My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

My young patient with type 1 diabetes (T1D) had her cell phone out to provide a share code for her Dexcom clarity app as she was checking into her visit. As my nurse was recording the code, the patient asked him, “Hey, can you add me on Snapchat?”

Her father scrolled through his own Facebook feed in the chair next to her, showing no concern that his daughter was looking to connect with an adult on a social media platform. Meanwhile, we were all grateful that the little girl, who had had a seizure due to hypoglycemia in her preschool and pre–continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) years, had access to the tools harnessed within the sparkly encased phone she held in her small hands. But did anyone in the room fully understand the potential dangers?

We are living in an exhilarating era of diabetes technology, a treatment environment that I couldn’t have dreamed of during my pediatric endocrinology fellowship. T1D is a volatile condition that changes day to day, especially in growing children. A short decade ago, the best CGM available was a bulky device on loan to patients for 3 days at a time. Information was later downloaded in-office to get a better idea of general glucose trends, if insurance would approve its use at all.

Now, we have a variety of very wearable and accurate disposable CGMs accessible to most patients. Every major insulin pump has available closed-loop capabilities. Some patients can dose from apps on their cell phones rather than juggle another device or draw attention to an insulin pump at the cafeteria table.

These developments have been game changers for children and teenagers with diabetes and for their families. When wondering whether an athlete’s dazed appearance on a soccer field was due to hypoglycemia, a parent no longer must demand that a coach pull the player – a quick glance at a smartphone app can verify the blood glucose and change rate. Children can use programs and search engines to quickly verify carbohydrate counts. Life360 and other tracking programs have increased parental feelings of security, especially with young drivers living with a chronic medical condition.

The inevitable outcome of this available technology is that children living with T1D are given cell phones far earlier than are their siblings or peers owing to “necessity.” Parents understandably want a means to stay in close contact with their children in case of a medical emergency. As a physician and mother of young children, I am thankful for the technology that keeps my patients safer and that allows them to fully participate in everything from sports to travel to an uninterrupted night’s sleep. But I am also growing more concerned that we have not completely counted the cost of early smartphone use in children.

Smartphone presence in classrooms empowers teachers, students, parents, and school nurses to be aware of glycemic trends and prevent hypoglycemic emergencies. Smartphones have also shown to be a major distraction in that setting, causing many schools to ban their use entirely. Video apps such as YouTube and TikTok can provide a wealth of support and medical information but may also open the door to misinformation and dangerous social contagion, particularly surrounding disordered eating. Informative podcasts such as The Juicebox Podcast and online forums provide incredible support for families, but the constant siren call of a phone in their pockets leads to distracted parents constantly tending to other conversations or responding to ever more demanding employers rather than focusing on face-to-face education sessions.

The Surgeon General recently released a report concerning social media use in children. This eye-opening report revealed that one-third of children admitted to using their cell phones “almost constantly.” Social media use is associated with higher rates of anxiety and depression, especially in teen girls. This is particularly concerning for children with T1D, who are more likely to suffer from these conditions.

Beyond mental health concerns, especially to developing brains, unfettered Internet use increases the risk that children are exposed to predators and harmful content. The online safety monitoring platform Bark shared data from its 2021 surveillance. Bark found that 72% of tweens and 85% of teens were involved in an online bullying situation. Sixty-nine percent of tweens and 91% of teens encountered nudity or sexual content. Ten percent of tweens and 21% of teens encountered predatory behavior.

These alarming finds mirror the prevalence suggested by conversations in my office. I hear reports of my patients sneaking out at night to meet adults they met through social media, having suicidal ideation and attempts after Internet bullying, and sharing earnest belief in bizarre conspiracy theories gleaned from online forums that lead to dangerous health care practices.

Furthermore, time is a finite resource. Teens who are spending an average of 3.5 hours daily on their devices are running out of time to play, study, and grow extracurricular interests. My friend who coaches high school baseball lamented recently the poor athleticism in his recent teams. He theorized that his players had spent their summers on tablets rather than playing catch or climbing trees. The resulting declines in exercise in young people only serve to worsen the childhood obesity epidemic.

What is a concerned parent to do? First, all phones have controls that allow parents to choose which apps are allowed and which are blocked. Caregivers must understand how various social media platforms work. Installing programs such as Bark provides an additional layer of monitoring, though these are no substitute for parental vigilance. Importantly, parents should talk to their children about their concerns regarding social media.

Sadly, I have often noticed that caregivers pity the extra hardships their children endure as the result of T1D and other chronic diseases. Being lax with rules to attempt to compensate for other suffering is far too tempting. The goal is for children and teens living with T1D to have a full and normal childhood, and unrestricted smartphone access and early social media use should not be the goal for any child. For every family, a media use plan is a smart approach. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests several commonsense steps to use technology wisely, and parents often must address their own relationships with their devices to model healthy engagement.

As health care professionals, we owe it to our patients to discuss the ups and downs of technology with our patients. We can’t ostrich our way through this. We can point our patients and families to supportive groups such as Osprey (Old School Parents Raising Engaged Youth), founded by Ben and Erin Napier from the HGTV show Home Town along with my college friends Taylor and Dr. Catherine Sledge. Wait Until 8th provides information and motivation for parents to make wise choices regarding phone use for their children. The documentary Childhood 2.0 is another compelling resource developed by pediatric emergency physician Dr. Free Hess and her team that summarizes many of these concerns.

In another decade, many of these dangers will be far clearer. As ubiquitous as smartphone misuse is in our society, I remain hopeful that our society will change its behaviors. Just because “everyone else” allows an unhealthy relationship with technology doesn’t mean that we should for our children.

