all groups, age of 60 years or older predicted 12% higher likelihood of participation; in contrast, location more than 40 kilometers from a testing center was associated with an 18% decrease in participation, compared with individuals who lived less than 20 kilometers away.

While the control and sequential groups had similar rates of colonoscopy participation, at 17.5% and 15.9%, respectively (P = .788), this rate was significantly lower, at 8.5%, in the choice group (P = .001). Conversely, the sequential group had a significantly lower rate of FITs than the choice group, at 9.9% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = .001). Among participants with a positive FIT, diagnostic work-up colonoscopies were performed in 70.0% of those in the sequential group and 73.3% in the choice group, “despite active call-recall efforts.”

Across all invited individuals, advanced disease detection rates were similar across groups, at 1.1% for both the control and the sequential group and 1.2% for the choice group. Among those who were actually screened, the control group had a slightly higher diagnostic yield for advanced neoplasia, at 6.5%, compared with 4.2% in the sequential group and 4.4% in the choice group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. In contrast, significantly more adenomas of any kind were detected in the control and sequential groups (5.6% for both) than the choice group (3.9%) (P < .001).

“Although the strategies which included FIT showed higher participation rates than the strategy of offering colonoscopy alone, these strategies did not result in increased detection rates of advanced neoplasia in the intention to screen analysis,” the investigators wrote. “An absolute increase in participation rates of 8%-10% seems insufficient to translate into higher advanced neoplasia detection at the population level.”

Dr. Pilonis and colleagues also suggested that the relatively low rate of diagnostic colonoscopy after positive FIT contributed to the suboptimal diagnostic yield.

“These rates are unsatisfactory taking into account significant call-recall efforts, but are within the range reported in other studies,” they wrote.

They also wrote that their study compared participation and detection between one-time colonoscopy and one-time screening strategies combining colonoscopy and FIT. In acknowledging this, they noted that these approaches have different screening intervals and uptake over time: “FIT has been shown to achieve higher participation rates than colonoscopy for one time screening, but its uptake over several rounds may not be superior to one time colonoscopy.” Furthermore, detection rates of the sequential or choice strategies for advanced disease may rise over time with further implementation, so the one-time screening may not be sufficient to reveal what could become significant differences.

The study was funded by the Polish Ministry of Health, the Polish Foundation of Gastroenterology, and the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Education in Warsaw. FITs, materials, and reagents were provided by Eiken Chemical. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Olympus, and others.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes, and that relationship may be influenced by nonmetabolic factors. That is the conclusion of a new nationwide database analysis. NAFLD is common in IBD, with an estimated prevalence of 27%-32%.

Previous, smaller studies showed possible links between NAFLD and a history of IBD surgery, IBD disease activity, and metabolic factors, “but none of the studies looked at it on the scale that we did, and our study was more focused on outcomes than simply examining factors associated with both NAFLD and IBD,” Shaya Noorian, MD, of UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Noorian presented the research at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Noorian and colleagues found higher rates of hospital readmission, longer hospitalization, and higher costs, but not higher rates of death among patients with both Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and NAFLD. The researchers analyzed data from patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2017), using ICD-10 codes to identify patients with IBD and NAFLD, along with propensity-matched controls. The study included 3,655 with Crohn’s disease and NAFLD and 7,482 without, and there were 2,026 with ulcerative colitis and NAFLD 4,094 without.

IBD hospital readmission rates were higher with comorbid NAFLD in Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.17; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.32; P < .001). Comorbid NAFLD was associated with additional length of stay Crohn’s disease (0.74 days; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis (0.84 days; 0.32-1.35, respectively; P < .01), and there was additional cost of care with both Crohn’s disease ($7,766; 95% CI, $2,693-$12,839; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis ($11,496; 95% CI, $4,361-$18,631; P < .01).

Kaplan Meier curves for IBD readmission-free survival versus days since discharge showed clear separation in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among patients with versus those without NAFLD.

