Family Practice News

The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.

The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release. The Louisiana Department of Health has found no additional H5H1 cases in the state and no evidence of person-to-person transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.

The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.

In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.

The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.

The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.

Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.

Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.

 

A Clinician’s Take

“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said. 

Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder. 

“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.

Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder. 

In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said. 

There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized. 

More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said. 

Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.

The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release. The Louisiana Department of Health has found no additional H5H1 cases in the state and no evidence of person-to-person transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.

The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.

In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.

The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.

The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.

Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.

Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.

 

A Clinician’s Take

“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said. 

Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder. 

“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.

Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder. 

In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said. 

There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized. 

More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said. 

Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The first human patient in the United States with a confirmed case of avian influenza has died, according to a press release from the Louisiana Department of Health. The individual was older than 65 years and had underlying medical conditions and remains the only known human case in the state.

The patient contracted highly pathogenic avian influenza, also known as H5N1, through exposure to wild birds and a noncommercial backyard flock, according to the release. The Louisiana Department of Health has found no additional H5H1 cases in the state and no evidence of person-to-person transmission.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted genetic sequencing of specimens of the virus collected from the Louisiana patient. The agency compared the sequences with sequences from dairy cows, wild birds, and poultry in various areas of the United States that were infected with the H5N1 virus.

The Louisiana patient was infected with the D1.1 genotype of the H5N1 virus. Although D1.1 is related to other D1.1 viruses found in recent human cases in Washington State and British Columbia, Canada, it is distinct from the widely spreading B3.13 genotype that has caused H5N1 outbreaks in dairy cows, poultry, and other animals and has been linked to sporadic human cases in the United States, according to the CDC.

Despite evidence of some changes in the virus between the Louisiana patient and samples from poultry on the patient’s property, “these changes would be more concerning if found in animal hosts or in early stages of infection,” according to the CDC. The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health are conducting additional sequencing to facilitate further analysis.

In the meantime, the risk to the general public for H5N1 remains low, but individuals who work with or have recreational exposure to birds, poultry, or cows remain at increased risk.

The CDC and the Louisiana Department of Health advise individuals to reduce the risk for H5N1 exposure by avoiding direct contact with wild birds or other animals infected or possibly infected with the virus, avoiding any contact with dead animals, and keeping pets away from sick or dead animals and their feces. Additional safety measures include avoiding uncooked food products such as unpasteurized raw milk or cheese from animals with suspected or confirmed infections and reporting sick or dead birds or animals to the US Department of Agriculture by calling 1-866-536-7593 or the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry Diagnostic Lab by calling 318-927-3441.

The CDC advises clinicians to consider H5N1 in patients presenting with conjunctivitis or signs of acute respiratory illness and a history of high-risk exposure, including handling sick or dead animals, notably birds and livestock, within 10 days before the onset of symptoms. Other risk factors include consuming uncooked or undercooked food, direct contact with areas contaminated with feces, direct contact with unpasteurized milk or other dairy products or with parts of potentially infected animals, and prolonged exposure to infected animals in a confined space.

Clinical symptoms also may include gastrointestinal complaints such as diarrhea, as well as fatigue, arthralgia, and headache. Patients with more severe H5N1 may experience shortness of breath, altered mental state, and seizures, and serious complications of the virus include pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, multiorgan failure, and sepsis, according to the CDC.

Clinicians who suspect H5N1 cases should contact their local public health departments. The CDC offers additional advice on evaluating and managing patients with novel influenza A viruses.

 

A Clinician’s Take

“Some symptoms of avian flu include fever, cough, sore throat, runny nose, fatigue, body aches or eye redness or irritation,” Shirin A. Mazumder, MD, associate professor and infectious disease specialist at The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, said in an interview. “The timing to the development of symptoms after exposure is typically within 10 days. Avian influenza should be considered when individuals develop symptoms with a relevant exposure history,” she said. 

Whenever possible, avoidance of sick or dead birds and other animals is ideal, but for those who must have contact with sick or dead birds, poultry, or other animals, personal protective equipment (PPE) including a respirator, goggles, and disposable gloves is recommended, said Mazumder. 

“For those working in high-exposure settings, additional PPE including boots or boot covers, hair cover, and fluid-resistant coveralls are recommended,” she said. “Other protective measures include avoiding touching surfaces or materials contaminated with feces, mucus, and saliva from infected animals and avoid[ing] the consumption of raw milk, raw milk products, and undercooked meat from infected animals,” she added.

Hunters handling wild game should dress birds in the field, practice good hand hygiene, and use a respirator or well-fitting mask and gloves when handling the animals to help prevent disease, said Mazumder. 

In addition, those working with confirmed or suspected H5N1 cases should monitor themselves for symptoms, said Mazumder. “Those who become ill within 10 days of exposure to an infected animal or source should isolate from household members and avoid going to work or school until infection is excluded. It is important to reach out to a healthcare professional if you think you may have been exposed or if you think you are infected,” she said. 

There is no currently available vaccine for H5N1 infection, but oseltamivir can be used for chemoprophylaxis and treatment, said Mazumder. “The seasonal flu vaccine does not protect against avian influenza; however, it is still important to ensure that you are up to date on the latest flu vaccine to prevent the possibility of a coinfection with seasonal flu and avian flu,” she emphasized. 

More research is needed to better understand how the influenza virus is transmitted, said Mazumder. “The potential for the virus to evolve and mutate, and how it affects different hosts, are all factors that can impact public health decisions,” she said. “In addition, further research into finding a vaccine and improving surveillance methods are necessary for disease prevention,” she said. 

Mazumder had no financial conflicts to disclose. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The newer biologics — interleukin (IL)–17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors — demonstrate comparable cardiovascular safety profiles to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors in biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

METHODOLOGY:

• In a retrospective cohort study, researchers conducted an emulated target trial analysis using data of 32,098 biologic-naive patients with psoriasis or PsA who were treated with one of the newer biologics (infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab pegol, secukinumab, ixekizumab, brodalumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab) from the TriNetX Research Network between 2014 and 2022.
• Patients received TNF inhibitors (n = 20,314), IL-17 inhibitors (n = 5073), IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 3573), or IL-23 inhibitors (n = 3138).
• A propensity-matched analysis compared each class of newer biologics with TNF inhibitors, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medication use.
• The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; myocardial infarction and stroke) or venous thromboembolic events (VTE).

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with patients who received TNF inhibitors, the risk for MACE was not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86-1.52), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.78), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.38)
• The VTE risk was also not significantly different between patients who received IL-17 inhibitors (IRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.08), IL-12/23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.73-3.19), or IL-23 inhibitors (IRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 0.64-3.25) compared with those who received TNF inhibitors.
• Subgroup analyses for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis alone confirmed consistent findings.
• Patients with preexisting hyperlipidemia and diabetes mellitus showed lower risks for MACE and VTE with newer biologics compared with TNF inhibitors. 

IN PRACTICE:

“No significant MACE and VTE risk differences were detected in patients with psoriasis or PsA between those receiving IL-17, IL-12/23, and IL-23 inhibitors and those with TNF inhibitors,” the authors concluded. These findings, they added “can be considered by physicians and patients when making treatment decisions” and also provide “evidence for future pharmacovigilance studies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Tai-Li Chen, MD, of the Department of Dermatology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital in Taipei, Taiwan. It was published online on December 27, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included potential residual confounding factors, lack of information on disease severity, and inclusion of predominantly White individuals.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received support from Taipei Veterans General Hospital and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

During peak group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) season, are we using the best tools in the best way?

It’s wintertime, peak season for GAS pharyngitis, and you’d think that this far into the 21st century we would have a foolproof process for diagnosing which among the many patients with pharyngitis have true GAS pharyngitis. Thinking back to the 1980s, we have come a long way from simple throat cultures for detecting GAS, e.g., numerous point of care (POC) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), waved rapid antigen detection tests (RADT), and numerous highly sensitive molecular assays, e.g. nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). But if you think the issues surrounding management of GAS pharyngitis have been solved by these newer tests, think again.

 

Several good reviews^1-3 are excellent resources for those wishing a refresher on GAS diagnosis/management issues. They present nitty gritty details on comparative advantages/disadvantages of the many testing options while reminding us of the nuts and bolts of GAS pharyngitis. The following are a few nuggets from these articles. 

Properly collected throat specimen. A quality throat specimen involves swabbing both tonsillar pillars plus posterior pharynx without touching tongue or inner cheeks. Two swab collections increase sensitivity by almost 10% compared with a single swab. Transport media is preferred if samples will not be cultured within 24 hours. Caveat: RADT testing of a transport media-diluted sample lowers sensitivity compared with direct swab use.

Reliable GAS detection. Commercially available tests in 2025 are well studied. Culture is considered a gold standard for detecting clinically relevant GAS by CDC.⁴ Culture has good sensitivity (estimated 80%-90% varying among studies and by quality of specimens) and 99% specificity but requires 16-24 hours for results. RADT solves the time-delay issues and has near 100% specificity but sensitivity used to be as low as 65%, hence the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline recommendation for backup throat culture for negative tests.⁵ However, current RADT have sensitivities in the 85%-90% range.^3,4 So a positive RADT reliably and quickly indicates GAS antigens are present. NAAT have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, near 100% for each, and a positive reliably indicates GAS nucleic acids are present.

