Family Practice News

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hi, everyone. I’m Dr. Kenny Lin. I am a family physician and associate director of the Lancaster General Hospital Family Medicine Residency, and I blog at Common Sense Family Doctor.

For the past 4 years, primary care clinicians have labored under a seemingly endless onslaught of bad news. A recent report estimated that there were over 1.3 million excess deaths in the United States from March 2020 to May 2023, including nearly half a million Americans younger than age 65. Social isolation and an ailing economy accelerated preexisting rises in drug overdoses and obesity, while teenage vaping threatened to hook a new generation on tobacco products even as adult smoking plummeted. Meanwhile, more than half of the nation’s physicians now report feelings of burnout, pay for family doctors appears to be stagnating, and our interactions with an increasing number of patients are fraught with suspicions about the value of vaccines— not just against COVID-19 but against flu and other viruses, too — and the medical system as a whole, doctors included. 

Now, for the good news.

A year and a half since the end of the pandemic emergency, we are seeing gains on several fronts, and physicians deserve much of the credit. Preliminary data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that 10,000 fewer people died from drug overdoses than in the previous year. Although multiple factors contributed to this change, the elimination of the X-waiver, which had previously been required for physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder, in January 2023 has improved access to medications for addiction treatment. In addition, the expansion of state requirements to check prescription drug monitoring programs when opioids or benzodiazepines are prescribed, and to prescribe naloxone to patients taking more than a certain number of morphine milligram equivalents per day, has probably reduced the harms of hazardous drug use.

On the obesity front, recent data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the prevalence of obesity in adults fell for the first time in more than a decade, from 41.9% to 40.3%. To be sure, obesity remains far too common, and this finding could be the result of statistical chance rather than representing a true decline. But the widespread prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists by primary care physicians, in particular, could have played a role in the encouraging trend.

Although more research is needed to prove causality, one analysis suggests that these drugs could easily have lowered the body mass index (BMI) of more than enough patients to account for the observed decline. What’s more, the rise in prevalence of BMIs above 40 (from 7.7% to 9.7%) could be explained by the mortality benefit of the drugs: More people remained in this severe obesity category because they didn’t die from complications of their weight. Whether future studies support keeping people on GLP-1s for life or eventually “off-ramping” them to other weight control strategies, family physicians are well positioned to help.

Finally, with little fanfare, the youth smoking rate has fallen precipitously. In 2023, 1.9% of high school students and 1.1% of middle-schoolers reported smoking cigarettes in the past 30 days. And they didn’t simply swap one form of nicotine delivery device for another. The 30-day prevalence of vaping among high school students fell from 27.5% in 2019 to 7.8% this year. Changing social norms and stricter federal regulation of tobacco products are probably more responsible for this positive trend than medical care, though the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends education or brief counseling to prevent initiation of tobacco use among school-aged children and adolescents. Should tobacco use in youth remain at these historically low levels, millions of premature deaths from lung cancer and heart disease will have been prevented.

America’s doctors have earned the right to take a bow. We have much more work to do, but our efforts are making a meaningful difference in three seemingly intractable health problems.

Dr. Lin, Associate Director, Family Medicine Residency Program, Lancaster General Hospital, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Weight loss interventions using medication or behavioral changes can improve insulin resistance, hormonal markers, and menstrual frequency in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), according to a new meta-analysis. Losing weight may not significantly reduce hirsutism or improve quality of life in women with the condition, however.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing weight loss interventions to usual care in women with PCOS.
• They focused on 12 studies with behavioral interventions (mainly diets with modest energy deficits), nine trials that used glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and eight studies using other weight loss medications.
• A total of 1529 participants were included in the analysis.
• The investigators synthesized the data using a random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment to examine pooled mean differences.

TAKEAWAY:

• Menstrual frequency increased by 2.64 menses per year (95% CI, 0.65-4.63) with weight loss interventions.
• “To our knowledge, this is the first review to show a clinically significant association in improvement in menstrual frequency with weight loss interventions, an important indicator of subsequent fertility and an important outcome for women,” the researchers wrote.
• Glycemic control also improved, with a mean reduction in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.15).
• Free androgen index decreased by an average of 2.03 (95% CI, –3.0 to –1.07).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians may use these findings to counsel women with PCOS on the expected improvements in PCOS markers after weight loss and direct patients toward interventions,” the authors of the study wrote. “Because weight loss programs are cost-effective interventions to improve cardiometabolic risk, they may be particularly valuable for this population at elevated risk.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jadine Scragg, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Interventions using GLP-1 agonists were dosed for glycemic control rather than weight management. The studies in the meta-analysis were relatively few and heterogeneous. Data were insufficient to assess ovulation and acne.

DISCLOSURES:

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Authors disclosed ties to Nestlé Health Science and Second Nature.

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:

Weight loss interventions using medication or behavioral changes can improve insulin resistance, hormonal markers, and menstrual frequency in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), according to a new meta-analysis. Losing weight may not significantly reduce hirsutism or improve quality of life in women with the condition, however.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing weight loss interventions to usual care in women with PCOS.
• They focused on 12 studies with behavioral interventions (mainly diets with modest energy deficits), nine trials that used glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and eight studies using other weight loss medications.
• A total of 1529 participants were included in the analysis.
• The investigators synthesized the data using a random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment to examine pooled mean differences.

TAKEAWAY:

• Menstrual frequency increased by 2.64 menses per year (95% CI, 0.65-4.63) with weight loss interventions.
• “To our knowledge, this is the first review to show a clinically significant association in improvement in menstrual frequency with weight loss interventions, an important indicator of subsequent fertility and an important outcome for women,” the researchers wrote.
• Glycemic control also improved, with a mean reduction in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.15).
• Free androgen index decreased by an average of 2.03 (95% CI, –3.0 to –1.07).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians may use these findings to counsel women with PCOS on the expected improvements in PCOS markers after weight loss and direct patients toward interventions,” the authors of the study wrote. “Because weight loss programs are cost-effective interventions to improve cardiometabolic risk, they may be particularly valuable for this population at elevated risk.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jadine Scragg, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Interventions using GLP-1 agonists were dosed for glycemic control rather than weight management. The studies in the meta-analysis were relatively few and heterogeneous. Data were insufficient to assess ovulation and acne.

DISCLOSURES:

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Authors disclosed ties to Nestlé Health Science and Second Nature.

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:

Weight loss interventions using medication or behavioral changes can improve insulin resistance, hormonal markers, and menstrual frequency in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), according to a new meta-analysis. Losing weight may not significantly reduce hirsutism or improve quality of life in women with the condition, however.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials comparing weight loss interventions to usual care in women with PCOS.
• They focused on 12 studies with behavioral interventions (mainly diets with modest energy deficits), nine trials that used glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, and eight studies using other weight loss medications.
• A total of 1529 participants were included in the analysis.
• The investigators synthesized the data using a random-effects meta-analysis with Knapp-Hartung adjustment to examine pooled mean differences.

TAKEAWAY:

• Menstrual frequency increased by 2.64 menses per year (95% CI, 0.65-4.63) with weight loss interventions.
• “To our knowledge, this is the first review to show a clinically significant association in improvement in menstrual frequency with weight loss interventions, an important indicator of subsequent fertility and an important outcome for women,” the researchers wrote.
• Glycemic control also improved, with a mean reduction in homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance of 0.45 (95% CI, –0.75 to –0.15).
• Free androgen index decreased by an average of 2.03 (95% CI, –3.0 to –1.07).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians may use these findings to counsel women with PCOS on the expected improvements in PCOS markers after weight loss and direct patients toward interventions,” the authors of the study wrote. “Because weight loss programs are cost-effective interventions to improve cardiometabolic risk, they may be particularly valuable for this population at elevated risk.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jadine Scragg, PhD, with the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford in England. It was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

Interventions using GLP-1 agonists were dosed for glycemic control rather than weight management. The studies in the meta-analysis were relatively few and heterogeneous. Data were insufficient to assess ovulation and acne.

DISCLOSURES:

The meta-analysis was supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research. Authors disclosed ties to Nestlé Health Science and Second Nature.