Although evidence points to nonmetabolic factors being involved, metabolic factors such as obesity and diabetes are likely important as well. “We still do recognize that it’s very likely that these metabolic factors play a role in developing NAFLD in IBD. I think the fact that there are worse outcomes in patients with NAFLD supports the fact that we should do our best to control the metabolic factors like diabetes, obesity, et cetera. We don’t want to minimize that aspect of it. But I think the fact that there were still worse outcomes after adjusting for metabolic factors emphasizes the importance of researching these factors further to see which ones are the main contributors. If we can find the main contributor, whether that’s medication, IBD disease burden, or history of surgery, perhaps we can use that information to prevent development or progression of NAFLD,” said Dr. Noorian.

“Historical reports have examined the relationship between Crohn’s disease and NAFLD. The currently study included both Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, thus impressively demonstrating the importance of this interaction across IBD,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who attended the session.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes, and that relationship may be influenced by nonmetabolic factors. That is the conclusion of a new nationwide database analysis. NAFLD is common in IBD, with an estimated prevalence of 27%-32%.

Previous, smaller studies showed possible links between NAFLD and a history of IBD surgery, IBD disease activity, and metabolic factors, “but none of the studies looked at it on the scale that we did, and our study was more focused on outcomes than simply examining factors associated with both NAFLD and IBD,” Shaya Noorian, MD, of UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Noorian presented the research at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Noorian and colleagues found higher rates of hospital readmission, longer hospitalization, and higher costs, but not higher rates of death among patients with both Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and NAFLD. The researchers analyzed data from patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2017), using ICD-10 codes to identify patients with IBD and NAFLD, along with propensity-matched controls. The study included 3,655 with Crohn’s disease and NAFLD and 7,482 without, and there were 2,026 with ulcerative colitis and NAFLD 4,094 without.

IBD hospital readmission rates were higher with comorbid NAFLD in Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.17; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.32; P < .001). Comorbid NAFLD was associated with additional length of stay Crohn’s disease (0.74 days; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis (0.84 days; 0.32-1.35, respectively; P < .01), and there was additional cost of care with both Crohn’s disease ($7,766; 95% CI, $2,693-$12,839; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis ($11,496; 95% CI, $4,361-$18,631; P < .01).

Kaplan Meier curves for IBD readmission-free survival versus days since discharge showed clear separation in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among patients with versus those without NAFLD.

Although evidence points to nonmetabolic factors being involved, metabolic factors such as obesity and diabetes are likely important as well. “We still do recognize that it’s very likely that these metabolic factors play a role in developing NAFLD in IBD. I think the fact that there are worse outcomes in patients with NAFLD supports the fact that we should do our best to control the metabolic factors like diabetes, obesity, et cetera. We don’t want to minimize that aspect of it. But I think the fact that there were still worse outcomes after adjusting for metabolic factors emphasizes the importance of researching these factors further to see which ones are the main contributors. If we can find the main contributor, whether that’s medication, IBD disease burden, or history of surgery, perhaps we can use that information to prevent development or progression of NAFLD,” said Dr. Noorian.

“Historical reports have examined the relationship between Crohn’s disease and NAFLD. The currently study included both Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, thus impressively demonstrating the importance of this interaction across IBD,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who attended the session.

Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with worse outcomes, and that relationship may be influenced by nonmetabolic factors. That is the conclusion of a new nationwide database analysis. NAFLD is common in IBD, with an estimated prevalence of 27%-32%.

Previous, smaller studies showed possible links between NAFLD and a history of IBD surgery, IBD disease activity, and metabolic factors, “but none of the studies looked at it on the scale that we did, and our study was more focused on outcomes than simply examining factors associated with both NAFLD and IBD,” Shaya Noorian, MD, of UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, said in an interview. Dr. Noorian presented the research at the annual congress of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Dr. Noorian and colleagues found higher rates of hospital readmission, longer hospitalization, and higher costs, but not higher rates of death among patients with both Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and NAFLD. The researchers analyzed data from patients in the Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2017), using ICD-10 codes to identify patients with IBD and NAFLD, along with propensity-matched controls. The study included 3,655 with Crohn’s disease and NAFLD and 7,482 without, and there were 2,026 with ulcerative colitis and NAFLD 4,094 without.