So why not simply always use NAAT? First, it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. NAAT can, and do, detect dead remnants and colonizing GAS way more than culture.^2,3 So NAAT are overly sensitive, adding an extra layer of interpretation difficulty, ie, as many as 20% of positive NAAT detections may be carriers or dead GAS. Second, NAAT often requires special instrumentation and kits are more expensive. That said, reimbursement is often higher for NAAT. 

Choice based on accuracy in detecting GAS. If time delays were not a problem, culture would still seem the answer. If more rapid detection is needed, either RADT with culture back up or NAAT could be the answer. That said, consider that in the real world, throat cultures are less sensitive and RADT are less specific than indicated by some published data.⁶ So, the ideal answer, it seems, would be NAAT GAS detection coupled with a confirmatory biomarker of GAS infection. Such innate immune biomarkers may be on the horizon.³

But first, pretest screening. In 2025 what do we do with a positive result? Do we prescribe antibiotics? Do we think the detected GAS bacteria/antigens/nucleic acids represent the cause of the pharyngitis? Or did we just detect dead GAS or even a carrier, while a virus is the true cause? Challenges for this decision include most pharyngitis (up to 70%) being due to viruses, not GAS, plus up to 20% of GAS detections even by less sensitive culture or RADT can be carriers, plus an added 10%-20% of RADT and NAAT detections are dead GAS. Thus, with indiscriminate testing of all pharyngitis patients, the number of truly positive GAS detections that are actually “false positives” (GAS in some form is present but not causing pharyngitis) may be almost as high as for those representing true GAS pharyngitis. 

Some tool is needed to minimize testing patients who are likely to have viral pharyngitis to reduce test-positive/GAS-pharyngitis-negative scenarios. Pretest patient screening therefore is critical to increase the positive predictive value of positive GAS testing results. The history and physical can be helpful. In the simplest form of pretest screening, eliminate those younger than 3 years old^* or those with viral type sign/symptoms, eg conjunctivitis, cough, coryza.⁷ This could cut “false” positives by as much as a half. More complete validated scoring systems are also available but remain imperfect. The most published is the McIsaac score (modified Centor score).^3-5,8 (See Table and Figure.) 

However, even with this validated scoring system, misdiagnoses and some antibiotic misuse will likely occur, particularly if the controversial option to treat a patient with a score above 4 without testing is used. For example, a 2004 study in patients older than 3 years old revealed that 45% with a score above 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis. (McIsaac et al.) A 2012 study showed similar potential overdiagnosis from using the score without testing (45% with > 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis). Of note, clinical scores of below 2 comprised up to 10% and would be neither tested nor treated. (Figure.)

 

Best clinical judgment. Regardless of the chosen test, we still need to interpret positive results, ie, use best clinical judgment. We know that even with pretest screening some positives tests will represent carriers or nonviable GAS. Yet true GAS pharyngitis needs antibiotic treatment to minimize nonpyogenic and pyogenic complications, plus reduce contagion/transmission risk and days of illness. Thus, we are forced to use best clinical judgment when considering if what could be GAS pharyngitis, particularly exudative pharyngitis, could actually be due to EBV, adenovirus, or gonococcus, each of which can mimic GAS findings. Differentiating these requires discussion beyond the scope of this article, but clues are often found in the history, the patient’s age, associated symptoms and distribution of tonsillopharyngeal exudate. Likewise Group C and G streptococcal pharyngitis can mimic GAS. Note: A comprehensive throat culture can identify these streptococci but requires a special order and likely a call to the laboratory.

Summary: The age-old problem persists, ie, differentiating the minority (~30%) of pharyngitis cases needing antibiotics from the majority that do not. We all wish to promptly treat true GAS pharyngitis; however our current tools remain imperfect. That said, we should strive to correctly diagnose/manage as many patients with pharyngitis as possible. I, for one, can’t wait until we get a validated biomarker that confirms GAS as the culprit in pharyngitis episodes. In the meantime, most providers likely have clinic or hospital approved pathways for managing GAS pharyngitis, many of which are at least in part based on data from sources for this discussion. If not, a firm foundation for creating one can be found in sources among the reference list below. Finally, if you think such pathways somehow interfere with patient flow, consider that a busy multi-provider private practice successfully integrated pretest screening and a pathway while maintaining patient flow and improving antibiotic stewardship.⁷

*Focal pharyngotonsillar GAS infection is rare in children younger than 3 years old, when GAS nasal passage infection may manifest as streptococcosis.⁹

Dr Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected]. 

References

1. Bannerjee D, Selvarangan RS. The Evolution of Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis Testing. Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Sep 1.

2. Cohen JF et al. Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis in Children: New Perspectives on Rapid Diagnostic Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024 Apr 24;13(4):250-256. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piae0223. 

3. Boyanton Jr BL et al. Current Laboratory and Point-of-Care Pharyngitis Diagnostic Testing and Knowledge Gaps. J Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 23;230(Suppl 3):S182–S189. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae415.

4. Group A Strep Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, Mar 1.

5. Shulman ST et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: 2012 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):e86-102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629.

6. Rao A et al. Diagnosis and Antibiotic Treatment of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children in a Primary Care Setting: Impact of Point-of-Care Polymerase Chain Reaction. BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 16;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1393-y.

7. Norton LE et al. Improving Guideline-Based Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatrics. 2018 Jul;142(1):e20172033. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2033.

8. MD+ Calc website. Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis. 

9. Langlois DM, Andreae M. Group A Streptococcal Infections. Pediatr Rev. 2011 Oct;32(10):423-9; quiz 430. doi: 10.1542/pir.32-10-423.

During peak group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) season, are we using the best tools in the best way?

It’s wintertime, peak season for GAS pharyngitis, and you’d think that this far into the 21st century we would have a foolproof process for diagnosing which among the many patients with pharyngitis have true GAS pharyngitis. Thinking back to the 1980s, we have come a long way from simple throat cultures for detecting GAS, e.g., numerous point of care (POC) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), waved rapid antigen detection tests (RADT), and numerous highly sensitive molecular assays, e.g. nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). But if you think the issues surrounding management of GAS pharyngitis have been solved by these newer tests, think again.

 

Several good reviews^1-3 are excellent resources for those wishing a refresher on GAS diagnosis/management issues. They present nitty gritty details on comparative advantages/disadvantages of the many testing options while reminding us of the nuts and bolts of GAS pharyngitis. The following are a few nuggets from these articles. 

Properly collected throat specimen. A quality throat specimen involves swabbing both tonsillar pillars plus posterior pharynx without touching tongue or inner cheeks. Two swab collections increase sensitivity by almost 10% compared with a single swab. Transport media is preferred if samples will not be cultured within 24 hours. Caveat: RADT testing of a transport media-diluted sample lowers sensitivity compared with direct swab use.

Reliable GAS detection. Commercially available tests in 2025 are well studied. Culture is considered a gold standard for detecting clinically relevant GAS by CDC.⁴ Culture has good sensitivity (estimated 80%-90% varying among studies and by quality of specimens) and 99% specificity but requires 16-24 hours for results. RADT solves the time-delay issues and has near 100% specificity but sensitivity used to be as low as 65%, hence the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline recommendation for backup throat culture for negative tests.⁵ However, current RADT have sensitivities in the 85%-90% range.^3,4 So a positive RADT reliably and quickly indicates GAS antigens are present. NAAT have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, near 100% for each, and a positive reliably indicates GAS nucleic acids are present.

So why not simply always use NAAT? First, it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. NAAT can, and do, detect dead remnants and colonizing GAS way more than culture.^2,3 So NAAT are overly sensitive, adding an extra layer of interpretation difficulty, ie, as many as 20% of positive NAAT detections may be carriers or dead GAS. Second, NAAT often requires special instrumentation and kits are more expensive. That said, reimbursement is often higher for NAAT. 

Choice based on accuracy in detecting GAS. If time delays were not a problem, culture would still seem the answer. If more rapid detection is needed, either RADT with culture back up or NAAT could be the answer. That said, consider that in the real world, throat cultures are less sensitive and RADT are less specific than indicated by some published data.⁶ So, the ideal answer, it seems, would be NAAT GAS detection coupled with a confirmatory biomarker of GAS infection. Such innate immune biomarkers may be on the horizon.³

But first, pretest screening. In 2025 what do we do with a positive result? Do we prescribe antibiotics? Do we think the detected GAS bacteria/antigens/nucleic acids represent the cause of the pharyngitis? Or did we just detect dead GAS or even a carrier, while a virus is the true cause? Challenges for this decision include most pharyngitis (up to 70%) being due to viruses, not GAS, plus up to 20% of GAS detections even by less sensitive culture or RADT can be carriers, plus an added 10%-20% of RADT and NAAT detections are dead GAS. Thus, with indiscriminate testing of all pharyngitis patients, the number of truly positive GAS detections that are actually “false positives” (GAS in some form is present but not causing pharyngitis) may be almost as high as for those representing true GAS pharyngitis. 