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:

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and with obesity or overweight, the combination of topiramate and metformin along with a low-calorie diet can result in effective weight loss and improve androgen levels, lipid levels, and psychosocial scores, without any serious adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Topiramate is often used off-label for weight loss and may be a promising option added to a metformin regimen to improve cardiometabolic and reproductive health in women with PCOS and obesity or overweight when lifestyle changes alone fall short.
• This double-blind trial conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre in Porto Alegre, Brazil, evaluated the effects of adding topiramate to metformin in 61 women aged 14-40 years with PCOS and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with concurrent hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.
• All participants were prescribed a 20 kcal/kg diet, as well as desogestrel for contraception during the study, and either started on 850 mg metformin or continued with their existing metformin regimen.
• They were randomly assigned to receive either topiramate or placebo (25 mg for 15 days and then 50 mg at night) along with metformin, with dose adjustments based on weight loss at 3 months.
• The primary outcome was the percent change in body weight from baseline, and the secondary outcomes included changes in clinical, cardiometabolic, and hormonal parameters and psychosocial features at 3 and 6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topiramate combined with metformin resulted in greater mean weight loss at 3 months (−3.4% vs −1.6%; P = .03) and 6 months (−4.5% vs −1.4%; P = .03) than placebo plus metformin.
• Both treatment groups showed improvements in androgen and lipid levels and psychosocial scores, while the levels of C-reactive protein decreased only in the topiramate plus metformin group.
• Women who experienced ≥ 3% weight loss at 6 months showed a significant improvement in hirsutism scores (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.4-6.5), unlike those who experienced < 3% weight loss (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.02-8.78).
• Paresthesia was more common in the topiramate plus metformin group than in the metformin plus placebo group (23.3% vs 3.2%), but no serious adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In the era of new effective drugs for treating obesity, topiramate with metformin can be an option for women with obesity and PCOS, considering its low cost, reports of long-term experience with this medication, and ease to use,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lucas Bandeira Marchesan, Gynecological Endocrinology Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and high attrition rates were major limitations of this study. Increasing the topiramate dose at 3 months in those with < 3% weight loss did not provide additional benefit, and this study did not test for a higher topiramate dose response from the beginning, which could have potentially provided a better response to the medication. The small sample size of the study also prevented the authors from conducting a subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The authors declared 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:

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and with obesity or overweight, the combination of topiramate and metformin along with a low-calorie diet can result in effective weight loss and improve androgen levels, lipid levels, and psychosocial scores, without any serious adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Topiramate is often used off-label for weight loss and may be a promising option added to a metformin regimen to improve cardiometabolic and reproductive health in women with PCOS and obesity or overweight when lifestyle changes alone fall short.
• This double-blind trial conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre in Porto Alegre, Brazil, evaluated the effects of adding topiramate to metformin in 61 women aged 14-40 years with PCOS and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with concurrent hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.
• All participants were prescribed a 20 kcal/kg diet, as well as desogestrel for contraception during the study, and either started on 850 mg metformin or continued with their existing metformin regimen.
• They were randomly assigned to receive either topiramate or placebo (25 mg for 15 days and then 50 mg at night) along with metformin, with dose adjustments based on weight loss at 3 months.
• The primary outcome was the percent change in body weight from baseline, and the secondary outcomes included changes in clinical, cardiometabolic, and hormonal parameters and psychosocial features at 3 and 6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topiramate combined with metformin resulted in greater mean weight loss at 3 months (−3.4% vs −1.6%; P = .03) and 6 months (−4.5% vs −1.4%; P = .03) than placebo plus metformin.
• Both treatment groups showed improvements in androgen and lipid levels and psychosocial scores, while the levels of C-reactive protein decreased only in the topiramate plus metformin group.
• Women who experienced ≥ 3% weight loss at 6 months showed a significant improvement in hirsutism scores (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.4-6.5), unlike those who experienced < 3% weight loss (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.02-8.78).
• Paresthesia was more common in the topiramate plus metformin group than in the metformin plus placebo group (23.3% vs 3.2%), but no serious adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In the era of new effective drugs for treating obesity, topiramate with metformin can be an option for women with obesity and PCOS, considering its low cost, reports of long-term experience with this medication, and ease to use,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lucas Bandeira Marchesan, Gynecological Endocrinology Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and high attrition rates were major limitations of this study. Increasing the topiramate dose at 3 months in those with < 3% weight loss did not provide additional benefit, and this study did not test for a higher topiramate dose response from the beginning, which could have potentially provided a better response to the medication. The small sample size of the study also prevented the authors from conducting a subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The authors declared 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:

In women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and with obesity or overweight, the combination of topiramate and metformin along with a low-calorie diet can result in effective weight loss and improve androgen levels, lipid levels, and psychosocial scores, without any serious adverse events.

METHODOLOGY:

• Topiramate is often used off-label for weight loss and may be a promising option added to a metformin regimen to improve cardiometabolic and reproductive health in women with PCOS and obesity or overweight when lifestyle changes alone fall short.
• This double-blind trial conducted at Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre in Porto Alegre, Brazil, evaluated the effects of adding topiramate to metformin in 61 women aged 14-40 years with PCOS and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 or BMI ≥ 27 with concurrent hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia.
• All participants were prescribed a 20 kcal/kg diet, as well as desogestrel for contraception during the study, and either started on 850 mg metformin or continued with their existing metformin regimen.
• They were randomly assigned to receive either topiramate or placebo (25 mg for 15 days and then 50 mg at night) along with metformin, with dose adjustments based on weight loss at 3 months.
• The primary outcome was the percent change in body weight from baseline, and the secondary outcomes included changes in clinical, cardiometabolic, and hormonal parameters and psychosocial features at 3 and 6 months.

TAKEAWAY:

• Topiramate combined with metformin resulted in greater mean weight loss at 3 months (−3.4% vs −1.6%; P = .03) and 6 months (−4.5% vs −1.4%; P = .03) than placebo plus metformin.
• Both treatment groups showed improvements in androgen and lipid levels and psychosocial scores, while the levels of C-reactive protein decreased only in the topiramate plus metformin group.
• Women who experienced ≥ 3% weight loss at 6 months showed a significant improvement in hirsutism scores (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.4-6.5), unlike those who experienced < 3% weight loss (change in modified Ferriman-Gallwey scores, 8.02-8.78).
• Paresthesia was more common in the topiramate plus metformin group than in the metformin plus placebo group (23.3% vs 3.2%), but no serious adverse events were reported.

IN PRACTICE:

“In the era of new effective drugs for treating obesity, topiramate with metformin can be an option for women with obesity and PCOS, considering its low cost, reports of long-term experience with this medication, and ease to use,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lucas Bandeira Marchesan, Gynecological Endocrinology Unit, Division of Endocrinology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, and was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

LIMITATIONS:

The small sample size and high attrition rates were major limitations of this study. Increasing the topiramate dose at 3 months in those with < 3% weight loss did not provide additional benefit, and this study did not test for a higher topiramate dose response from the beginning, which could have potentially provided a better response to the medication. The small sample size of the study also prevented the authors from conducting a subgroup analysis.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by research grants from the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, Brazil, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. The authors declared 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.

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at 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. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at 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. 

Aspirin. Once upon a time, everybody over age 50 years was supposed to take a baby aspirin. Now we make it a point to tell people to stop. What is going on?  

Our recommendations vis-à-vis aspirin have evolved at a dizzying pace. The young’uns watching us right now don’t know what things were like in the 1980s. The Reagan era was a wild, heady time where nuclear war was imminent and we didn’t prescribe aspirin to patients. 

That only started in 1988, which was a banner year in human history. Not because a number of doves were incinerated by the lighting of the Olympic torch at the Seoul Olympics — look it up if you don’t know what I’m talking about — but because 1988 saw the publication of the ISIS-2 trial, which first showed a mortality benefit to prescribing aspirin post–myocardial infarction (MI).

Giving patients aspirin during or after a heart attack is not controversial. It’s one of the few things in this business that isn’t, but that’s secondary prevention — treating somebody after they develop a disease. Primary prevention, treating them before they have their incident event, is a very different ballgame. Here, things are messy. 

For one thing, the doses used have been very inconsistent. We should point out that the reason for 81 mg of aspirin is very arbitrary and is rooted in the old apothecary system of weights and measurements. A standard dose of aspirin was 5 grains, where 20 grains made 1 scruple, 3 scruples made 1 dram, 8 drams made 1 oz, and 12 oz made 1 lb - because screw you, metric system. Therefore, 5 grains was 325 mg of aspirin, and 1 quarter of the standard dose became 81 mg if you rounded out the decimal. 

People have tried all kinds of dosing structures with aspirin prophylaxis. The Physicians’ Health Study used a full-dose aspirin, 325 mg every 2 days, while the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial tested 75 mg daily and the Women’s Health Study tested 100 mg, but every other day. 

Ironically, almost no one has studied 81 mg every day, which is weird if you think about it. The bigger problem here is not the variability of doses used, but the discrepancy when you look at older vs newer studies.

Older studies, like the Physicians’ Health Study, did show a benefit, at least in the subgroup of patients over age 50 years, which is probably where the “everybody over 50 should be taking an aspirin” idea comes from, at least as near as I can tell. 

More recent studies, like the Women’s Health Study, ASPREE, or ASPIRE, didn’t show a benefit. I know what you’re thinking: Newer stuff is always better. That’s why you should never trust anybody over age 40 years. The context of primary prevention studies has changed. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, people smoked more and we didn’t have the same medications that we have today. We talked about all this in the beta-blocker video to explain why beta-blockers don’t seem to have a benefit post MI.