IBD hospital readmission rates were higher with comorbid NAFLD in Crohn’s disease (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.8-2.17; P < .001) and ulcerative colitis (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.67-2.32; P < .001). Comorbid NAFLD was associated with additional length of stay Crohn’s disease (0.74 days; 95% CI, 0.29-1.18; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis (0.84 days; 0.32-1.35, respectively; P < .01), and there was additional cost of care with both Crohn’s disease ($7,766; 95% CI, $2,693-$12,839; P < .01) and ulcerative colitis ($11,496; 95% CI, $4,361-$18,631; P < .01).

Kaplan Meier curves for IBD readmission-free survival versus days since discharge showed clear separation in both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis among patients with versus those without NAFLD.

Although evidence points to nonmetabolic factors being involved, metabolic factors such as obesity and diabetes are likely important as well. “We still do recognize that it’s very likely that these metabolic factors play a role in developing NAFLD in IBD. I think the fact that there are worse outcomes in patients with NAFLD supports the fact that we should do our best to control the metabolic factors like diabetes, obesity, et cetera. We don’t want to minimize that aspect of it. But I think the fact that there were still worse outcomes after adjusting for metabolic factors emphasizes the importance of researching these factors further to see which ones are the main contributors. If we can find the main contributor, whether that’s medication, IBD disease burden, or history of surgery, perhaps we can use that information to prevent development or progression of NAFLD,” said Dr. Noorian.

“Historical reports have examined the relationship between Crohn’s disease and NAFLD. The currently study included both Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, thus impressively demonstrating the importance of this interaction across IBD,” said Matthew Ciorba, MD, director of the IBD Center at Washington University in St. Louis, who attended the session.

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

While many people were committing to their New Year’s resolutions to lose weight, in January 2020 Cosmopolitan UK magazine released covers portraying 11 women of different shapes and sizes, with the headline, “This is healthy!” Each version of the cover features one or more of the 11 women wearing athletic gear and makeup, some of whom are caught mid-action – boxing, doing yoga, or simply rejoicing in being who they are. Seeing these, I was reminded of a patient I cared for as an intern.

Janet Spears (not her real name) was thin. Standing barely 5 feet 3 inches, she weighed 110 pounds. For those out there who think of size in terms of body mass index (BMI), it was about 20 kg/m², solidly in the “normal” category. At the age of 62, despite this healthy BMI, she had so much plaque in her arteries that she needed surgery to improve blood flow to her foot.

Admittedly, whenever I had read about people with high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, or atherosclerosis, I pictured bigger people. But when I met Ms. Spears, I realized that one’s health cannot necessarily be inferred from physical appearance.

As a bariatric surgeon board certified in obesity medicine, I’ve probably spent more time thinking and learning about obesity than most people – and yet I still didn’t know what to make of the Cosmopolitan covers.

I saw the reaction on Twitter before I saw the magazines themselves, and I quickly observed a number of people decrying the covers, suggesting that they promote obesity:

Multiple people suggested that this was inappropriate, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fact that people with obesity are at risk for worse outcomes, compared with those without obesity. (As an aside, these comments suggest that people did not read the associated article, which is about fitness and body image more than it is about obesity.)
 

Does size reflect health?

Putting the pandemic aside for a moment, the question the magazine covers raise is whether physical appearance reflects health. That’s what got me thinking about Ms. Spears, who, though appearing healthy, was sick enough that she needed to have major surgery. This whole conversation hinges, of course, on one’s definition of health.

A common knee-jerk response, especially from physicians, would be to say that obesity is by definition unhealthy. Some researchers have suggested though that a segment of people with obesity fall into a category called metabolically healthy obesity, which is typically characterized by a limited set of data such as cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure. Indeed, some people with obesity have normal values in those categories.