Some tool is needed to minimize testing patients who are likely to have viral pharyngitis to reduce test-positive/GAS-pharyngitis-negative scenarios. Pretest patient screening therefore is critical to increase the positive predictive value of positive GAS testing results. The history and physical can be helpful. In the simplest form of pretest screening, eliminate those younger than 3 years old^* or those with viral type sign/symptoms, eg conjunctivitis, cough, coryza.⁷ This could cut “false” positives by as much as a half. More complete validated scoring systems are also available but remain imperfect. The most published is the McIsaac score (modified Centor score).^3-5,8 (See Table and Figure.) 

However, even with this validated scoring system, misdiagnoses and some antibiotic misuse will likely occur, particularly if the controversial option to treat a patient with a score above 4 without testing is used. For example, a 2004 study in patients older than 3 years old revealed that 45% with a score above 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis. (McIsaac et al.) A 2012 study showed similar potential overdiagnosis from using the score without testing (45% with > 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis). Of note, clinical scores of below 2 comprised up to 10% and would be neither tested nor treated. (Figure.)

 

Best clinical judgment. Regardless of the chosen test, we still need to interpret positive results, ie, use best clinical judgment. We know that even with pretest screening some positives tests will represent carriers or nonviable GAS. Yet true GAS pharyngitis needs antibiotic treatment to minimize nonpyogenic and pyogenic complications, plus reduce contagion/transmission risk and days of illness. Thus, we are forced to use best clinical judgment when considering if what could be GAS pharyngitis, particularly exudative pharyngitis, could actually be due to EBV, adenovirus, or gonococcus, each of which can mimic GAS findings. Differentiating these requires discussion beyond the scope of this article, but clues are often found in the history, the patient’s age, associated symptoms and distribution of tonsillopharyngeal exudate. Likewise Group C and G streptococcal pharyngitis can mimic GAS. Note: A comprehensive throat culture can identify these streptococci but requires a special order and likely a call to the laboratory.

Summary: The age-old problem persists, ie, differentiating the minority (~30%) of pharyngitis cases needing antibiotics from the majority that do not. We all wish to promptly treat true GAS pharyngitis; however our current tools remain imperfect. That said, we should strive to correctly diagnose/manage as many patients with pharyngitis as possible. I, for one, can’t wait until we get a validated biomarker that confirms GAS as the culprit in pharyngitis episodes. In the meantime, most providers likely have clinic or hospital approved pathways for managing GAS pharyngitis, many of which are at least in part based on data from sources for this discussion. If not, a firm foundation for creating one can be found in sources among the reference list below. Finally, if you think such pathways somehow interfere with patient flow, consider that a busy multi-provider private practice successfully integrated pretest screening and a pathway while maintaining patient flow and improving antibiotic stewardship.⁷

*Focal pharyngotonsillar GAS infection is rare in children younger than 3 years old, when GAS nasal passage infection may manifest as streptococcosis.⁹

Dr Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected]. 

References

1. Bannerjee D, Selvarangan RS. The Evolution of Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis Testing. Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Sep 1.

2. Cohen JF et al. Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis in Children: New Perspectives on Rapid Diagnostic Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024 Apr 24;13(4):250-256. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piae0223. 

3. Boyanton Jr BL et al. Current Laboratory and Point-of-Care Pharyngitis Diagnostic Testing and Knowledge Gaps. J Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 23;230(Suppl 3):S182–S189. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae415.

4. Group A Strep Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, Mar 1.

5. Shulman ST et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: 2012 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):e86-102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629.

6. Rao A et al. Diagnosis and Antibiotic Treatment of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children in a Primary Care Setting: Impact of Point-of-Care Polymerase Chain Reaction. BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 16;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1393-y.

7. Norton LE et al. Improving Guideline-Based Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatrics. 2018 Jul;142(1):e20172033. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2033.

8. MD+ Calc website. Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis. 

9. Langlois DM, Andreae M. Group A Streptococcal Infections. Pediatr Rev. 2011 Oct;32(10):423-9; quiz 430. doi: 10.1542/pir.32-10-423.

During peak group A streptococcal pharyngitis (GAS) season, are we using the best tools in the best way?

It’s wintertime, peak season for GAS pharyngitis, and you’d think that this far into the 21st century we would have a foolproof process for diagnosing which among the many patients with pharyngitis have true GAS pharyngitis. Thinking back to the 1980s, we have come a long way from simple throat cultures for detecting GAS, e.g., numerous point of care (POC) Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA), waved rapid antigen detection tests (RADT), and numerous highly sensitive molecular assays, e.g. nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). But if you think the issues surrounding management of GAS pharyngitis have been solved by these newer tests, think again.

 

Several good reviews^1-3 are excellent resources for those wishing a refresher on GAS diagnosis/management issues. They present nitty gritty details on comparative advantages/disadvantages of the many testing options while reminding us of the nuts and bolts of GAS pharyngitis. The following are a few nuggets from these articles. 

Properly collected throat specimen. A quality throat specimen involves swabbing both tonsillar pillars plus posterior pharynx without touching tongue or inner cheeks. Two swab collections increase sensitivity by almost 10% compared with a single swab. Transport media is preferred if samples will not be cultured within 24 hours. Caveat: RADT testing of a transport media-diluted sample lowers sensitivity compared with direct swab use.

Reliable GAS detection. Commercially available tests in 2025 are well studied. Culture is considered a gold standard for detecting clinically relevant GAS by CDC.⁴ Culture has good sensitivity (estimated 80%-90% varying among studies and by quality of specimens) and 99% specificity but requires 16-24 hours for results. RADT solves the time-delay issues and has near 100% specificity but sensitivity used to be as low as 65%, hence the 2012 Infectious Diseases Society of America guideline recommendation for backup throat culture for negative tests.⁵ However, current RADT have sensitivities in the 85%-90% range.^3,4 So a positive RADT reliably and quickly indicates GAS antigens are present. NAAT have the highest combined sensitivity and specificity, near 100% for each, and a positive reliably indicates GAS nucleic acids are present.

So why not simply always use NAAT? First, it’s a “be careful what you wish for” scenario. NAAT can, and do, detect dead remnants and colonizing GAS way more than culture.^2,3 So NAAT are overly sensitive, adding an extra layer of interpretation difficulty, ie, as many as 20% of positive NAAT detections may be carriers or dead GAS. Second, NAAT often requires special instrumentation and kits are more expensive. That said, reimbursement is often higher for NAAT. 

Choice based on accuracy in detecting GAS. If time delays were not a problem, culture would still seem the answer. If more rapid detection is needed, either RADT with culture back up or NAAT could be the answer. That said, consider that in the real world, throat cultures are less sensitive and RADT are less specific than indicated by some published data.⁶ So, the ideal answer, it seems, would be NAAT GAS detection coupled with a confirmatory biomarker of GAS infection. Such innate immune biomarkers may be on the horizon.³

But first, pretest screening. In 2025 what do we do with a positive result? Do we prescribe antibiotics? Do we think the detected GAS bacteria/antigens/nucleic acids represent the cause of the pharyngitis? Or did we just detect dead GAS or even a carrier, while a virus is the true cause? Challenges for this decision include most pharyngitis (up to 70%) being due to viruses, not GAS, plus up to 20% of GAS detections even by less sensitive culture or RADT can be carriers, plus an added 10%-20% of RADT and NAAT detections are dead GAS. Thus, with indiscriminate testing of all pharyngitis patients, the number of truly positive GAS detections that are actually “false positives” (GAS in some form is present but not causing pharyngitis) may be almost as high as for those representing true GAS pharyngitis. 

Some tool is needed to minimize testing patients who are likely to have viral pharyngitis to reduce test-positive/GAS-pharyngitis-negative scenarios. Pretest patient screening therefore is critical to increase the positive predictive value of positive GAS testing results. The history and physical can be helpful. In the simplest form of pretest screening, eliminate those younger than 3 years old^* or those with viral type sign/symptoms, eg conjunctivitis, cough, coryza.⁷ This could cut “false” positives by as much as a half. More complete validated scoring systems are also available but remain imperfect. The most published is the McIsaac score (modified Centor score).^3-5,8 (See Table and Figure.) 

However, even with this validated scoring system, misdiagnoses and some antibiotic misuse will likely occur, particularly if the controversial option to treat a patient with a score above 4 without testing is used. For example, a 2004 study in patients older than 3 years old revealed that 45% with a score above 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis. (McIsaac et al.) A 2012 study showed similar potential overdiagnosis from using the score without testing (45% with > 4 points did not have GAS pharyngitis). Of note, clinical scores of below 2 comprised up to 10% and would be neither tested nor treated. (Figure.)

 

Best clinical judgment. Regardless of the chosen test, we still need to interpret positive results, ie, use best clinical judgment. We know that even with pretest screening some positives tests will represent carriers or nonviable GAS. Yet true GAS pharyngitis needs antibiotic treatment to minimize nonpyogenic and pyogenic complications, plus reduce contagion/transmission risk and days of illness. Thus, we are forced to use best clinical judgment when considering if what could be GAS pharyngitis, particularly exudative pharyngitis, could actually be due to EBV, adenovirus, or gonococcus, each of which can mimic GAS findings. Differentiating these requires discussion beyond the scope of this article, but clues are often found in the history, the patient’s age, associated symptoms and distribution of tonsillopharyngeal exudate. Likewise Group C and G streptococcal pharyngitis can mimic GAS. Note: A comprehensive throat culture can identify these streptococci but requires a special order and likely a call to the laboratory.