We have a similar issue here. The magnitude of the benefit with aspirin primary prevention has decreased because we’re all just healthier overall. So, yay! Progress! Here’s where the numbers matter. No one is saying that aspirin doesn’t help. It does. 

If we look at the 2019 meta-analysis published in JAMA, there is a cardiovascular benefit. The numbers bear that out. I know you’re all here for the math, so here we go. Aspirin reduced the composite cardiovascular endpoint from 65.2 to 60.2 events per 10,000 patient-years; or to put it more meaningfully in absolute risk reduction terms, because that’s my jam, an absolute risk reduction of 0.41%, which means a number needed to treat of 241, which is okay-ish. It’s not super-great, but it may be justifiable for something that costs next to nothing. 

The tradeoff is bleeding. Major bleeding increased from 16.4 to 23.1 bleeds per 10,000 patient-years, or an absolute risk increase of 0.47%, which is a number needed to harm of 210. That’s the problem. Aspirin does prevent heart disease. The benefit is small, for sure, but the real problem is that it’s outweighed by the risk of bleeding, so you’re not really coming out ahead. 

The real tragedy here is that the public is locked into this idea of everyone over age 50 years should be taking an aspirin. Even today, even though guidelines have recommended against aspirin for primary prevention for some time, data from the National Health Interview Survey sample found that nearly one in three older adults take aspirin for primary prevention when they shouldn’t be. That’s a large number of people. That’s millions of Americans — and Canadians, but nobody cares about us. It’s fine. 

That’s the point. We’re not debunking aspirin. It does work. The benefits are just really small in a primary prevention population and offset by the admittedly also really small risks of bleeding. It’s a tradeoff that doesn’t really work in your favor.

But that’s aspirin for cardiovascular disease. When it comes to cancer or DVT prophylaxis, that’s another really interesting story. We might have to save that for another time. Do I know how to tease a sequel or what?

Labos, a cardiologist at Kirkland Medical Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An estimated 72 million ambulatory visits for superficial cutaneous fungal infections (SCFIs) in the United States were recorded during 2005-2016, with an increasing trend over the years. Tinea unguium, tinea pedis, and tinea corporis were among the most common infections.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2005 to 2016, to evaluate trends in the prevalence of SCFIs during this period.
• The analysis included over 13 billion ambulatory visits to nonfederally funded community, office-based physician practices, and emergency or outpatient departments in the United States, with an estimated 1,104,258,333 annual average.
• The Jonckheere-Terpstra nonparametric test for trend was used to determine the pattern of SCFI prevalence over the 12-year period.

TAKEAWAY:

• SCFIs constituted approximately 0.54% of all annual ambulatory visits, with an estimated 6,001,852 visits for SCFIs per year and over 72 million total visits for the infections during the study period.
• Tinea unguium, tinea pedis, and tinea corporis were the most common infections, comprising 20.5%, 12.2%, and 12.0% of the total visits, respectively.
• Researchers noted an increasing trend in annual SCFIs (P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed a high burden of SCFIs among outpatient visits in the United States and an increasing trend in their prevalence,” the authors wrote. These results, they added, “highlight the importance of healthcare providers being able to identify, treat, and, when necessary, refer patients with SCFIs, as a high burden of disease is associated with a significant negative impact on the individual and population levels.”

SOURCE:

The study was co-led by Sarah L. Spaulding, BS, and A. Mitchel Wride, BA, from the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and was published online October 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors did not list any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The lead authors were supported by Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Research Fellowships. Two other authors declared receiving consulting fees, research funding, and licensing fees outside the submitted work and also served on a data and safety monitoring board for Advarra Inc.
 

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:

An estimated 72 million ambulatory visits for superficial cutaneous fungal infections (SCFIs) in the United States were recorded during 2005-2016, with an increasing trend over the years. Tinea unguium, tinea pedis, and tinea corporis were among the most common infections.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2005 to 2016, to evaluate trends in the prevalence of SCFIs during this period.
• The analysis included over 13 billion ambulatory visits to nonfederally funded community, office-based physician practices, and emergency or outpatient departments in the United States, with an estimated 1,104,258,333 annual average.
• The Jonckheere-Terpstra nonparametric test for trend was used to determine the pattern of SCFI prevalence over the 12-year period.

TAKEAWAY:

• SCFIs constituted approximately 0.54% of all annual ambulatory visits, with an estimated 6,001,852 visits for SCFIs per year and over 72 million total visits for the infections during the study period.
• Tinea unguium, tinea pedis, and tinea corporis were the most common infections, comprising 20.5%, 12.2%, and 12.0% of the total visits, respectively.
• Researchers noted an increasing trend in annual SCFIs (P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed a high burden of SCFIs among outpatient visits in the United States and an increasing trend in their prevalence,” the authors wrote. These results, they added, “highlight the importance of healthcare providers being able to identify, treat, and, when necessary, refer patients with SCFIs, as a high burden of disease is associated with a significant negative impact on the individual and population levels.”

SOURCE:

The study was co-led by Sarah L. Spaulding, BS, and A. Mitchel Wride, BA, from the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and was published online October 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors did not list any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The lead authors were supported by Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Research Fellowships. Two other authors declared receiving consulting fees, research funding, and licensing fees outside the submitted work and also served on a data and safety monitoring board for Advarra Inc.
 

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:

An estimated 72 million ambulatory visits for superficial cutaneous fungal infections (SCFIs) in the United States were recorded during 2005-2016, with an increasing trend over the years. Tinea unguium, tinea pedis, and tinea corporis were among the most common infections.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2005 to 2016, to evaluate trends in the prevalence of SCFIs during this period.
• The analysis included over 13 billion ambulatory visits to nonfederally funded community, office-based physician practices, and emergency or outpatient departments in the United States, with an estimated 1,104,258,333 annual average.
• The Jonckheere-Terpstra nonparametric test for trend was used to determine the pattern of SCFI prevalence over the 12-year period.

TAKEAWAY:

• SCFIs constituted approximately 0.54% of all annual ambulatory visits, with an estimated 6,001,852 visits for SCFIs per year and over 72 million total visits for the infections during the study period.
• Tinea unguium, tinea pedis, and tinea corporis were the most common infections, comprising 20.5%, 12.2%, and 12.0% of the total visits, respectively.
• Researchers noted an increasing trend in annual SCFIs (P = .03).

IN PRACTICE:

“We observed a high burden of SCFIs among outpatient visits in the United States and an increasing trend in their prevalence,” the authors wrote. These results, they added, “highlight the importance of healthcare providers being able to identify, treat, and, when necessary, refer patients with SCFIs, as a high burden of disease is associated with a significant negative impact on the individual and population levels.”

SOURCE:

The study was co-led by Sarah L. Spaulding, BS, and A. Mitchel Wride, BA, from the Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and was published online October 30 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors did not list any study limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

The lead authors were supported by Yale School of Medicine Medical Student Research Fellowships. Two other authors declared receiving consulting fees, research funding, and licensing fees outside the submitted work and also served on a data and safety monitoring board for Advarra Inc.
 

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.

Individuals with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) face a significantly increased risk for bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder, an analysis of national data showed.

“Clinicians should actively screen for eating disorders,” particularly bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder, in patients with HS,” lead study author Christopher Guirguis, DMD, a student at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, told this news organization in advance of the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurative Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “The significant psychological burden in these patients requires a holistic approach that integrates both dermatologic and psychosocial care. Addressing their mental health needs is essential for improving overall patient outcomes and quality of life,” he added.

Chrisopher Guirguis

In collaboration with fellow Georgetown medical student and first author Lauren Chin and Mikael Horissian, MD, a dermatologist and director of the HS Clinic at Gesinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, Guirguis drew from the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program to identify 1653 individuals with a diagnosis of HS and a control group of 8265 individuals without a diagnosis of HS. They used the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership to identify anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, body dysmorphic disorder, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder, unspecified. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was also included because of its association with bulimia. They used statistical models to compare cohorts and comorbidities. “What makes this work unique is its focus on the link between HS and eating disorders, a relationship previously underexplored,” he said.

The mean age of the overall study cohort was 46.8 years, and 78.6% were female. Univariate analysis revealed that, compared with controls, individuals in the HS cohort showed significantly increased diagnoses of bulimia, binge eating disorder, OCD, and eating disorder, unspecified, by 2.6, 5.48, 2.50, and 2.43 times, respectively (P < .05 for all associations). After adjusting for age, race, sex, and ethnicity, the researchers observed that patients with HS were 4.46 times as likely to have a diagnosis of binge eating disorder and 3.51 times as likely to have a diagnosis of bulimia as those who did not have HS (P < .05 for both associations).