Being metabolically healthy, however, does not preclude other medical problems associated with obesity, including joint pain, cancer, and mood disorders, among other issues. So even those who have metabolically healthy obesity are not necessarily immune to the many other obesity-related conditions.
 

What about body positivity?

As I delved further into the conversation about these covers, I saw people embracing the idea of promoting different-sized bodies. With almost two thirds of the U.S. population having overweight or obesity, one might argue that it’s high time magazine covers and the media reflect the reality in our hometowns. Unrealistic images in the media are associated with negative self-image and disordered eating, so perhaps embracing the shapes of real people may help us all have healthier attitudes toward our bodies.

That said, this idea can be taken too far. The Health at Every Size movement, which some might consider to be the ultimate body-positivity movement, espouses the idea that size and health are completely unrelated. That crosses a line between what we know to be true – that, at a population level, higher weight is associated with more medical problems – and fake news.

Another idea to consider is fitness, as opposed to health. Fitness can be defined multiple ways, but if we consider it to be measured exercise capacity, those who are more fit have a longer life expectancy than those with lower fitness levels at a given BMI. While some feel that the Cosmopolitan covers promote obesity and are therefore irresponsible, it’s at least as likely that highlighting people with obesity being active may inspire others with obesity to do the same.

Now let’s bring the pandemic back into the picture. As much as we all wish that it was over, with uncontrolled spread in every state and record numbers of people dying, COVID-19 is still very much a part of our reality. Having obesity increases the risk of having a severe case of COVID-19 if infected. Patients with obesity are also more likely than those without obesity to be hospitalized, require intensive care, and die with COVID-19.
 

Guiding the conversation

Pandemic or not, the truth is that obesity is related to multiple medical problems. That does not mean that every person with obesity has medical problems. The musician Lizzo, for example, is someone with obesity who considers herself to be healthy. She posts images and videos of working out and shares her personal fitness routine with her millions of fans. As a physician, I worry about the medical conditions – metabolic or otherwise – that someone like her may develop. But I love how she embraces who she is while striving to be healthier.

Most of the critical comments I have seen about the Cosmopolitan covers have, at best, bordered on fat shaming; others are solidly in that category. And the vitriol aimed at the larger models is despicable. It seems that conversations about obesity often vacillate from one extreme (fat shaming) to the other (extreme body positivity).

Although it may not sell magazines, I would love to see more nuanced, fact-based discussions, both in the media and in our clinics. We can start by acknowledging the fact that people of different sizes can be healthy. The truth is that we can’t tell very much about a person’s health from their outward appearance, and we should probably stop trying to make such inferences.

Assessment of health is most accurately judged by each person with their medical team, not by observers who use media images as part of their own propaganda machine, pushing one extreme view or another. As physicians, we have the opportunity and the responsibility to support our patients in the pursuit of health, without shame or judgment. Maybe that’s a New Year’s resolution worth committing to.

Arghavan Salles, MD, PhD, is a bariatric surgeon.

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

Postmenopausal women not only have larger brain volume than women who are premenopausal, but they also experience larger reductions in brain volume over time, reported Ananthan Ambikairajah of the Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, and associates. Their report was published in Menopause.

In this large population-based cohort of 5,072 women aged 37-73 years, the goal of the study was to look at links between brain volume and measures of menstruation history, such as menopausal status, age at menopause, age at menarche, and the duration of a woman’s reproductive stage, but to do so within the context of how it relates to dementia prevalence. Citing a study in The Lancet Neurology, the authors noted that the age-standardized prevalence for dementia is 17% higher in women than in men, and they speculated that it may be important to look beyond age for answers.
 

What about menstrual history and Alzheimer’s disease?

According to the Framingham Study in Neurology, the remaining lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is nearly double for a 65-year-old woman (12%) compared with a 65-year-old man (6.3%), leading Mr. Ambikairajah and associates to conclude that “menstruation history may also be particularly relevant, given that it is unique to female aging.” They further speculated, citing several related studies, that because AD pathology is initiated decades prior to the onset of clinical signs, menstruation history and its effects on brain health may, in fact, be reflected in brain volume.