Summary: The age-old problem persists, ie, differentiating the minority (~30%) of pharyngitis cases needing antibiotics from the majority that do not. We all wish to promptly treat true GAS pharyngitis; however our current tools remain imperfect. That said, we should strive to correctly diagnose/manage as many patients with pharyngitis as possible. I, for one, can’t wait until we get a validated biomarker that confirms GAS as the culprit in pharyngitis episodes. In the meantime, most providers likely have clinic or hospital approved pathways for managing GAS pharyngitis, many of which are at least in part based on data from sources for this discussion. If not, a firm foundation for creating one can be found in sources among the reference list below. Finally, if you think such pathways somehow interfere with patient flow, consider that a busy multi-provider private practice successfully integrated pretest screening and a pathway while maintaining patient flow and improving antibiotic stewardship.⁷

*Focal pharyngotonsillar GAS infection is rare in children younger than 3 years old, when GAS nasal passage infection may manifest as streptococcosis.⁹

Dr Harrison is professor of pediatrics and pediatric infectious diseases at Children’s Mercy Hospitals and Clinics, Kansas City, Missouri. He has no relevant financial disclosures. Email him at [email protected]. 

References

1. Bannerjee D, Selvarangan RS. The Evolution of Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis Testing. Association for Diagnostics and Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Sep 1.

2. Cohen JF et al. Group A Streptococcus Pharyngitis in Children: New Perspectives on Rapid Diagnostic Testing and Antimicrobial Stewardship. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2024 Apr 24;13(4):250-256. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piae0223. 

3. Boyanton Jr BL et al. Current Laboratory and Point-of-Care Pharyngitis Diagnostic Testing and Knowledge Gaps. J Infect Dis. 2024 Oct 23;230(Suppl 3):S182–S189. doi: 10.1093/infdis/jiae415.

4. Group A Strep Infection. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024, Mar 1.

5. Shulman ST et al. Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis: 2012 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Nov 15;55(10):e86-102. doi: 10.1093/cid/cis629.

6. Rao A et al. Diagnosis and Antibiotic Treatment of Group A Streptococcal Pharyngitis in Children in a Primary Care Setting: Impact of Point-of-Care Polymerase Chain Reaction. BMC Pediatr. 2019 Jan 16;19(1):24. doi: 10.1186/s12887-019-1393-y.

7. Norton LE et al. Improving Guideline-Based Streptococcal Pharyngitis Testing: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Pediatrics. 2018 Jul;142(1):e20172033. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-2033.

8. MD+ Calc website. Centor Score (Modified/McIsaac) for Strep Pharyngitis. 

9. Langlois DM, Andreae M. Group A Streptococcal Infections. Pediatr Rev. 2011 Oct;32(10):423-9; quiz 430. doi: 10.1542/pir.32-10-423.

Most of the papers I review merely validate a relationship that most of us, including the investigators, have already assumed based on common sense. However, every now and then I encounter a study whose findings clearly don’t support the researchers’ initial thesis. The most recent example of this unexpected finding is a paper designed to determine whether the sound of a crying infant would have an effect on a parent’s ability to accurately mix formula.

After a cursory reading of the investigators’ plan, most of us would have assumed from our own difficulties trying to accomplish something while our infant is crying that the crying would have a negative effect on our accuracy. Especially if it was a task that required careful measurement. However, when I skipped ahead to read the paper’s conclusion I was surprised that the investigators could found no significant negative relationship.

The explanation for this counterintuitive finding became readily apparent when I read the details of the study’s design more carefully. The investigators had chosen to use a generic recording of an infant crying, not the parent’s child nor even a live generic child on site.

No one enjoys listening to a child cry. It is certainly not a pleasant sound to the human ear. We seem to be hardwired to find it irritating. But, listening to our own child cry raises an entirely different suite of emotions, particularly if the child is close enough for us to intervene.

I’m not sure exactly what made the investigators choose a generic recording, but I suspect it was less expensive. Otherwise it would have required that the parents agree to subjecting their child to some stimulus that would have predictably induced the child to cry. Fortunately, the investigators were able to regroup in the wake of this lack of common sense in their experimental design and realized that, while their data failed to show a negative association with crying, it did provide an important message. Formula mixing errors, some with potentially harmful consequences, are far too common. In a commentary accompanying this paper, a pediatrician not involved in the study observes that, in our efforts to promote breastfeeding, we have given short shrift to teaching parents about accurate and safe formula preparation. 

But, let’s return to the crying piece. Why is it so difficult for parents to tolerate their own crying infant? Common sense should tell us that we know our infant is helpless. The little child is totally reliant on us to for nutrition and protection from the ever-present environmental threats to its health and safety in the environment. In short, whether we are parents, daycare providers, or the mother’s boyfriend who has been left in charge, we are totally responsible for the life of that infant, at times a heavy burden.

We must accept that from birth some of us are better able to tolerate and function with a crying infant in our care. That example of biologic variability is just one of the reasons why so many families find it difficult to set limits and follow through with consequences. When I have written about and spoken to parents in the office about discipline, I am happy if I can convince both parents to be on the same page (literally sometimes) in how they respond to their crying child.

Helping an infant learn to put itself to sleep is usually the first challenge that requires some agreement between parents on how long they can tolerate crying. Although allowing the infant to cry itself to sleep may be the best and most efficient strategy, it isn’t going to work when two parents and/or caregivers have widely different cry tolerances. In some situations these discrepancies can be managed by having the less tolerant parent temporarily move himself/herself to a location out of earshot. Something often easier said than accomplished.

At the heart of the solution is an acceptance by both parents that differing cry intolerances are not unusual and don’t imply that one partner is a better parent. As advisors we also must accept this reality and help the family find some other solution. Nothing is gained by allowing a disagreement between parents to make an already uncomfortable situation any worse.

While we don’t give out merit badges for it, being able to tolerate one’s own child crying for brief periods of time is a gift that can be helpful in certain situations. It is not a skill listed in the curriculum of most parenting classes, but learning more about what prompts babies to cry can be very helpful. This educational approach is exemplified by a Pediatrics Patient Page in a recent issue of JAMA Pediatrics. It’s rarely hunger and most often is sleep deprivation. It’s rarely the result of an undiscovered injury or medical condition, but may be a response to an overstimulating environment.

For those of us who are advisers, one of our responsibilities is to be alert to those few individuals whose intolerance to crying is so great that they are likely to injure the child or its mother to stop the crying. The simple question at an early well-child visit should be something like “How is everyone in the house when the child starts crying” might save a life. The stereotypic example is the young boyfriend of the mother, who may suspect that he is not the biologic father. However, any parent who is feeling insecure because of a financial situation, poor physical or mental health, or fatigue may lash out to achieve quiet. Crying is one of the realities of infancy. It is our job to help parents cope with it safely.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Most of the papers I review merely validate a relationship that most of us, including the investigators, have already assumed based on common sense. However, every now and then I encounter a study whose findings clearly don’t support the researchers’ initial thesis. The most recent example of this unexpected finding is a paper designed to determine whether the sound of a crying infant would have an effect on a parent’s ability to accurately mix formula.

After a cursory reading of the investigators’ plan, most of us would have assumed from our own difficulties trying to accomplish something while our infant is crying that the crying would have a negative effect on our accuracy. Especially if it was a task that required careful measurement. However, when I skipped ahead to read the paper’s conclusion I was surprised that the investigators could found no significant negative relationship.

The explanation for this counterintuitive finding became readily apparent when I read the details of the study’s design more carefully. The investigators had chosen to use a generic recording of an infant crying, not the parent’s child nor even a live generic child on site.

No one enjoys listening to a child cry. It is certainly not a pleasant sound to the human ear. We seem to be hardwired to find it irritating. But, listening to our own child cry raises an entirely different suite of emotions, particularly if the child is close enough for us to intervene.

I’m not sure exactly what made the investigators choose a generic recording, but I suspect it was less expensive. Otherwise it would have required that the parents agree to subjecting their child to some stimulus that would have predictably induced the child to cry. Fortunately, the investigators were able to regroup in the wake of this lack of common sense in their experimental design and realized that, while their data failed to show a negative association with crying, it did provide an important message. Formula mixing errors, some with potentially harmful consequences, are far too common. In a commentary accompanying this paper, a pediatrician not involved in the study observes that, in our efforts to promote breastfeeding, we have given short shrift to teaching parents about accurate and safe formula preparation. 

But, let’s return to the crying piece. Why is it so difficult for parents to tolerate their own crying infant? Common sense should tell us that we know our infant is helpless. The little child is totally reliant on us to for nutrition and protection from the ever-present environmental threats to its health and safety in the environment. In short, whether we are parents, daycare providers, or the mother’s boyfriend who has been left in charge, we are totally responsible for the life of that infant, at times a heavy burden.