Guirguis said that the absence of body dysmorphic disorder diagnoses in the HS cohort was unexpected. “Given HS’s known association with body image issues, we anticipated a higher prevalence of BDD,” he said. “This discrepancy may reflect underreporting or diagnostic overshadowing, where the physical symptoms of HS dominate clinical attention, potentially masking or complicating the identification of psychological conditions like BDD.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the potential for variations in documentation practices in the database. “Additionally, there may be bias due to underrepresentation of certain demographic groups or underreporting of psychological comorbidities, which could influence the findings.”

Patricia M. Richey, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, at Boston University School of Medicine in Massachusetts, who was asked to comment on the study, said the results “should affect how physicians discuss lifestyle recommendations in those already at increased risk of psychiatric disease and disrupted body image.” The findings should also “prompt physicians to screen this patient population more thoroughly for eating disorders as we know they are an underrecognized and often undertreated entity,” she added.

Neither the study authors nor Richey reported having relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) face a significantly increased risk for bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder, an analysis of national data showed.

“Clinicians should actively screen for eating disorders,” particularly bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder, in patients with HS,” lead study author Christopher Guirguis, DMD, a student at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, told this news organization in advance of the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurative Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “The significant psychological burden in these patients requires a holistic approach that integrates both dermatologic and psychosocial care. Addressing their mental health needs is essential for improving overall patient outcomes and quality of life,” he added.

Chrisopher Guirguis

In collaboration with fellow Georgetown medical student and first author Lauren Chin and Mikael Horissian, MD, a dermatologist and director of the HS Clinic at Gesinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, Guirguis drew from the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program to identify 1653 individuals with a diagnosis of HS and a control group of 8265 individuals without a diagnosis of HS. They used the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership to identify anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, body dysmorphic disorder, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder, unspecified. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was also included because of its association with bulimia. They used statistical models to compare cohorts and comorbidities. “What makes this work unique is its focus on the link between HS and eating disorders, a relationship previously underexplored,” he said.

The mean age of the overall study cohort was 46.8 years, and 78.6% were female. Univariate analysis revealed that, compared with controls, individuals in the HS cohort showed significantly increased diagnoses of bulimia, binge eating disorder, OCD, and eating disorder, unspecified, by 2.6, 5.48, 2.50, and 2.43 times, respectively (P < .05 for all associations). After adjusting for age, race, sex, and ethnicity, the researchers observed that patients with HS were 4.46 times as likely to have a diagnosis of binge eating disorder and 3.51 times as likely to have a diagnosis of bulimia as those who did not have HS (P < .05 for both associations).

Guirguis said that the absence of body dysmorphic disorder diagnoses in the HS cohort was unexpected. “Given HS’s known association with body image issues, we anticipated a higher prevalence of BDD,” he said. “This discrepancy may reflect underreporting or diagnostic overshadowing, where the physical symptoms of HS dominate clinical attention, potentially masking or complicating the identification of psychological conditions like BDD.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the potential for variations in documentation practices in the database. “Additionally, there may be bias due to underrepresentation of certain demographic groups or underreporting of psychological comorbidities, which could influence the findings.”

Patricia M. Richey, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, at Boston University School of Medicine in Massachusetts, who was asked to comment on the study, said the results “should affect how physicians discuss lifestyle recommendations in those already at increased risk of psychiatric disease and disrupted body image.” The findings should also “prompt physicians to screen this patient population more thoroughly for eating disorders as we know they are an underrecognized and often undertreated entity,” she added.

Neither the study authors nor Richey reported having relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) face a significantly increased risk for bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder, an analysis of national data showed.

“Clinicians should actively screen for eating disorders,” particularly bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder, in patients with HS,” lead study author Christopher Guirguis, DMD, a student at Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, told this news organization in advance of the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurative Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “The significant psychological burden in these patients requires a holistic approach that integrates both dermatologic and psychosocial care. Addressing their mental health needs is essential for improving overall patient outcomes and quality of life,” he added.

Chrisopher Guirguis

In collaboration with fellow Georgetown medical student and first author Lauren Chin and Mikael Horissian, MD, a dermatologist and director of the HS Clinic at Gesinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, Guirguis drew from the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program to identify 1653 individuals with a diagnosis of HS and a control group of 8265 individuals without a diagnosis of HS. They used the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership to identify anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, body dysmorphic disorder, binge eating disorder, and eating disorder, unspecified. Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) was also included because of its association with bulimia. They used statistical models to compare cohorts and comorbidities. “What makes this work unique is its focus on the link between HS and eating disorders, a relationship previously underexplored,” he said.

The mean age of the overall study cohort was 46.8 years, and 78.6% were female. Univariate analysis revealed that, compared with controls, individuals in the HS cohort showed significantly increased diagnoses of bulimia, binge eating disorder, OCD, and eating disorder, unspecified, by 2.6, 5.48, 2.50, and 2.43 times, respectively (P < .05 for all associations). After adjusting for age, race, sex, and ethnicity, the researchers observed that patients with HS were 4.46 times as likely to have a diagnosis of binge eating disorder and 3.51 times as likely to have a diagnosis of bulimia as those who did not have HS (P < .05 for both associations).

Guirguis said that the absence of body dysmorphic disorder diagnoses in the HS cohort was unexpected. “Given HS’s known association with body image issues, we anticipated a higher prevalence of BDD,” he said. “This discrepancy may reflect underreporting or diagnostic overshadowing, where the physical symptoms of HS dominate clinical attention, potentially masking or complicating the identification of psychological conditions like BDD.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the potential for variations in documentation practices in the database. “Additionally, there may be bias due to underrepresentation of certain demographic groups or underreporting of psychological comorbidities, which could influence the findings.”

Patricia M. Richey, MD, assistant professor of dermatology, at Boston University School of Medicine in Massachusetts, who was asked to comment on the study, said the results “should affect how physicians discuss lifestyle recommendations in those already at increased risk of psychiatric disease and disrupted body image.” The findings should also “prompt physicians to screen this patient population more thoroughly for eating disorders as we know they are an underrecognized and often undertreated entity,” she added.

Neither the study authors nor Richey reported having relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research explores the link between stroke risk and regular consumption of coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol. This research roundup reviews the latest findings, highlighting both promising insights and remaining uncertainties to help guide discussions with your patients.

Coffee and Tea: Good or Bad? 

In the INTERSTROKE study, high coffee consumption (> 4 cups daily) was associated with an significantly increased risk for all strokes (odds ratio [OR], 1.37) or ischemic stroke (OR, 1.31), while low to moderate coffee had no link to increased stroke risk. In contrast, tea consumption was associated with lower odds of all stroke (OR, 0.81 for highest intake) or ischemic stroke (OR, 0.81). 

In a recent UK Biobank study, consumption of coffee or tea was associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages. 

Specifically, the investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia versus those who did not.

A recent systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis showed that each daily cup increase in tea was associated with an average 4% reduced risk for stroke and a 2% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. 

The protective effect of coffee and tea on stroke risk may be driven, in part, by flavonoids, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as positive effects on vascular function.

“The advice to patients should be that coffee and tea may protect against stroke, but that sweetening either beverage with sugar probably should be minimized,” said Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and chair of the American Stroke Association (ASA) 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, a certified food scientist, said, “most people should consume a cup or two of unsweetened tea per day in moderation for cardiometabolic health. It is an easy step in the right direction for good health but not a cure-all.”

When it comes to coffee, adults who like it should drink it “in moderation — just lay off the cream and sugar,” said Wallace, adjunct associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

“A cup or two of black coffee with low-fat or nonfat milk with breakfast is a healthy way to start the day, especially when you’re like me and have an 8-year-old that is full of energy!” Wallace said. 
 

The Skinny on Soda

When it comes to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, showed a 16% increased risk for stroke with one or more daily servings of sugar-sweetened or low-calorie soda per day (vs none), independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors. 

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study of postmenopausal women, a higher intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk for all stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23), ischemic stroke (aHR, 1.31), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.29) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.16).

In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, consumption of one can of diet soda or more each day (vs none) was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for stroke and dementia over a 10-year follow-up period. 

A separate French study showed that total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased overall risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

However, given the limitations of these studies, it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, Wallace cautioned. 

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are correlated with weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction promotion in children and adults,” he said. 

Yet, “there really isn’t any convincing evidence that diet soda has much impact on human health at all. Most observational studies are mixed and likely very confounded by other diet and lifestyle factors. That doesn’t mean go overboard; a daily diet soda is probably fine, but that doesn’t mean go drink 10 of them every day,” he added. 
 

Alcohol: Moderation or Abstinence?

Evidence on alcohol use and stroke risk have been mixed over the years. For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily (one to two drinks in men and one drink in women) may be beneficial at reducing major vascular outcomes.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. And the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol use are clear. 