Postmenopausal women had 0.82% and 1.33% larger total brain and hippocampal volume, respectively, compared with premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had a 23% greater decrease in total brain volume but not in hippocampal volume over time, compared with premenopausal women.

As Braak and Braak illustrated in Acta Neuropathologica, chronic inflammation has been linked to brain shrinkage “consistent with the pattern of results in the present study,” Mr. Ambikairajah and colleagues noted, adding that longitudinal neuroimaging/biomarker studies are needed to explore this further.

What made this study unique was its ability to match pre- and postmenopausal women for age, a critically important attribute “given that aging and menopause both progress concurrently, which can make it difficult to determine the individual contribution of each for measures of brain health,” the authors explained.

In an interview, Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice and assistant clinical professor, George Washington University, Washington, observed: “The conclusion [in this study] is that an early age of menarche, delayed age of menopause and increased duration of the reproductive stage is negatively associated with brain volume.”
 

What of the neuroprotective effects of endogenous estrogen?

“Their findings are not consistent with a neuroprotective effect of endogenous estrogen exposure on brain volume,” she noted, adding that the study “did not assess the effect of exogenous estrogen on brain volume. Neither was the effect of exogenous or endogenous estrogen on cerebral blood flow assessed. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the conclusion was that oophorectomy before the age of natural menopause is associated with a decrease in cognitive impairment and dementia. There was no assessment of brain volume or cerebral blood flow. Likewise in a report published in Neurobiology of Aging, Maki P and Resnick S M. concluded that estrogen helps maintain hippocampal and prefrontal function as women age,” observed Dr. Bohon, noting that the study did not assess brain volume.

“It is unclear whether the most predictive assessment for worsening cognition and dementia is the finding of decreased total brain volume, decreased hippocampal volume, or decreased cerebral blood flow. The effect of both endogenous and exogenous estrogen on the risk for dementia needs further evaluation,” she cautioned.

Mr. Ambikairajah cited one financial disclosure; the remaining contributors had no relevant disclosures.

Postmenopausal women not only have larger brain volume than women who are premenopausal, but they also experience larger reductions in brain volume over time, reported Ananthan Ambikairajah of the Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, and associates. Their report was published in Menopause.

In this large population-based cohort of 5,072 women aged 37-73 years, the goal of the study was to look at links between brain volume and measures of menstruation history, such as menopausal status, age at menopause, age at menarche, and the duration of a woman’s reproductive stage, but to do so within the context of how it relates to dementia prevalence. Citing a study in The Lancet Neurology, the authors noted that the age-standardized prevalence for dementia is 17% higher in women than in men, and they speculated that it may be important to look beyond age for answers.
 

What about menstrual history and Alzheimer’s disease?

According to the Framingham Study in Neurology, the remaining lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is nearly double for a 65-year-old woman (12%) compared with a 65-year-old man (6.3%), leading Mr. Ambikairajah and associates to conclude that “menstruation history may also be particularly relevant, given that it is unique to female aging.” They further speculated, citing several related studies, that because AD pathology is initiated decades prior to the onset of clinical signs, menstruation history and its effects on brain health may, in fact, be reflected in brain volume.

Postmenopausal women had 0.82% and 1.33% larger total brain and hippocampal volume, respectively, compared with premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had a 23% greater decrease in total brain volume but not in hippocampal volume over time, compared with premenopausal women.

As Braak and Braak illustrated in Acta Neuropathologica, chronic inflammation has been linked to brain shrinkage “consistent with the pattern of results in the present study,” Mr. Ambikairajah and colleagues noted, adding that longitudinal neuroimaging/biomarker studies are needed to explore this further.

What made this study unique was its ability to match pre- and postmenopausal women for age, a critically important attribute “given that aging and menopause both progress concurrently, which can make it difficult to determine the individual contribution of each for measures of brain health,” the authors explained.