We must accept that from birth some of us are better able to tolerate and function with a crying infant in our care. That example of biologic variability is just one of the reasons why so many families find it difficult to set limits and follow through with consequences. When I have written about and spoken to parents in the office about discipline, I am happy if I can convince both parents to be on the same page (literally sometimes) in how they respond to their crying child.

Helping an infant learn to put itself to sleep is usually the first challenge that requires some agreement between parents on how long they can tolerate crying. Although allowing the infant to cry itself to sleep may be the best and most efficient strategy, it isn’t going to work when two parents and/or caregivers have widely different cry tolerances. In some situations these discrepancies can be managed by having the less tolerant parent temporarily move himself/herself to a location out of earshot. Something often easier said than accomplished.

At the heart of the solution is an acceptance by both parents that differing cry intolerances are not unusual and don’t imply that one partner is a better parent. As advisors we also must accept this reality and help the family find some other solution. Nothing is gained by allowing a disagreement between parents to make an already uncomfortable situation any worse.

While we don’t give out merit badges for it, being able to tolerate one’s own child crying for brief periods of time is a gift that can be helpful in certain situations. It is not a skill listed in the curriculum of most parenting classes, but learning more about what prompts babies to cry can be very helpful. This educational approach is exemplified by a Pediatrics Patient Page in a recent issue of JAMA Pediatrics. It’s rarely hunger and most often is sleep deprivation. It’s rarely the result of an undiscovered injury or medical condition, but may be a response to an overstimulating environment.

For those of us who are advisers, one of our responsibilities is to be alert to those few individuals whose intolerance to crying is so great that they are likely to injure the child or its mother to stop the crying. The simple question at an early well-child visit should be something like “How is everyone in the house when the child starts crying” might save a life. The stereotypic example is the young boyfriend of the mother, who may suspect that he is not the biologic father. However, any parent who is feeling insecure because of a financial situation, poor physical or mental health, or fatigue may lash out to achieve quiet. Crying is one of the realities of infancy. It is our job to help parents cope with it safely.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Most of the papers I review merely validate a relationship that most of us, including the investigators, have already assumed based on common sense. However, every now and then I encounter a study whose findings clearly don’t support the researchers’ initial thesis. The most recent example of this unexpected finding is a paper designed to determine whether the sound of a crying infant would have an effect on a parent’s ability to accurately mix formula.

After a cursory reading of the investigators’ plan, most of us would have assumed from our own difficulties trying to accomplish something while our infant is crying that the crying would have a negative effect on our accuracy. Especially if it was a task that required careful measurement. However, when I skipped ahead to read the paper’s conclusion I was surprised that the investigators could found no significant negative relationship.

The explanation for this counterintuitive finding became readily apparent when I read the details of the study’s design more carefully. The investigators had chosen to use a generic recording of an infant crying, not the parent’s child nor even a live generic child on site.

No one enjoys listening to a child cry. It is certainly not a pleasant sound to the human ear. We seem to be hardwired to find it irritating. But, listening to our own child cry raises an entirely different suite of emotions, particularly if the child is close enough for us to intervene.

I’m not sure exactly what made the investigators choose a generic recording, but I suspect it was less expensive. Otherwise it would have required that the parents agree to subjecting their child to some stimulus that would have predictably induced the child to cry. Fortunately, the investigators were able to regroup in the wake of this lack of common sense in their experimental design and realized that, while their data failed to show a negative association with crying, it did provide an important message. Formula mixing errors, some with potentially harmful consequences, are far too common. In a commentary accompanying this paper, a pediatrician not involved in the study observes that, in our efforts to promote breastfeeding, we have given short shrift to teaching parents about accurate and safe formula preparation. 

But, let’s return to the crying piece. Why is it so difficult for parents to tolerate their own crying infant? Common sense should tell us that we know our infant is helpless. The little child is totally reliant on us to for nutrition and protection from the ever-present environmental threats to its health and safety in the environment. In short, whether we are parents, daycare providers, or the mother’s boyfriend who has been left in charge, we are totally responsible for the life of that infant, at times a heavy burden.

We must accept that from birth some of us are better able to tolerate and function with a crying infant in our care. That example of biologic variability is just one of the reasons why so many families find it difficult to set limits and follow through with consequences. When I have written about and spoken to parents in the office about discipline, I am happy if I can convince both parents to be on the same page (literally sometimes) in how they respond to their crying child.

Helping an infant learn to put itself to sleep is usually the first challenge that requires some agreement between parents on how long they can tolerate crying. Although allowing the infant to cry itself to sleep may be the best and most efficient strategy, it isn’t going to work when two parents and/or caregivers have widely different cry tolerances. In some situations these discrepancies can be managed by having the less tolerant parent temporarily move himself/herself to a location out of earshot. Something often easier said than accomplished.

At the heart of the solution is an acceptance by both parents that differing cry intolerances are not unusual and don’t imply that one partner is a better parent. As advisors we also must accept this reality and help the family find some other solution. Nothing is gained by allowing a disagreement between parents to make an already uncomfortable situation any worse.

While we don’t give out merit badges for it, being able to tolerate one’s own child crying for brief periods of time is a gift that can be helpful in certain situations. It is not a skill listed in the curriculum of most parenting classes, but learning more about what prompts babies to cry can be very helpful. This educational approach is exemplified by a Pediatrics Patient Page in a recent issue of JAMA Pediatrics. It’s rarely hunger and most often is sleep deprivation. It’s rarely the result of an undiscovered injury or medical condition, but may be a response to an overstimulating environment.

For those of us who are advisers, one of our responsibilities is to be alert to those few individuals whose intolerance to crying is so great that they are likely to injure the child or its mother to stop the crying. The simple question at an early well-child visit should be something like “How is everyone in the house when the child starts crying” might save a life. The stereotypic example is the young boyfriend of the mother, who may suspect that he is not the biologic father. However, any parent who is feeling insecure because of a financial situation, poor physical or mental health, or fatigue may lash out to achieve quiet. Crying is one of the realities of infancy. It is our job to help parents cope with it safely.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Blood pressure. If you’re a primary care provider trying to do right by your patients, you might be understandably confused by the current mishmash of guidelines with different blood pressure targets. But as chaotic as things are, at least it’s not the 1930s, when you might hear John Hay give a lecture to the British Medical Association and say, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

Yeah, he said that. But what happened in the 1930s stays in the 1930s. And now we can at least agree that we should be treating high blood pressure. But what’s the goal we should be aiming for? This is On Second Thought. 

We’ve come a long way since FDR was recording blood pressures of 200 and his doctor prescribed him barbiturates and massage therapy.

That s#$# don’t fly no more. Over the past hundred years, we have become much more aggressive in treating blood pressure. Remember the Oslo study? It defined mild hypertension as a blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Now, those numbers send people screaming to the emergency room. So, let’s acknowledge that things are substantially better than they once were. Let’s agree on that and we can start to heal this nation again. 

Before we get into the numbers, when we’re treating blood pressure, let’s make a few points about measuring it. Obviously, to treat something, you have to measure it properly. Two recent trials have illustrated that these details matter a lot.

The Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial — and it took me a minute to realize that Cuff(SZ) meant cuff size, so bravo, Ishigami et al — showed that picking the wrong cuff size could affect BP measurements by 4.5 points if you were one size off. If you were two sizes too small, you overestimated BP by almost 20 points.

Add on here another recent study, the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial, looking at how arm position affected BP measures. If the arm was resting on your lap or hanging by your side, that overestimated blood pressure by 4 and 6.5 points. So sometimes you have to remember the fundamentals: cuff size, arm position — it might make the difference between increasing or maintaining the patient’s meds.

But on to the main show. What numbers should we be aiming for? We no longer live in the “BP 200, the president’s going to have a stroke” world of the 1940s, and even a BP of 150 is considered quite high these days. Studies like the MRC trial, INVEST, and SPRINT have pushed BP targets ever lower. SPRINT, in particular, randomized patients to a blood pressure target under 120 systolic vs under 140 systolic, and the under-120 arm won out with fewer cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality.

Pretty definitive slam dunk. But the more intensive treatment came with more hypotension, syncope, and kidney injury, because there is no free lunch in medicine. And ditto with BPROAD, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Heart Association annual meeting. A diabetic population randomized to 120 vs 140 as a BP target showed that more aggressive treatment was better.

Fewer cardiovascular events, like stroke, but no mortality difference, and more hypotension. So a cardiovascular benefit at the cost of more side effects. Now, like all cardiologists, my motto is “Save the heart and screw the kidney.” But if you do care about the other organs in this meat sack that we call a human body, the question you need to wrestle with is, how much do you value cardiovascular protection vs how willing are you to tolerate side effects?

Hypotension may not sound dangerous, but gravity is an unforgiving mistress. If you painstakingly compile the summary of the various BP guidelines for easy perusal, you would notice something critical: One, I have too much free time on my hands; two, the disagreements are not really all that profound.

Arguing about 120 vs 130 vs 140 is not the same as saying, “Drugs schmugs; a good massage will fix what ails you, and here are some addictive sleeping pills for good measure.” Physicians from the 1930s were a little sketchy. So much of this controversy is about how you define high-risk patients and what are the age cutoffs.