A large meta-analysis showed that light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) was associated with a reduced risk for ischemic stroke. However, heavy drinking (more than two drinks per day) significantly increased the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

A separate study showed young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk for stroke — and the risk increases with more years of imbibing.

In the INTERSTROKE study, high to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with increased stroke risk, whereas low alcohol consumption conferred no increased risk. 

However, Bushnell pointed out that the study data was derived from based on self-report, and that other healthy behaviors may counteract the risk for alcohol consumption.

“For alcohol, regardless of stroke risk, the most important data shows that any alcohol consumption is associated with worse cognitive function, so generally, the lower the alcohol consumption the better,” Bushnell said. 

She noted that, currently, the American Heart Association (AHA)/ASA recommend a maximum of two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women to reduce stroke risk.

“However, the data for the risk for cognitive impairment with any alcohol is convincing and should be kept in mind in addition to the maximum alcohol recommended by the AHA/ASA,” Bushnell advised. 

“We know excessive intake puts you at major risk for CVD, cancer, cognitive decline, and a whole host of other health ailments — no question there,” said Wallace.

The impact of moderate intake, on the other hand, is less clear. “Alcohol is a highly biased and political issue and the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides is shoddy at best,” Wallace added.

A key challenge is that accurate self-reporting of alcohol intake is difficult, even for scientists, and most studies rely on self-reported data from observational cohorts. These often include limited dietary assessments, which provide only a partial picture of long-term consumption patterns, Wallace noted. 

“The short answer is we don’t know if moderation is beneficial, detrimental, or null with respect to health,” he said.

Bushnell reports no relevant disclosures. Wallace (www.drtaylorwallace.com) is CEO of Think Healthy Group; editor of The Journal of Dietary Supplements, deputy editor of The Journal of the American Nutrition Association (www.nutrition.org), nutrition section editor of Annals of Medicine, and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research explores the link between stroke risk and regular consumption of coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol. This research roundup reviews the latest findings, highlighting both promising insights and remaining uncertainties to help guide discussions with your patients.

Coffee and Tea: Good or Bad? 

In the INTERSTROKE study, high coffee consumption (> 4 cups daily) was associated with an significantly increased risk for all strokes (odds ratio [OR], 1.37) or ischemic stroke (OR, 1.31), while low to moderate coffee had no link to increased stroke risk. In contrast, tea consumption was associated with lower odds of all stroke (OR, 0.81 for highest intake) or ischemic stroke (OR, 0.81). 

In a recent UK Biobank study, consumption of coffee or tea was associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages. 

Specifically, the investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia versus those who did not.

A recent systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis showed that each daily cup increase in tea was associated with an average 4% reduced risk for stroke and a 2% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. 

The protective effect of coffee and tea on stroke risk may be driven, in part, by flavonoids, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as positive effects on vascular function.

“The advice to patients should be that coffee and tea may protect against stroke, but that sweetening either beverage with sugar probably should be minimized,” said Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and chair of the American Stroke Association (ASA) 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, a certified food scientist, said, “most people should consume a cup or two of unsweetened tea per day in moderation for cardiometabolic health. It is an easy step in the right direction for good health but not a cure-all.”

When it comes to coffee, adults who like it should drink it “in moderation — just lay off the cream and sugar,” said Wallace, adjunct associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

“A cup or two of black coffee with low-fat or nonfat milk with breakfast is a healthy way to start the day, especially when you’re like me and have an 8-year-old that is full of energy!” Wallace said. 
 

The Skinny on Soda

When it comes to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, showed a 16% increased risk for stroke with one or more daily servings of sugar-sweetened or low-calorie soda per day (vs none), independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors. 

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study of postmenopausal women, a higher intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk for all stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23), ischemic stroke (aHR, 1.31), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.29) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.16).

In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, consumption of one can of diet soda or more each day (vs none) was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for stroke and dementia over a 10-year follow-up period. 

A separate French study showed that total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased overall risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

However, given the limitations of these studies, it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, Wallace cautioned. 

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are correlated with weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction promotion in children and adults,” he said. 

Yet, “there really isn’t any convincing evidence that diet soda has much impact on human health at all. Most observational studies are mixed and likely very confounded by other diet and lifestyle factors. That doesn’t mean go overboard; a daily diet soda is probably fine, but that doesn’t mean go drink 10 of them every day,” he added. 
 

Alcohol: Moderation or Abstinence?

Evidence on alcohol use and stroke risk have been mixed over the years. For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily (one to two drinks in men and one drink in women) may be beneficial at reducing major vascular outcomes.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. And the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol use are clear. 

A large meta-analysis showed that light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) was associated with a reduced risk for ischemic stroke. However, heavy drinking (more than two drinks per day) significantly increased the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

A separate study showed young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk for stroke — and the risk increases with more years of imbibing.

In the INTERSTROKE study, high to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with increased stroke risk, whereas low alcohol consumption conferred no increased risk. 

However, Bushnell pointed out that the study data was derived from based on self-report, and that other healthy behaviors may counteract the risk for alcohol consumption.

“For alcohol, regardless of stroke risk, the most important data shows that any alcohol consumption is associated with worse cognitive function, so generally, the lower the alcohol consumption the better,” Bushnell said. 

She noted that, currently, the American Heart Association (AHA)/ASA recommend a maximum of two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women to reduce stroke risk.

“However, the data for the risk for cognitive impairment with any alcohol is convincing and should be kept in mind in addition to the maximum alcohol recommended by the AHA/ASA,” Bushnell advised. 

“We know excessive intake puts you at major risk for CVD, cancer, cognitive decline, and a whole host of other health ailments — no question there,” said Wallace.

The impact of moderate intake, on the other hand, is less clear. “Alcohol is a highly biased and political issue and the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides is shoddy at best,” Wallace added.

A key challenge is that accurate self-reporting of alcohol intake is difficult, even for scientists, and most studies rely on self-reported data from observational cohorts. These often include limited dietary assessments, which provide only a partial picture of long-term consumption patterns, Wallace noted. 

“The short answer is we don’t know if moderation is beneficial, detrimental, or null with respect to health,” he said.

Bushnell reports no relevant disclosures. Wallace (www.drtaylorwallace.com) is CEO of Think Healthy Group; editor of The Journal of Dietary Supplements, deputy editor of The Journal of the American Nutrition Association (www.nutrition.org), nutrition section editor of Annals of Medicine, and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A growing body of research explores the link between stroke risk and regular consumption of coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol. This research roundup reviews the latest findings, highlighting both promising insights and remaining uncertainties to help guide discussions with your patients.

Coffee and Tea: Good or Bad? 

In the INTERSTROKE study, high coffee consumption (> 4 cups daily) was associated with an significantly increased risk for all strokes (odds ratio [OR], 1.37) or ischemic stroke (OR, 1.31), while low to moderate coffee had no link to increased stroke risk. In contrast, tea consumption was associated with lower odds of all stroke (OR, 0.81 for highest intake) or ischemic stroke (OR, 0.81). 

In a recent UK Biobank study, consumption of coffee or tea was associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages. 

Specifically, the investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia versus those who did not.

A recent systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis showed that each daily cup increase in tea was associated with an average 4% reduced risk for stroke and a 2% reduced risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. 

The protective effect of coffee and tea on stroke risk may be driven, in part, by flavonoids, which have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as positive effects on vascular function.

“The advice to patients should be that coffee and tea may protect against stroke, but that sweetening either beverage with sugar probably should be minimized,” said Cheryl Bushnell, MD, MHS, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and chair of the American Stroke Association (ASA) 2024 Guideline for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. 

Taylor Wallace, PhD, a certified food scientist, said, “most people should consume a cup or two of unsweetened tea per day in moderation for cardiometabolic health. It is an easy step in the right direction for good health but not a cure-all.”

When it comes to coffee, adults who like it should drink it “in moderation — just lay off the cream and sugar,” said Wallace, adjunct associate professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC, and Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts.

“A cup or two of black coffee with low-fat or nonfat milk with breakfast is a healthy way to start the day, especially when you’re like me and have an 8-year-old that is full of energy!” Wallace said. 
 

The Skinny on Soda

When it comes to sugar-sweetened and diet beverages, data from the Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, showed a 16% increased risk for stroke with one or more daily servings of sugar-sweetened or low-calorie soda per day (vs none), independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors. 

In the Women’s Health Initiative Observational Study of postmenopausal women, a higher intake of artificially sweetened beverages was associated with increased risk for all stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.23), ischemic stroke (aHR, 1.31), coronary heart disease (aHR, 1.29) and all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.16).

In the Framingham Heart Study Offspring cohort, consumption of one can of diet soda or more each day (vs none) was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk for stroke and dementia over a 10-year follow-up period. 

A separate French study showed that total artificial sweetener intake from all sources was associated with increased overall risk for cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.

However, given the limitations of these studies, it’s hard to draw any firm conclusions, Wallace cautioned. 