In an interview, Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice and assistant clinical professor, George Washington University, Washington, observed: “The conclusion [in this study] is that an early age of menarche, delayed age of menopause and increased duration of the reproductive stage is negatively associated with brain volume.”
 

What of the neuroprotective effects of endogenous estrogen?

“Their findings are not consistent with a neuroprotective effect of endogenous estrogen exposure on brain volume,” she noted, adding that the study “did not assess the effect of exogenous estrogen on brain volume. Neither was the effect of exogenous or endogenous estrogen on cerebral blood flow assessed. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the conclusion was that oophorectomy before the age of natural menopause is associated with a decrease in cognitive impairment and dementia. There was no assessment of brain volume or cerebral blood flow. Likewise in a report published in Neurobiology of Aging, Maki P and Resnick S M. concluded that estrogen helps maintain hippocampal and prefrontal function as women age,” observed Dr. Bohon, noting that the study did not assess brain volume.

“It is unclear whether the most predictive assessment for worsening cognition and dementia is the finding of decreased total brain volume, decreased hippocampal volume, or decreased cerebral blood flow. The effect of both endogenous and exogenous estrogen on the risk for dementia needs further evaluation,” she cautioned.

Mr. Ambikairajah cited one financial disclosure; the remaining contributors had no relevant disclosures.

Postmenopausal women not only have larger brain volume than women who are premenopausal, but they also experience larger reductions in brain volume over time, reported Ananthan Ambikairajah of the Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, Australian National University, Canberra, and associates. Their report was published in Menopause.

In this large population-based cohort of 5,072 women aged 37-73 years, the goal of the study was to look at links between brain volume and measures of menstruation history, such as menopausal status, age at menopause, age at menarche, and the duration of a woman’s reproductive stage, but to do so within the context of how it relates to dementia prevalence. Citing a study in The Lancet Neurology, the authors noted that the age-standardized prevalence for dementia is 17% higher in women than in men, and they speculated that it may be important to look beyond age for answers.
 

What about menstrual history and Alzheimer’s disease?

According to the Framingham Study in Neurology, the remaining lifetime risk of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is nearly double for a 65-year-old woman (12%) compared with a 65-year-old man (6.3%), leading Mr. Ambikairajah and associates to conclude that “menstruation history may also be particularly relevant, given that it is unique to female aging.” They further speculated, citing several related studies, that because AD pathology is initiated decades prior to the onset of clinical signs, menstruation history and its effects on brain health may, in fact, be reflected in brain volume.

Postmenopausal women had 0.82% and 1.33% larger total brain and hippocampal volume, respectively, compared with premenopausal women. Postmenopausal women had a 23% greater decrease in total brain volume but not in hippocampal volume over time, compared with premenopausal women.

As Braak and Braak illustrated in Acta Neuropathologica, chronic inflammation has been linked to brain shrinkage “consistent with the pattern of results in the present study,” Mr. Ambikairajah and colleagues noted, adding that longitudinal neuroimaging/biomarker studies are needed to explore this further.

What made this study unique was its ability to match pre- and postmenopausal women for age, a critically important attribute “given that aging and menopause both progress concurrently, which can make it difficult to determine the individual contribution of each for measures of brain health,” the authors explained.

In an interview, Constance Bohon, MD, an ob.gyn. in private practice and assistant clinical professor, George Washington University, Washington, observed: “The conclusion [in this study] is that an early age of menarche, delayed age of menopause and increased duration of the reproductive stage is negatively associated with brain volume.”
 

What of the neuroprotective effects of endogenous estrogen?

“Their findings are not consistent with a neuroprotective effect of endogenous estrogen exposure on brain volume,” she noted, adding that the study “did not assess the effect of exogenous estrogen on brain volume. Neither was the effect of exogenous or endogenous estrogen on cerebral blood flow assessed. In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, the conclusion was that oophorectomy before the age of natural menopause is associated with a decrease in cognitive impairment and dementia. There was no assessment of brain volume or cerebral blood flow. Likewise in a report published in Neurobiology of Aging, Maki P and Resnick S M. concluded that estrogen helps maintain hippocampal and prefrontal function as women age,” observed Dr. Bohon, noting that the study did not assess brain volume.