Basically, the cardiovascular guidelines say, “Treat them all and let God sort it out” because they care about cardiovascular events and are concerned about cardiovascular endpoints. Whereas general practice guidelines put more emphasis on potential side effects and admittedly tend to treat a not so high-risk population, so they have laxer targets.

A 2014 analysis from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration [The Lancet] had a good mathematical way of explaining this problem. Now, lowering blood pressure is obviously a good thing. That prevents heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, and all that. Please don’t let hypertension denialism become a thing.

Let’s start with the basics. Treating high blood pressure led to a 15% to 18% decrease in cardiovascular events, pretty consistently across all risk categories, and other analyses have found that every 5-point decrease in blood pressure gives you about a 10% decrease in major cardiovascular events on the relative-risk scale. 

While the benefits are pretty consistent across all groups, that difference in baseline risk translates into different absolute benefits. In the Lancet paper, when the population was divided into four different groups based on their cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction in the lowest-risk group was 14 fewer cardiovascular events if you treat 1000 patients for 5 years.

With each higher-risk group, it was 20 fewer, 24 fewer, and 38 fewer. At the lowest-risk group, the number needed to treat was 71, 50, 42, and 26 fewer cardiovascular events with 5 years of treatment. 

And herein lies the secret to the disagreement: If you have a high-risk patient, there is a big benefit to bringing that blood pressure down from 135 to 130. Whereas for a low-risk patient, it probably doesn’t matter as much. And the cardiovascular benefits are going to be offset by the side effects and the risks for hypotension. 

Of course, there’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Just speak to the patient in front of you. Treat high blood pressure, and if your patient’s blood pressure drops or they get dizzy or have fainting spells, then just ease up on the meds. It’s not rocket science; it’s just cardiology. 

Arguing about five millimeters of mercury of blood pressure is probably less important from the public health perspective than the fact that tens of millions of people in the United States are unaware that they have hypertension, and even those diagnosed are being inadequately treated.

So, let’s all do better as a medical community. Nobody should have untreated hypertension in this day and age. It’s not the 1930s. 
 

Dr Labos, Cardiologist, Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Blood pressure. If you’re a primary care provider trying to do right by your patients, you might be understandably confused by the current mishmash of guidelines with different blood pressure targets. But as chaotic as things are, at least it’s not the 1930s, when you might hear John Hay give a lecture to the British Medical Association and say, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

Yeah, he said that. But what happened in the 1930s stays in the 1930s. And now we can at least agree that we should be treating high blood pressure. But what’s the goal we should be aiming for? This is On Second Thought. 

We’ve come a long way since FDR was recording blood pressures of 200 and his doctor prescribed him barbiturates and massage therapy.

That s#$# don’t fly no more. Over the past hundred years, we have become much more aggressive in treating blood pressure. Remember the Oslo study? It defined mild hypertension as a blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Now, those numbers send people screaming to the emergency room. So, let’s acknowledge that things are substantially better than they once were. Let’s agree on that and we can start to heal this nation again. 

Before we get into the numbers, when we’re treating blood pressure, let’s make a few points about measuring it. Obviously, to treat something, you have to measure it properly. Two recent trials have illustrated that these details matter a lot.

The Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial — and it took me a minute to realize that Cuff(SZ) meant cuff size, so bravo, Ishigami et al — showed that picking the wrong cuff size could affect BP measurements by 4.5 points if you were one size off. If you were two sizes too small, you overestimated BP by almost 20 points.

Add on here another recent study, the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial, looking at how arm position affected BP measures. If the arm was resting on your lap or hanging by your side, that overestimated blood pressure by 4 and 6.5 points. So sometimes you have to remember the fundamentals: cuff size, arm position — it might make the difference between increasing or maintaining the patient’s meds.

But on to the main show. What numbers should we be aiming for? We no longer live in the “BP 200, the president’s going to have a stroke” world of the 1940s, and even a BP of 150 is considered quite high these days. Studies like the MRC trial, INVEST, and SPRINT have pushed BP targets ever lower. SPRINT, in particular, randomized patients to a blood pressure target under 120 systolic vs under 140 systolic, and the under-120 arm won out with fewer cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality.

Pretty definitive slam dunk. But the more intensive treatment came with more hypotension, syncope, and kidney injury, because there is no free lunch in medicine. And ditto with BPROAD, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Heart Association annual meeting. A diabetic population randomized to 120 vs 140 as a BP target showed that more aggressive treatment was better.

Fewer cardiovascular events, like stroke, but no mortality difference, and more hypotension. So a cardiovascular benefit at the cost of more side effects. Now, like all cardiologists, my motto is “Save the heart and screw the kidney.” But if you do care about the other organs in this meat sack that we call a human body, the question you need to wrestle with is, how much do you value cardiovascular protection vs how willing are you to tolerate side effects?

Hypotension may not sound dangerous, but gravity is an unforgiving mistress. If you painstakingly compile the summary of the various BP guidelines for easy perusal, you would notice something critical: One, I have too much free time on my hands; two, the disagreements are not really all that profound.

Arguing about 120 vs 130 vs 140 is not the same as saying, “Drugs schmugs; a good massage will fix what ails you, and here are some addictive sleeping pills for good measure.” Physicians from the 1930s were a little sketchy. So much of this controversy is about how you define high-risk patients and what are the age cutoffs.

Basically, the cardiovascular guidelines say, “Treat them all and let God sort it out” because they care about cardiovascular events and are concerned about cardiovascular endpoints. Whereas general practice guidelines put more emphasis on potential side effects and admittedly tend to treat a not so high-risk population, so they have laxer targets.

A 2014 analysis from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration [The Lancet] had a good mathematical way of explaining this problem. Now, lowering blood pressure is obviously a good thing. That prevents heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, and all that. Please don’t let hypertension denialism become a thing.

Let’s start with the basics. Treating high blood pressure led to a 15% to 18% decrease in cardiovascular events, pretty consistently across all risk categories, and other analyses have found that every 5-point decrease in blood pressure gives you about a 10% decrease in major cardiovascular events on the relative-risk scale. 

While the benefits are pretty consistent across all groups, that difference in baseline risk translates into different absolute benefits. In the Lancet paper, when the population was divided into four different groups based on their cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction in the lowest-risk group was 14 fewer cardiovascular events if you treat 1000 patients for 5 years.

With each higher-risk group, it was 20 fewer, 24 fewer, and 38 fewer. At the lowest-risk group, the number needed to treat was 71, 50, 42, and 26 fewer cardiovascular events with 5 years of treatment. 

And herein lies the secret to the disagreement: If you have a high-risk patient, there is a big benefit to bringing that blood pressure down from 135 to 130. Whereas for a low-risk patient, it probably doesn’t matter as much. And the cardiovascular benefits are going to be offset by the side effects and the risks for hypotension. 

Of course, there’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Just speak to the patient in front of you. Treat high blood pressure, and if your patient’s blood pressure drops or they get dizzy or have fainting spells, then just ease up on the meds. It’s not rocket science; it’s just cardiology. 

Arguing about five millimeters of mercury of blood pressure is probably less important from the public health perspective than the fact that tens of millions of people in the United States are unaware that they have hypertension, and even those diagnosed are being inadequately treated.

So, let’s all do better as a medical community. Nobody should have untreated hypertension in this day and age. It’s not the 1930s. 
 

Dr Labos, Cardiologist, Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Blood pressure. If you’re a primary care provider trying to do right by your patients, you might be understandably confused by the current mishmash of guidelines with different blood pressure targets. But as chaotic as things are, at least it’s not the 1930s, when you might hear John Hay give a lecture to the British Medical Association and say, “The greatest danger to a man with high blood pressure lies in its discovery, because then some fool is certain to try and reduce it.”

Yeah, he said that. But what happened in the 1930s stays in the 1930s. And now we can at least agree that we should be treating high blood pressure. But what’s the goal we should be aiming for? This is On Second Thought. 

We’ve come a long way since FDR was recording blood pressures of 200 and his doctor prescribed him barbiturates and massage therapy.

That s#$# don’t fly no more. Over the past hundred years, we have become much more aggressive in treating blood pressure. Remember the Oslo study? It defined mild hypertension as a blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg. Now, those numbers send people screaming to the emergency room. So, let’s acknowledge that things are substantially better than they once were. Let’s agree on that and we can start to heal this nation again. 

Before we get into the numbers, when we’re treating blood pressure, let’s make a few points about measuring it. Obviously, to treat something, you have to measure it properly. Two recent trials have illustrated that these details matter a lot.

The Cuff(SZ) randomized crossover trial — and it took me a minute to realize that Cuff(SZ) meant cuff size, so bravo, Ishigami et al — showed that picking the wrong cuff size could affect BP measurements by 4.5 points if you were one size off. If you were two sizes too small, you overestimated BP by almost 20 points.

Add on here another recent study, the ARMS crossover randomized clinical trial, looking at how arm position affected BP measures. If the arm was resting on your lap or hanging by your side, that overestimated blood pressure by 4 and 6.5 points. So sometimes you have to remember the fundamentals: cuff size, arm position — it might make the difference between increasing or maintaining the patient’s meds.