“We know that sugar-sweetened beverages are correlated with weight gain and cardiometabolic dysfunction promotion in children and adults,” he said. 

Yet, “there really isn’t any convincing evidence that diet soda has much impact on human health at all. Most observational studies are mixed and likely very confounded by other diet and lifestyle factors. That doesn’t mean go overboard; a daily diet soda is probably fine, but that doesn’t mean go drink 10 of them every day,” he added. 
 

Alcohol: Moderation or Abstinence?

Evidence on alcohol use and stroke risk have been mixed over the years. For decades, the evidence was suggestive that a moderate amount of alcohol daily (one to two drinks in men and one drink in women) may be beneficial at reducing major vascular outcomes.

Yet, over the past few years, some research has found no evidence of benefit with moderate alcohol intake. And the detrimental effects of excessive alcohol use are clear. 

A large meta-analysis showed that light to moderate alcohol consumption (up to one drink per day) was associated with a reduced risk for ischemic stroke. However, heavy drinking (more than two drinks per day) significantly increased the risk for both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke.

A separate study showed young adults who are moderate to heavy drinkers are at increased risk for stroke — and the risk increases with more years of imbibing.

In the INTERSTROKE study, high to moderate alcohol consumption was associated with increased stroke risk, whereas low alcohol consumption conferred no increased risk. 

However, Bushnell pointed out that the study data was derived from based on self-report, and that other healthy behaviors may counteract the risk for alcohol consumption.

“For alcohol, regardless of stroke risk, the most important data shows that any alcohol consumption is associated with worse cognitive function, so generally, the lower the alcohol consumption the better,” Bushnell said. 

She noted that, currently, the American Heart Association (AHA)/ASA recommend a maximum of two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women to reduce stroke risk.

“However, the data for the risk for cognitive impairment with any alcohol is convincing and should be kept in mind in addition to the maximum alcohol recommended by the AHA/ASA,” Bushnell advised. 

“We know excessive intake puts you at major risk for CVD, cancer, cognitive decline, and a whole host of other health ailments — no question there,” said Wallace.

The impact of moderate intake, on the other hand, is less clear. “Alcohol is a highly biased and political issue and the evidence (or lack thereof) on both sides is shoddy at best,” Wallace added.

A key challenge is that accurate self-reporting of alcohol intake is difficult, even for scientists, and most studies rely on self-reported data from observational cohorts. These often include limited dietary assessments, which provide only a partial picture of long-term consumption patterns, Wallace noted. 

“The short answer is we don’t know if moderation is beneficial, detrimental, or null with respect to health,” he said.

Bushnell reports no relevant disclosures. Wallace (www.drtaylorwallace.com) is CEO of Think Healthy Group; editor of The Journal of Dietary Supplements, deputy editor of The Journal of the American Nutrition Association (www.nutrition.org), nutrition section editor of Annals of Medicine, and an advisory board member with Forbes Health.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.

“We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations,” said coinvestigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier in 2024 that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.

Sands reported the new data in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL)–23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
 

GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset

In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.

Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.

Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.

The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.

Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.

The composite co–primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.

The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
 

Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups

In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.

Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200-mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).

Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.

“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.

Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.

“We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations,” said coinvestigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier in 2024 that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.

Sands reported the new data in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL)–23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
 

GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset

In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.

Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.

Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.

The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.

Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.

The composite co–primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.

The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
 

Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups

In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.

Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200-mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).

Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.

“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.

Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Guselkumab has been shown to be efficacious vs placebo in patients with moderately to severely active Crohn’s disease (CD), regardless of prior biologic therapy exposure, according to a pooled analysis of the two phase 3 double-blind GALAXI 2 and 3 studies.

“We found that guselkumab was effective in both biologic-naive and biologic-inadequate subpopulations,” said coinvestigator Bruce E. Sands, MD, AGAF, gastroenterologist from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City.

These latest results add to the primary results of these studies reported earlier in 2024 that guselkumab was shown to be superior to both placebo and ustekinumab in the same patient population with moderately to severely active CD.

Sands reported the new data in a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Guselkumab potently blocks interleukin (IL)–23 and binds to CD64, a receptor on cells that produce IL-23. The dual-acting IL-23p19 subunit inhibitor agent is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for moderately to severely active CD. In September, guselkumab (Tremfya, Johnson & Johnson) was approved for use in moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis.
 

GALAXI 2 and 3 Pooled Dataset

In the two independent, identically designed GALAXI 2 and 3 studies, patients were randomized to guselkumab treatment at either 200 mg intravenous (IV) induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 200 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 4 weeks, starting at week 12, or 200 mg IV induction at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by 100 mg subcutaneous maintenance every 8 weeks, starting at week 16; or to ustekinumab; or to placebo.

Participants were required to remain on their treatment of initial randomization for a long-term extension study (up to 5 years) looking at clinical, endoscopic, and safety outcomes, except for participants on placebo who were allowed to switch to ustekinumab if clinical response was not met at week 12.

Inclusion criteria for the studies comprised a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index score between 220 and 450, a mean daily stool frequency count > 3 or an abdominal pain score > 1, and a simple endoscopic score for CD score ≥ 6. Participants were also required to have shown an inadequate response or intolerance to oral corticosteroids, 6-mercaptopurine/azathioprine/methotrexate, or biologic therapies.

The pooled dataset included patients on either dose of guselkumab and patients on placebo (total n = 730). Of these, 52% of participants had shown a prior inadequate response to a biologic, 42% were biologic naive, and 6% had prior exposure to biologics but no documented failure. Patients on ustekinumab were not included in this analysis.

Almost all patients (97%) in the biologic-inadequate response group had previously received at least one anti–tumor necrosis factor agent, and around 15% had received vedolizumab. As expected, the biologic-inadequate responders were a lot sicker than the biologic-naive patients, Sands reported.

The composite co–primary endpoints for each guselkumab regimen vs placebo were clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, and clinical response at week 12 plus endoscopic response at week 48.

The major secondary endpoints comprised clinical remission at week 12 and endoscopic response also at week 12.
 

Short- and Long-Term Endpoints in Both Subgroups

In the biologic-naive subgroup, 54.7% of patients receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 51.7% of those receiving the 100-mg dose regimen showed a clinical response at week 12 plus clinical remission at week 48, compared with 11.5% in the placebo group (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

In the biologic-inadequate response group, 49.7% of those receiving the 200-mg dose regimen of guselkumab and 45.8% on the 100-mg dose regimen reached the composite endpoint, compared with the placebo response of 12.8% (P < .001 for both compared with placebo).

“You can see a slight decrease in response in the biologic-inadequate responders, but on the whole, the confidence intervals are highly overlapping,” said Sands.

Turning to major secondary endpoints at week 12, clinical remission was reached by 49.6% of the biologic-naive group on the 200-mg guselkumab regimen vs 16.4% on placebo, and by 46.0% of the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 19.2% on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups). Endoscopic response was achieved by 46.3% of patients in the biologic-naive group and 29.0% in the biologic-inadequate group on the 200-mg regimen vs 18.0% and 6.4%, respectively, on placebo (P < .001 for both subgroups).

Sands noted that the drug has an excellent safety profile.

“These data show the drug works for naive patients who have failed conventional therapies, as well as for those who have failed biologic therapies,” so it could be used as a first- or second-line biologic, he added.

Sands reported potential conflicts of interest with AbbVie, Abivax, Adiso Therapeutics, Agomab, Alimentiv, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Artugen Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Calibr, Celgene, Celltrion, ClostraBio, Equillium, Enthera, Evommune, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Genentech (Roche), Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Gossamer Bio, Index Pharmaceuticals, Innovation Pharmaceuticals, Inotrem, Janssen, Kaleido, Kallyope, Lilly, Merck, Microbiotica, Mobius Care, Morphic Therapeutic, MRM Health, Pfizer, Nexus Therapeutics, Nimbus Discovery, Odyssey Therapeutics, Progenity, Prometheus Biosciences, Prometheus Laboratories, Protagonist Therapeutics, Q32 Bio, Rasayana Therapeutics, Recludix Pharma, Reistone Biopharma, Sun Pharma, Surrozen, Target RWE, Takeda, Teva, Theravance Biopharma, TLL Pharmaceutical, Tr1X, UNION Therapeutics, and Ventyx Biosciences.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Researchers have determined a bidirectional relationship between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and type 1 diabetes (T1D), using both a cohort and case-control approach to analysis.

Their findings showed that patients with IBD had a moderately increased risk for T1D and higher odds of having prior T1D than the general population. These bidirectional associations were partially independent of shared familial factors.

Although the absolute risk for T1D is low in patients with IBD, these findings suggest that if there are nonspecific symptoms, such as weight loss and fatigue, which are typical of T1D but not of IBD, then it might be reasonable to test for diabetes, lead researcher Jiangwei Sun, PhD, postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told this news organization.