“It is unclear whether the most predictive assessment for worsening cognition and dementia is the finding of decreased total brain volume, decreased hippocampal volume, or decreased cerebral blood flow. The effect of both endogenous and exogenous estrogen on the risk for dementia needs further evaluation,” she cautioned.

Mr. Ambikairajah cited one financial disclosure; the remaining contributors had no relevant disclosures.

All-cause mortality in patients with COPD over 10 years of follow-up was accurately predicted by a newly developed model based on a point system incorporating imaging-derived variables.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Identifying risk factors is important to develop treatments and preventive strategies, but the role of imaging variables in COPD mortality among smokers has not been well studied, wrote investigator Matthew Strand, PhD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues.

An established risk model is the body mass index–airflow Obstruction-Dyspnea-Exercise capacity (BODE) index, developed to predict mortality in COPD patients over a 4-year period. The investigators noted that while models such as BODE provide useful information about predictors of mortality in COPD, they were developed using participants in the Global initiative for obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) spirometry grades 1-4, and have been largely constructed without quantitative computed tomography (CT) imaging variables until recently.

“The BODE index was created as a simple point scoring system to predict risk of all-cause mortality within 4 years, and is based on FEV_{1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second]}, [6-minute walk test], dyspnea and BMI, a subset of predictors we considered in our model,” the investigators noted. The new model includes data from pulmonary function tests and volumetric CT scans.

In a study published in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, the researchers identified 9,074 current and past smokers in the COPD Genetic Epidemiology study (COPDGene) for whom complete data were available. They developed a point system to determine mortality risk in current and former smokers after controlling for multiple risk factors. The average age of the study population was 60 years. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

Assessments of the study participants included a medical history, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, a 6-minute walk distance test, and inspiratory and expiratory CT scans. The researchers analyzed mortality risk in the context of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classifications of patients in the sample.

Overall, the average 10-year mortality risk was 18% for women and 25% for men. Performance on the 6-minute walk test (distances less than 500 feet), FEV₁ (less than 20), and older age (80 years and older) were the strongest predictors of mortality.

The model showed strong predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve averaging 0.797 that was validated in an external cohort, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the observational design that does not allow for estimating the causal effects of such modifiable factors as smoking cessation, that might impact the walking test and FEV₁ values, the researchers noted. In addition, the model did not allow for testing the effects of smoking vs. not smoking.

However, the model developed in the study “will allow physicians and patients to better understand factors affecting risk of an adverse event, some of which may be modifiable,” the researchers said. “The risk estimates can be used to target groups of individuals for future clinical trials, including those not currently classified as having COPD based on GOLD criteria,” they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the COPD Foundation through contributions to an industry advisory committee including AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, and Sunovion.

All-cause mortality in patients with COPD over 10 years of follow-up was accurately predicted by a newly developed model based on a point system incorporating imaging-derived variables.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Identifying risk factors is important to develop treatments and preventive strategies, but the role of imaging variables in COPD mortality among smokers has not been well studied, wrote investigator Matthew Strand, PhD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues.

An established risk model is the body mass index–airflow Obstruction-Dyspnea-Exercise capacity (BODE) index, developed to predict mortality in COPD patients over a 4-year period. The investigators noted that while models such as BODE provide useful information about predictors of mortality in COPD, they were developed using participants in the Global initiative for obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) spirometry grades 1-4, and have been largely constructed without quantitative computed tomography (CT) imaging variables until recently.

“The BODE index was created as a simple point scoring system to predict risk of all-cause mortality within 4 years, and is based on FEV_{1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second]}, [6-minute walk test], dyspnea and BMI, a subset of predictors we considered in our model,” the investigators noted. The new model includes data from pulmonary function tests and volumetric CT scans.