But on to the main show. What numbers should we be aiming for? We no longer live in the “BP 200, the president’s going to have a stroke” world of the 1940s, and even a BP of 150 is considered quite high these days. Studies like the MRC trial, INVEST, and SPRINT have pushed BP targets ever lower. SPRINT, in particular, randomized patients to a blood pressure target under 120 systolic vs under 140 systolic, and the under-120 arm won out with fewer cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality.

Pretty definitive slam dunk. But the more intensive treatment came with more hypotension, syncope, and kidney injury, because there is no free lunch in medicine. And ditto with BPROAD, just published in The New England Journal of Medicine and presented at the American Heart Association annual meeting. A diabetic population randomized to 120 vs 140 as a BP target showed that more aggressive treatment was better.

Fewer cardiovascular events, like stroke, but no mortality difference, and more hypotension. So a cardiovascular benefit at the cost of more side effects. Now, like all cardiologists, my motto is “Save the heart and screw the kidney.” But if you do care about the other organs in this meat sack that we call a human body, the question you need to wrestle with is, how much do you value cardiovascular protection vs how willing are you to tolerate side effects?

Hypotension may not sound dangerous, but gravity is an unforgiving mistress. If you painstakingly compile the summary of the various BP guidelines for easy perusal, you would notice something critical: One, I have too much free time on my hands; two, the disagreements are not really all that profound.

Arguing about 120 vs 130 vs 140 is not the same as saying, “Drugs schmugs; a good massage will fix what ails you, and here are some addictive sleeping pills for good measure.” Physicians from the 1930s were a little sketchy. So much of this controversy is about how you define high-risk patients and what are the age cutoffs.

Basically, the cardiovascular guidelines say, “Treat them all and let God sort it out” because they care about cardiovascular events and are concerned about cardiovascular endpoints. Whereas general practice guidelines put more emphasis on potential side effects and admittedly tend to treat a not so high-risk population, so they have laxer targets.

A 2014 analysis from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration [The Lancet] had a good mathematical way of explaining this problem. Now, lowering blood pressure is obviously a good thing. That prevents heart attacks, strokes, kidney failure, and all that. Please don’t let hypertension denialism become a thing.

Let’s start with the basics. Treating high blood pressure led to a 15% to 18% decrease in cardiovascular events, pretty consistently across all risk categories, and other analyses have found that every 5-point decrease in blood pressure gives you about a 10% decrease in major cardiovascular events on the relative-risk scale. 

While the benefits are pretty consistent across all groups, that difference in baseline risk translates into different absolute benefits. In the Lancet paper, when the population was divided into four different groups based on their cardiovascular risk, the absolute risk reduction in the lowest-risk group was 14 fewer cardiovascular events if you treat 1000 patients for 5 years.

With each higher-risk group, it was 20 fewer, 24 fewer, and 38 fewer. At the lowest-risk group, the number needed to treat was 71, 50, 42, and 26 fewer cardiovascular events with 5 years of treatment. 

And herein lies the secret to the disagreement: If you have a high-risk patient, there is a big benefit to bringing that blood pressure down from 135 to 130. Whereas for a low-risk patient, it probably doesn’t matter as much. And the cardiovascular benefits are going to be offset by the side effects and the risks for hypotension. 

Of course, there’s a simple solution to this dilemma: Just speak to the patient in front of you. Treat high blood pressure, and if your patient’s blood pressure drops or they get dizzy or have fainting spells, then just ease up on the meds. It’s not rocket science; it’s just cardiology. 

Arguing about five millimeters of mercury of blood pressure is probably less important from the public health perspective than the fact that tens of millions of people in the United States are unaware that they have hypertension, and even those diagnosed are being inadequately treated.

So, let’s all do better as a medical community. Nobody should have untreated hypertension in this day and age. It’s not the 1930s. 
 

Dr Labos, Cardiologist, Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A brief self-guided online cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was noninferior to comprehensive clinician-guided CBT in reducing symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with both groups showing similar improvements on the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a single-blind randomized clinical noninferiority trial at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, enrolling 168 adults with AD (mean age, 39 years; 84.5% women) from November 2022 to April 2023.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week self-guided online CBT intervention (n = 86) without clinician support or a comprehensive 12-week clinician-guided online CBT program (n = 82).
• The primary outcome was the change in POEM score from baseline; reduction of 4 or more points was considered a response, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 3 points.

TAKEAWAY:

• The clinician-guided group improved by 4.20 points on POEM, while the self-guided group improved by 4.60 points, with an estimated mean difference in change of 0.36 points, which was below noninferiority margin.
• Clinicians spent a mean of 36 minutes on treatment guidance and an additional 14 minutes on assessments in the clinician-guided group, whereas they spent only 15.8 minutes on assessments in the self-guided group.
• Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life, sleep, depressive mood, pruritus, and stress, with no serious adverse events being reported.
• Completion rates were higher in the self-guided group with 81% of participants completing five or more modules, compared with 67% in the clinician-guided group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the findings support a self-guided intervention as a noninferior and cost-effective alternative to a previously evaluated clinician-guided treatment,” the authors wrote. “Because psychological interventions are rare in dermatological care, this study is an important step toward implementation of CBT for people with AD. The effectiveness of CBT interventions in primary and dermatological specialist care should be investigated.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dorian Kern, PhD, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

High data loss for secondary measurements could affect interpretation of these results. The study relied solely on self-reported measures. The predominance of women participants and the Swedish-language requirement may have limited participation from migrant populations, which could hinder the broader implementation of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Kern reported receiving grants from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs during the conduct of the study. Other authors also reported authorships and royalties, personal fees, grants, or held stocks in DahliaQomit.

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

TOPLINE:

A brief self-guided online cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was noninferior to comprehensive clinician-guided CBT in reducing symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with both groups showing similar improvements on the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a single-blind randomized clinical noninferiority trial at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, enrolling 168 adults with AD (mean age, 39 years; 84.5% women) from November 2022 to April 2023.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week self-guided online CBT intervention (n = 86) without clinician support or a comprehensive 12-week clinician-guided online CBT program (n = 82).
• The primary outcome was the change in POEM score from baseline; reduction of 4 or more points was considered a response, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 3 points.

TAKEAWAY:

• The clinician-guided group improved by 4.20 points on POEM, while the self-guided group improved by 4.60 points, with an estimated mean difference in change of 0.36 points, which was below noninferiority margin.
• Clinicians spent a mean of 36 minutes on treatment guidance and an additional 14 minutes on assessments in the clinician-guided group, whereas they spent only 15.8 minutes on assessments in the self-guided group.
• Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life, sleep, depressive mood, pruritus, and stress, with no serious adverse events being reported.
• Completion rates were higher in the self-guided group with 81% of participants completing five or more modules, compared with 67% in the clinician-guided group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the findings support a self-guided intervention as a noninferior and cost-effective alternative to a previously evaluated clinician-guided treatment,” the authors wrote. “Because psychological interventions are rare in dermatological care, this study is an important step toward implementation of CBT for people with AD. The effectiveness of CBT interventions in primary and dermatological specialist care should be investigated.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dorian Kern, PhD, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

High data loss for secondary measurements could affect interpretation of these results. The study relied solely on self-reported measures. The predominance of women participants and the Swedish-language requirement may have limited participation from migrant populations, which could hinder the broader implementation of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Kern reported receiving grants from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs during the conduct of the study. Other authors also reported authorships and royalties, personal fees, grants, or held stocks in DahliaQomit.

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

TOPLINE:

A brief self-guided online cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) intervention was noninferior to comprehensive clinician-guided CBT in reducing symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), with both groups showing similar improvements on the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a single-blind randomized clinical noninferiority trial at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, enrolling 168 adults with AD (mean age, 39 years; 84.5% women) from November 2022 to April 2023.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either a 12-week self-guided online CBT intervention (n = 86) without clinician support or a comprehensive 12-week clinician-guided online CBT program (n = 82).
• The primary outcome was the change in POEM score from baseline; reduction of 4 or more points was considered a response, and the predefined noninferiority margin was 3 points.

TAKEAWAY:

• The clinician-guided group improved by 4.20 points on POEM, while the self-guided group improved by 4.60 points, with an estimated mean difference in change of 0.36 points, which was below noninferiority margin.
• Clinicians spent a mean of 36 minutes on treatment guidance and an additional 14 minutes on assessments in the clinician-guided group, whereas they spent only 15.8 minutes on assessments in the self-guided group.
• Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in quality of life, sleep, depressive mood, pruritus, and stress, with no serious adverse events being reported.
• Completion rates were higher in the self-guided group with 81% of participants completing five or more modules, compared with 67% in the clinician-guided group.

IN PRACTICE:

“Overall, the findings support a self-guided intervention as a noninferior and cost-effective alternative to a previously evaluated clinician-guided treatment,” the authors wrote. “Because psychological interventions are rare in dermatological care, this study is an important step toward implementation of CBT for people with AD. The effectiveness of CBT interventions in primary and dermatological specialist care should be investigated.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dorian Kern, PhD, Division of Psychology, Karolinska Institutet, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

High data loss for secondary measurements could affect interpretation of these results. The study relied solely on self-reported measures. The predominance of women participants and the Swedish-language requirement may have limited participation from migrant populations, which could hinder the broader implementation of the study’s findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. Kern reported receiving grants from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Social Affairs during the conduct of the study. Other authors also reported authorships and royalties, personal fees, grants, or held stocks in DahliaQomit.