“Patients with IBD and T1D also tend to have worse disease outcomes for both diseases, but these two diseases are not recognized as comorbidities in the clinical guidelines,” he said.

Anecdotally, “many clinicians believe there is a higher risk of autoimmune disease in patients with IBD but not much attention is paid to type 1 diabetes,” he added.

Sun presented the study at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024. It was also published recently in The Lancet.
 

Exploring the Bidirectional Relationship 

Prior research in the form of a systematic review found no association between IBD and T1D, which was surprising, Sun said. Further studies found an association between IBD and incident T1D; however, these studies did not explore bidirectionality between the two diseases.

These studies also did not take shared genetic and environmental factors into consideration, though “there is known to be familial co-aggregation of IBD and T1D based on previous findings,” he said.

In this current study, Sun and colleagues compared patients with IBD with the general population, as well as with siblings without IBD to consider the potential influence of shared genetics and earlier environmental factors. 

The research used two approaches to look for a bidirectional association: A nationwide matched cohort study (IBD and incident T1D) and a case-control study (IBD and prior T1D).

The cohort study included 20,314 patients with IBD aged ≤ 28 years, who were identified between 1987 and 2017. Of these, 7277 had Crohn’s disease, 10,112 had ulcerative colitis, and 2925 had unclassified IBD. There were 99,200 individually matched reference individuals.

The case-control study included 87,001 patients with IBD (without age restriction) and 431,054 matched control individuals.

Risk ratios were calculated using an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of incident T1D in the cohort study and an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of prior T1D in the case-control study.

In the cohort study, the median follow-up was 14 years. Over that time, 116 patients with IBD and 353 reference individuals developed T1D. The aHR for a patient with IBD developing T1D was 1.58 (95% CI, 1.27-1.95). For patients with ulcerative colitis, the aHR of developing T1D increased to 2.02 (95% CI, 1.51-2.70); however, the association was not found for Crohn’s disease or unclassified IBD possibly because of the sample size of these latter categories, noted Sun.

In the case-control study, Sun and colleagues identified 1018 (1.2%) patients with IBD and 3496 (0.8%) control individuals who had been previously diagnosed with T1D. Patients with IBD had higher odds of having prior T1D than those without IBD (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46). This positive association was observed in all IBD subtypes, said Sun, who added that the sample size was larger in this analysis than in the cohort analysis.

Upon comparing patients with IBD with their siblings without IBD, analyses showed similar associations between IBD and T1D; the aHR was 1.44 (95% CI, 0.97-2.15) for developing T1D, and the aOR was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.18-1.49) for prior T1D.

That these positive associations between IBD and T1D exist even when comparing patients with IBD with their siblings without IBD suggests genetics and shared environmental factors do not fully explain the association, and that later environmental factors might play a role, said Sun.

“I’m not surprised with these results,” he added. “They make sense because we know that both IBD and T1D are immunity-related diseases and have some shared pathways.”

Commenting on the study, Tine Jess, MD, director, Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, PREDICT, Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark, said: “The really interesting finding here is that type 1 diabetes may precede IBD, which points toward common etiologies rather than one disease leading to the other.”

“This is in line with mounting evidence that IBD is measurable at the molecular level years prior to diagnosis,” she added.

Awareness of the bidirectional association may facilitate early detection of both conditions, Sun and his colleagues noted.

Sun reported no relevant financial relationships. Jess reported receiving consultancy fees from Ferring and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Researchers have determined a bidirectional relationship between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and type 1 diabetes (T1D), using both a cohort and case-control approach to analysis.

Their findings showed that patients with IBD had a moderately increased risk for T1D and higher odds of having prior T1D than the general population. These bidirectional associations were partially independent of shared familial factors.

Although the absolute risk for T1D is low in patients with IBD, these findings suggest that if there are nonspecific symptoms, such as weight loss and fatigue, which are typical of T1D but not of IBD, then it might be reasonable to test for diabetes, lead researcher Jiangwei Sun, PhD, postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told this news organization.

“Patients with IBD and T1D also tend to have worse disease outcomes for both diseases, but these two diseases are not recognized as comorbidities in the clinical guidelines,” he said.

Anecdotally, “many clinicians believe there is a higher risk of autoimmune disease in patients with IBD but not much attention is paid to type 1 diabetes,” he added.

Sun presented the study at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024. It was also published recently in The Lancet.
 

Exploring the Bidirectional Relationship 

Prior research in the form of a systematic review found no association between IBD and T1D, which was surprising, Sun said. Further studies found an association between IBD and incident T1D; however, these studies did not explore bidirectionality between the two diseases.

These studies also did not take shared genetic and environmental factors into consideration, though “there is known to be familial co-aggregation of IBD and T1D based on previous findings,” he said.

In this current study, Sun and colleagues compared patients with IBD with the general population, as well as with siblings without IBD to consider the potential influence of shared genetics and earlier environmental factors. 

The research used two approaches to look for a bidirectional association: A nationwide matched cohort study (IBD and incident T1D) and a case-control study (IBD and prior T1D).

The cohort study included 20,314 patients with IBD aged ≤ 28 years, who were identified between 1987 and 2017. Of these, 7277 had Crohn’s disease, 10,112 had ulcerative colitis, and 2925 had unclassified IBD. There were 99,200 individually matched reference individuals.

The case-control study included 87,001 patients with IBD (without age restriction) and 431,054 matched control individuals.

Risk ratios were calculated using an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of incident T1D in the cohort study and an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of prior T1D in the case-control study.

In the cohort study, the median follow-up was 14 years. Over that time, 116 patients with IBD and 353 reference individuals developed T1D. The aHR for a patient with IBD developing T1D was 1.58 (95% CI, 1.27-1.95). For patients with ulcerative colitis, the aHR of developing T1D increased to 2.02 (95% CI, 1.51-2.70); however, the association was not found for Crohn’s disease or unclassified IBD possibly because of the sample size of these latter categories, noted Sun.

In the case-control study, Sun and colleagues identified 1018 (1.2%) patients with IBD and 3496 (0.8%) control individuals who had been previously diagnosed with T1D. Patients with IBD had higher odds of having prior T1D than those without IBD (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46). This positive association was observed in all IBD subtypes, said Sun, who added that the sample size was larger in this analysis than in the cohort analysis.

Upon comparing patients with IBD with their siblings without IBD, analyses showed similar associations between IBD and T1D; the aHR was 1.44 (95% CI, 0.97-2.15) for developing T1D, and the aOR was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.18-1.49) for prior T1D.

That these positive associations between IBD and T1D exist even when comparing patients with IBD with their siblings without IBD suggests genetics and shared environmental factors do not fully explain the association, and that later environmental factors might play a role, said Sun.

“I’m not surprised with these results,” he added. “They make sense because we know that both IBD and T1D are immunity-related diseases and have some shared pathways.”

Commenting on the study, Tine Jess, MD, director, Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, PREDICT, Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark, said: “The really interesting finding here is that type 1 diabetes may precede IBD, which points toward common etiologies rather than one disease leading to the other.”

“This is in line with mounting evidence that IBD is measurable at the molecular level years prior to diagnosis,” she added.

Awareness of the bidirectional association may facilitate early detection of both conditions, Sun and his colleagues noted.

Sun reported no relevant financial relationships. Jess reported receiving consultancy fees from Ferring and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Researchers have determined a bidirectional relationship between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and type 1 diabetes (T1D), using both a cohort and case-control approach to analysis.

Their findings showed that patients with IBD had a moderately increased risk for T1D and higher odds of having prior T1D than the general population. These bidirectional associations were partially independent of shared familial factors.

Although the absolute risk for T1D is low in patients with IBD, these findings suggest that if there are nonspecific symptoms, such as weight loss and fatigue, which are typical of T1D but not of IBD, then it might be reasonable to test for diabetes, lead researcher Jiangwei Sun, PhD, postdoctoral researcher at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, told this news organization.

“Patients with IBD and T1D also tend to have worse disease outcomes for both diseases, but these two diseases are not recognized as comorbidities in the clinical guidelines,” he said.

Anecdotally, “many clinicians believe there is a higher risk of autoimmune disease in patients with IBD but not much attention is paid to type 1 diabetes,” he added.

Sun presented the study at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024. It was also published recently in The Lancet.
 

Exploring the Bidirectional Relationship 

Prior research in the form of a systematic review found no association between IBD and T1D, which was surprising, Sun said. Further studies found an association between IBD and incident T1D; however, these studies did not explore bidirectionality between the two diseases.

These studies also did not take shared genetic and environmental factors into consideration, though “there is known to be familial co-aggregation of IBD and T1D based on previous findings,” he said.

In this current study, Sun and colleagues compared patients with IBD with the general population, as well as with siblings without IBD to consider the potential influence of shared genetics and earlier environmental factors. 