In a study published in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, the researchers identified 9,074 current and past smokers in the COPD Genetic Epidemiology study (COPDGene) for whom complete data were available. They developed a point system to determine mortality risk in current and former smokers after controlling for multiple risk factors. The average age of the study population was 60 years. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

Assessments of the study participants included a medical history, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, a 6-minute walk distance test, and inspiratory and expiratory CT scans. The researchers analyzed mortality risk in the context of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classifications of patients in the sample.

Overall, the average 10-year mortality risk was 18% for women and 25% for men. Performance on the 6-minute walk test (distances less than 500 feet), FEV₁ (less than 20), and older age (80 years and older) were the strongest predictors of mortality.

The model showed strong predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve averaging 0.797 that was validated in an external cohort, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the observational design that does not allow for estimating the causal effects of such modifiable factors as smoking cessation, that might impact the walking test and FEV₁ values, the researchers noted. In addition, the model did not allow for testing the effects of smoking vs. not smoking.

However, the model developed in the study “will allow physicians and patients to better understand factors affecting risk of an adverse event, some of which may be modifiable,” the researchers said. “The risk estimates can be used to target groups of individuals for future clinical trials, including those not currently classified as having COPD based on GOLD criteria,” they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the COPD Foundation through contributions to an industry advisory committee including AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, and Sunovion.

All-cause mortality in patients with COPD over 10 years of follow-up was accurately predicted by a newly developed model based on a point system incorporating imaging-derived variables.

decade3d/Thinkstock

Identifying risk factors is important to develop treatments and preventive strategies, but the role of imaging variables in COPD mortality among smokers has not been well studied, wrote investigator Matthew Strand, PhD, of National Jewish Health in Denver, and colleagues.

An established risk model is the body mass index–airflow Obstruction-Dyspnea-Exercise capacity (BODE) index, developed to predict mortality in COPD patients over a 4-year period. The investigators noted that while models such as BODE provide useful information about predictors of mortality in COPD, they were developed using participants in the Global initiative for obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) spirometry grades 1-4, and have been largely constructed without quantitative computed tomography (CT) imaging variables until recently.

“The BODE index was created as a simple point scoring system to predict risk of all-cause mortality within 4 years, and is based on FEV_{1 [forced expiratory volume at 1 second]}, [6-minute walk test], dyspnea and BMI, a subset of predictors we considered in our model,” the investigators noted. The new model includes data from pulmonary function tests and volumetric CT scans.

In a study published in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases, the researchers identified 9,074 current and past smokers in the COPD Genetic Epidemiology study (COPDGene) for whom complete data were available. They developed a point system to determine mortality risk in current and former smokers after controlling for multiple risk factors. The average age of the study population was 60 years. All participants were current or former smokers with a smoking history of at least 10 pack-years.

Assessments of the study participants included a medical history, pre- and post-bronchodilator spirometry, a 6-minute walk distance test, and inspiratory and expiratory CT scans. The researchers analyzed mortality risk in the context of Global Initiative for Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classifications of patients in the sample.

Overall, the average 10-year mortality risk was 18% for women and 25% for men. Performance on the 6-minute walk test (distances less than 500 feet), FEV₁ (less than 20), and older age (80 years and older) were the strongest predictors of mortality.

The model showed strong predictive accuracy, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve averaging 0.797 that was validated in an external cohort, the researchers said.

The study findings were limited by the observational design that does not allow for estimating the causal effects of such modifiable factors as smoking cessation, that might impact the walking test and FEV₁ values, the researchers noted. In addition, the model did not allow for testing the effects of smoking vs. not smoking.

However, the model developed in the study “will allow physicians and patients to better understand factors affecting risk of an adverse event, some of which may be modifiable,” the researchers said. “The risk estimates can be used to target groups of individuals for future clinical trials, including those not currently classified as having COPD based on GOLD criteria,” they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and by the COPD Foundation through contributions to an industry advisory committee including AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer, Siemens, and Sunovion.