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

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists found that although all respondents receive inpatient central line dressing (CLD)-related consults, most lack standardized protocols for managing adverse skin reactions and reported varying management approaches.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers developed and administered a 14-item Qualtrics survey to 107 dermatologists providing pediatric inpatient care through the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Inpatient Dermatology Section and Section Chief email lists.
• A total of 35 dermatologists (33%) from multiple institutions responded to the survey; most respondents (94%) specialized in pediatric dermatology.
• Researchers assessed management of CLD-associated adverse skin reactions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All respondents reported receiving CLD-related consults, but 66% indicated there was no personal or institutional standardized approach for managing CLD-associated skin reactions.
• Respondents said most reactions were in children aged 1-12 years (19 or 76% of 25 respondents) compared with those aged < 1 year (3 or 12% of 25 respondents).
• Management strategies included switching to alternative products, applying topical corticosteroids, and performing patch testing for allergies. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Insights derived from this study, including variation in clinician familiarity with reaction patterns, underscore the necessity of a standardized protocol for classifying and managing cutaneous CLD reactions in pediatric patients,” the authors wrote. “Further investigation is needed to better characterize CLD-associated allergic CD [contact dermatitis], irritant CD, and skin infections, as well as at-risk populations, to better inform clinical approaches,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Mulinda, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and was published online on December 16 in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted variable respondent awareness of institutional CLD and potential recency bias as key limitations of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Study funding source was not declared. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists found that although all respondents receive inpatient central line dressing (CLD)-related consults, most lack standardized protocols for managing adverse skin reactions and reported varying management approaches.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers developed and administered a 14-item Qualtrics survey to 107 dermatologists providing pediatric inpatient care through the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Inpatient Dermatology Section and Section Chief email lists.
• A total of 35 dermatologists (33%) from multiple institutions responded to the survey; most respondents (94%) specialized in pediatric dermatology.
• Researchers assessed management of CLD-associated adverse skin reactions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All respondents reported receiving CLD-related consults, but 66% indicated there was no personal or institutional standardized approach for managing CLD-associated skin reactions.
• Respondents said most reactions were in children aged 1-12 years (19 or 76% of 25 respondents) compared with those aged < 1 year (3 or 12% of 25 respondents).
• Management strategies included switching to alternative products, applying topical corticosteroids, and performing patch testing for allergies. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Insights derived from this study, including variation in clinician familiarity with reaction patterns, underscore the necessity of a standardized protocol for classifying and managing cutaneous CLD reactions in pediatric patients,” the authors wrote. “Further investigation is needed to better characterize CLD-associated allergic CD [contact dermatitis], irritant CD, and skin infections, as well as at-risk populations, to better inform clinical approaches,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Mulinda, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and was published online on December 16 in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted variable respondent awareness of institutional CLD and potential recency bias as key limitations of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Study funding source was not declared. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

A survey of dermatologists found that although all respondents receive inpatient central line dressing (CLD)-related consults, most lack standardized protocols for managing adverse skin reactions and reported varying management approaches.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers developed and administered a 14-item Qualtrics survey to 107 dermatologists providing pediatric inpatient care through the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Inpatient Dermatology Section and Section Chief email lists.
• A total of 35 dermatologists (33%) from multiple institutions responded to the survey; most respondents (94%) specialized in pediatric dermatology.
• Researchers assessed management of CLD-associated adverse skin reactions.

TAKEAWAY:

• All respondents reported receiving CLD-related consults, but 66% indicated there was no personal or institutional standardized approach for managing CLD-associated skin reactions.
• Respondents said most reactions were in children aged 1-12 years (19 or 76% of 25 respondents) compared with those aged < 1 year (3 or 12% of 25 respondents).
• Management strategies included switching to alternative products, applying topical corticosteroids, and performing patch testing for allergies. 

IN PRACTICE:

“Insights derived from this study, including variation in clinician familiarity with reaction patterns, underscore the necessity of a standardized protocol for classifying and managing cutaneous CLD reactions in pediatric patients,” the authors wrote. “Further investigation is needed to better characterize CLD-associated allergic CD [contact dermatitis], irritant CD, and skin infections, as well as at-risk populations, to better inform clinical approaches,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Carly Mulinda, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, and was published online on December 16 in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted variable respondent awareness of institutional CLD and potential recency bias as key limitations of the study.

DISCLOSURES:

Study funding source was not declared. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
 

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

Results from the British COLO-DETECT trial add to the growing body of evidence supporting the use of artificial intelligence (AI)–aided colonoscopy to increase premalignant colorectal polyp detection in routine colonoscopy practice.

Colin J. Rees, a professor of gastroenterology in the Faculty of Medical Sciences at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England, and colleagues compared the real-world clinical effectiveness of computer-aided detection (CADe)–assisted colonoscopy using an “intelligent” module with that of standard colonoscopy in a study in The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.

They found the GI Genius Intelligent Endoscopy Module (Medtronic) increased the mean number of adenomas detected per procedure and the adenoma detection rate, especially for small, flat (type 0-IIa) polyps, and sessile serrated lesions, which are more likely to be missed.

“Missed sessile serrated lesions disproportionately increase the risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, thus the adoption of GI Genius into routine colonoscopy practice could not only increase polyp detection but also reduce the incidence of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer,” the investigators wrote.

“AI is going to have a major impact upon most aspects of healthcare. Some areas of medical practice are now well established, and some are still in evolution,” Rees, who is also president of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said in an interview. “Within gastroenterology, the role of AI in endoscopic diagnostics is also evolving. The COLO-DETECT trial demonstrates that AI increases detection of lesions, and work is ongoing to see how AI might help with characterization and other elements of endoscopic practice.”

 

Study Details

The multicenter, open-label, parallel-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trial was conducted at 12 National Health Service hospitals in England. The study cohort consisted of adults ≥ 18 years undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) screening or colonoscopy for gastrointestinal symptom surveillance owing to personal or family history.

Recruiting staff, participants, and colonoscopists were unmasked to allocation, whereas histopathologists, cochief investigators, and trial statisticians were masked.

CADe-assisted colonoscopy consisted of standard colonoscopy plus the GI Genius module active for at least the entire inspection phase of colonoscope withdrawal.

The primary outcome was mean adenomas per procedure (total number of adenomas detected divided by total number of procedures). The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (proportion of colonoscopies with at least one adenoma).

From March 2021 to April 2023, the investigators recruited 2032 participants, 55.7% men, with a mean cohort age of 62.4 years and randomly assigned them to CADe-assisted colonoscopy (n = 1015) or to standard colonoscopy (n = 1017). Of these, 60.6% were undergoing screening and 39.4% had symptomatic indications.

Mean adenomas per procedure were 1.56 (SD, 2.82; n = 1001 participants with data) in the CADe-assisted group vs 1.21 (n = 1009) in the standard group, for an adjusted mean difference of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.14-0.57; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.15-1.47; P < .0001).

Adenomas were detected in 555 (56.6%) of 980 participants in the CADe-assisted group vs 477 (48.4%) of 986 in the standard group, representing a proportion difference of 8.3% (95% CI, 3.9-12.7; adjusted odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.21-1.78; P < .0001).

As to safety, adverse events were numerically comparable in both the intervention and control groups, with overall events 25 vs 19 and serious events 4 vs 6. On independent review, no adverse events in the CADe-assisted colonoscopy group were related to GI Genius.

 

Offering a US perspective on the study, Nabil M. Mansour, MD, an associate professor and director of the McNair General GI Clinic at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, said GI Genius and other CADe systems represent a significant advance over standard colonoscopy for identifying premalignant polyps. “While the data have been mixed, most studies, particularly randomized controlled trials have shown significant improvements with CADe in detection both terms of in adenomas per colonoscopy and reductions in adenoma miss rate,” he said in an interview.

He added that the main utility of CADe is for asymptomatic patients undergoing average-risk screening and surveillance colonoscopy for CRC screening and prevention, as well as for those with positive stool-based screening tests, “though there is no downside to using it in symptomatic patients as well.” Though AI colonoscopy likely still stands at < 50% of endoscopy centers overall, and is used mainly at academic centers, his clinic has been using it for the past year.

The main question, Mansour cautioned, is whether increased detection of small polyps will actually reduce CRC incidence or mortality, and it will likely be several years before clear, concrete data can answer that.

“Most studies have shown the improvement in adenoma detection is mainly for diminutive polyps < 5 mm in diameter, but whether that will actually translate to substantive improvements in hard outcomes is as yet unknown,” he said. “But if gastroenterologists are interested in doing everything they can today to help improve detection rates and lower miss rates of premalignant polyps, serious consideration should be given to adopting the use of CADe in practice.”

This study was supported by Medtronic. Rees reported receiving grant funding from ARC Medical, Norgine, Medtronic, 3-D Matrix, and Olympus Medical, and has been an expert witness for ARC Medical. Other authors disclosed receiving research funding, honoraria, or travel expenses from Medtronic or other private companies. Mansour had no competing interests to declare.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.