The research used two approaches to look for a bidirectional association: A nationwide matched cohort study (IBD and incident T1D) and a case-control study (IBD and prior T1D).

The cohort study included 20,314 patients with IBD aged ≤ 28 years, who were identified between 1987 and 2017. Of these, 7277 had Crohn’s disease, 10,112 had ulcerative colitis, and 2925 had unclassified IBD. There were 99,200 individually matched reference individuals.

The case-control study included 87,001 patients with IBD (without age restriction) and 431,054 matched control individuals.

Risk ratios were calculated using an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of incident T1D in the cohort study and an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of prior T1D in the case-control study.

In the cohort study, the median follow-up was 14 years. Over that time, 116 patients with IBD and 353 reference individuals developed T1D. The aHR for a patient with IBD developing T1D was 1.58 (95% CI, 1.27-1.95). For patients with ulcerative colitis, the aHR of developing T1D increased to 2.02 (95% CI, 1.51-2.70); however, the association was not found for Crohn’s disease or unclassified IBD possibly because of the sample size of these latter categories, noted Sun.

In the case-control study, Sun and colleagues identified 1018 (1.2%) patients with IBD and 3496 (0.8%) control individuals who had been previously diagnosed with T1D. Patients with IBD had higher odds of having prior T1D than those without IBD (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46). This positive association was observed in all IBD subtypes, said Sun, who added that the sample size was larger in this analysis than in the cohort analysis.

Upon comparing patients with IBD with their siblings without IBD, analyses showed similar associations between IBD and T1D; the aHR was 1.44 (95% CI, 0.97-2.15) for developing T1D, and the aOR was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.18-1.49) for prior T1D.

That these positive associations between IBD and T1D exist even when comparing patients with IBD with their siblings without IBD suggests genetics and shared environmental factors do not fully explain the association, and that later environmental factors might play a role, said Sun.

“I’m not surprised with these results,” he added. “They make sense because we know that both IBD and T1D are immunity-related diseases and have some shared pathways.”

Commenting on the study, Tine Jess, MD, director, Center for Molecular Prediction of Inflammatory Bowel Disease, PREDICT, Aalborg University in Copenhagen, Denmark, said: “The really interesting finding here is that type 1 diabetes may precede IBD, which points toward common etiologies rather than one disease leading to the other.”

“This is in line with mounting evidence that IBD is measurable at the molecular level years prior to diagnosis,” she added.

Awareness of the bidirectional association may facilitate early detection of both conditions, Sun and his colleagues noted.

Sun reported no relevant financial relationships. Jess reported receiving consultancy fees from Ferring and Pfizer.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In a world that is more connected than ever, a silent epidemic is taking its toll. Overall, one in three US adults report chronic loneliness — a condition so detrimental that it rivals smoking and obesity with respect to its negative effect on health and well-being. From anxiety and depression to life-threatening conditions like cardiovascular disease, stroke, and Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, loneliness is more than an emotion — it’s a serious threat to both the brain and body.

In 2023, a US Surgeon General advisory raised the alarm about the national problem of loneliness and isolation, describing it as an epidemic.

“Given the significant health consequences of loneliness and isolation, we must prioritize building social connection in the same way we have prioritized other critical public health issues such as tobacco, obesity, and substance use disorders. Together, we can build a country that’s healthier, more resilient, less lonely, and more connected,” the report concluded.

But how, exactly, does chronic loneliness affect the physiology and function of the brain? What does the latest research reveal about the link between loneliness and neurologic and psychiatric illness, and what can clinicians do to address the issue?

This news organization spoke to multiple experts in the field to explore these issues.
 

A Major Risk Factor

Anna Finley, PhD, assistant professor of psychology at North Dakota State University, Fargo, explained that loneliness and social isolation are different entities. Social isolation is an objective measure of the number of people someone interacts with on a regular basis, whereas loneliness is a subjective feeling that occurs when close connections are lacking.

“These two things are not actually as related as you think they would be. People can feel lonely in a crowd or feel well connected with only a few friendships. It’s more about the quality of the connection and the quality of your perception of it. So someone could be in some very supportive relationships but still feel that there’s something missing,” she said in an interview.

So what do we know about how loneliness affects health? Evidence supporting the hypothesis that loneliness is an emerging risk factor for many diseases is steadily building.

Recently, the American Heart Association published a statement summarizing the evidence for a direct association between social isolation and loneliness and coronary heart disease and stroke mortality.

In addition, many studies have shown that individuals experiencing social isolation or loneliness have an increased risk for anxiety and depression, dementia, infectious disease, hospitalization, and all-cause death, even after adjusting for age and many other traditional risk factors.

One study revealed that eliminating loneliness has the potential to prevent nearly 20% of cases of depression in adults aged 50 years or older.

Indu Subramanian, MD, professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and colleagues conducted a study involving patients with Parkinson’s disease, which showed that the negative impact of loneliness on disease severity was as significant as the positive effects of 30 minutes of daily exercise.

“The importance of loneliness is under-recognized and undervalued, and it poses a major risk for health outcomes and quality of life,” said Subramanian.

Subramanian noted that loneliness is stigmatizing, causing people to feel unlikable and blame themselves, which prevents them from opening up to doctors or loved ones about their struggle. At the same time, healthcare providers may not think to ask about loneliness or know about potential interventions. She emphasized that much more work is needed to address this issue.
 

Early Mortality Risk

Julianne Holt-Lunstad, PhD, professor of psychology and neuroscience at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, is the author of two large meta-analyses that suggest loneliness, social isolation, or living alone are independent risk factors for early mortality, increasing this risk by about a third — the equivalent to the risk of smoking 15 cigarettes per day.

“We have quite robust evidence across a number of health outcomes implicating the harmful effects of loneliness and social isolation. While these are observational studies and show mainly associations, we do have evidence from longitudinal studies that show lacking social connection, whether that be loneliness or social isolation, predicts subsequent worse outcomes, and most of these studies have adjusted for alternative kinds of explanations, like age, initial health status, lifestyle factors,” Holt-Lunstad said.

There is some evidence to suggest that isolation is more predictive of physical health outcomes, whereas loneliness is more predictive of mental health outcomes. That said, both isolation and loneliness have significant effects on mental and physical health outcomes, she noted.

There is also the question of whether loneliness is causing poor health or whether people who are in poor health feel lonely because poor health can lead to social isolation.

Finley said there’s probably a bit of both going on, but longitudinal studies, where loneliness is measured at a fixed timepoint then health outcomes are reported a few years later, suggest that loneliness is contributing to these adverse outcomes.

She added that there is also some evidence in animal models to suggest that loneliness is a causal risk factor for adverse health outcomes. “But you can’t ask a mouse or rat how lonely they’re feeling. All you can do is house them individually — removing them from social connection. This isn’t necessarily the same thing as loneliness in humans.”

Finley is studying mechanisms in the brain that may be involved in mediating the adverse health consequences of loneliness.

“What I’ve been seeing in the data so far is that it tends to be the self-report of how lonely folks are feeling that has the associations with differences in the brain, as opposed to the number of social connections people have. It does seem to be the more subjective, emotional perception of loneliness that is important.”

In a review of potential mechanisms involved, she concluded that it is dysregulated emotions and altered perceptions of social interactions that has profound impacts on the brain, suggesting that people who are lonely may have a tendency to interpret social cues in a negative way, preventing them from forming productive positive relationships.
 

Lack of Trust

One researcher who has studied this phenomenon is Dirk Scheele, PhD, professor of social neuroscience at Ruhr University Bochum in Germany.

“We were interested to find out why people remained lonely,” he said in an interview. “Loneliness is an unpleasant experience, and there are so many opportunities for social contacts nowadays, it’s not really clear at first sight why people are chronically lonely.”

To examine this question, Scheele and his team conducted a study in which functional MRI was used to examine the brain in otherwise healthy individuals with high or low loneliness scores while they played a trust game.

They also simulated a positive social interaction between participants and researchers, in which they talked about plans for a fictitious lottery win, and about their hobbies and interests, during which mood was measured with questionnaires, and saliva samples were collected to measure hormone levels.

Results showed that the high-lonely individuals had reduced activation in the insula cortex during the trust decisions. “This area of the brain is involved in the processing of bodily signals, such as ‘gut feelings.’ So reduced activity here could be interpreted as fewer gut feelings on who can be trusted,” Scheele explained.

The high-lonely individuals also had reduced responsiveness to the positive social interaction with a lower release of oxytocin and a smaller elevation in mood compared with the control individuals.

Scheele pointed out that there is some evidence that oxytocin might increase trust, and there is reduced release of endogenous oxytocin in high loneliness.

“Our results are consistent with the idea that loneliness is associated with negative biases about other people. So if we expect negative things from other people — for instance, that they cannot be trusted — then that would hamper further social interactions and could lead to loneliness,” he added.