When I was a child, smoking was glamorized in movies and restaurants had dedicated smoking sections. After strong public policy efforts, many geared toward children, smoking is now almost unthinkable. My 8-year-old asked me lately whether a lady smoking a cigarette in the car next to us would have to go to jail. I chose a career in pediatrics because I am an optimist at my very core. We can’t ignore the dangers associated with the wide door opened by mobile devices. We can celebrate the benefits while clearly facing the pitfalls.

Dr. Lilley is director of the pediatric diabetes and lipid program at the Mississippi Center for Advanced Medicine, Madison. She reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Before the pandemic, most of the public probably had a fleeting and limited familiarity with lateral flow tests (LFTs), also known as rapid antigen tests. Perhaps they used, or awaited the results of, a lateral flow home pregnancy test, which detects human chorionic gonadotropin in urine.

Then came COVID-19, and the need for large-scale testing. By late 2022, more than 3 billion tests for SARS-CoV-2 had been done worldwide. Although testing with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID, LFTs made possible large-scale testing at low cost with rapid results.

As of Sept. 12, the Food and Drug Administration lists 32 rapid antigen tests with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for home use.

Now, many experts conclude, it’s time to expand the role of LFTs so the technology can help detect a host of other diseases. In a Nature Reviews bioengineering report, global experts from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries pointed out that commercial LFTs are currently not available for four of the eight known priority diseases of epidemic potential: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Nipah and other henipaviruses, and Rift Valley fever.

It is prime time, these experts and others contend, to build a global network of LFT research and development hubs to strengthen diagnostic capability.

Expansion should not only include more tests for more diseases, some experts say, but also make use of existing technology to provide “full-circle” care. After a rapid test, for instance, users could download a mobile phone app, transmit the results to their health care provider, and then set up an appointment if needed or get a prescribed medication at the pharmacy.
 

Medical community on board

Clinicians support increased availability of LFTs, said Eric J. Topol, MD, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif.“Rapid antigen tests are critical, made a big difference in the pandemic, and will be used increasingly for many other applications in the years ahead,” Dr. Topol said in an email.

Physicians welcome their potential, agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. At the start of the pandemic, when he was briefed about a lateral flow device in development, he said, “I was blown away by the technology, ease of use, rapidity of getting a result, its reasonable accuracy and its anticipated relatively low price.”

Clinicians would probably see many advantages to having more LFTs for more diseases, Dr. Schaffner said, because they are of use not only at home but also in doctors’ offices and in emergency departments. Their increased use “would help [people] make quick decisions about treatment, especially for flu and COVID.”
 

How LFTs work

LFTs are capable of targeting antigens, such as for the COVID tests, and antibodies such as IgG or IgM. The tests are also capable of detecting nucleic acids, although the availability of these tests is currently rare.

First, a sample from blood, urine, saliva or other bodily sources is placed onto a sample pad. It travels to a conjugate pad containing antibodies. If the target being looked for is present, the target and antibodies bind and, as the sample moves along to the test line, produces a positive result line along with the control line (to show that the test worked).
 

Global market outlook

By 2030, the lateral flow assays market is predicted to rise to $14.1 billion, according to a report issued in September by the firm Research and Markets. In 2022, the market was estimated at $9.4 billion, with $3.6 billion of that in the United States.

The report details the performances of 55 major competitors, such as Abbott Laboratories, Siemens, and QuidelOrtho, but smaller companies and start-ups are also involved in LFT development.
 

LFTs: Pros and cons

Although LFTs give rapid results, their accuracy is lower than that of PCR, especially the sensitivity. For COVID antigen LFTs, the sensitivity ranges from 34.1% to 88.1%, with an overall specificity of 99.6%, according to a Cochrane Review report. The analytical sensitivity performance of PCR testing for COVID is near 100%.

Everyone acknowledges the accuracy challenge of LFTs. The technologies “are generally thought to have limitations of detection that for some applications may present a challenge,” said Douglas C. Bryant, president and CEO of QuidelOrtho, San Diego, which counts the QuickVue rapid test for COVID detection among its products.

However, Mr. Bryant added, “as we saw during the pandemic, there was a place for more sensitive PCR-based technologies that are often run in a lab and there was a place for the use of rapid tests: The key is knowing the strengths and best use cases when applying the different technologies.”

One strength, he said, was that the tests “were shown to be highly effective at detecting active, infectious cases of SARS-CoV-2 and the rapid turnaround time allowed patients to isolate themselves from others quickly to help curb the spread of infection to others.” Another advantage was the ability to screen high-risk populations such as nursing homes to detect positive cases and help prevent outbreaks.

The pandemic familiarized people with the tests, said Jeremy Stackawitz, CEO of Senzo, a start-up in vitro diagnostics company developing an amplified LFT platform for rapid tests for flu, tuberculosis, COVID, and Clostridioides difficile. People liked using them. Physicians generally accepted them. It works great with tele-doc. It works great with personalized medicine.

Now, he said, people used to the COVID self-tests are asking: “Where is my strep test? Where is my sexual health test?”
 

FDA’s perspective on LFTs

The FDA has no one-size-fits-all standard for evaluating LFTs.

“LFTs are evaluated with respect to their individual indications and the pathway under which they are being reviewed,” said James McKinney, an FDA spokesperson. “A performance recommendation for one type of lateral flow test may not be appropriate for another.”

EUAs, such as those given for the COVID at-home tests, require different levels of evidence than traditional premarket review, he said, whether de novo marketing authorization, 510(k) premarket notification, or premarket approval. The EUAs are evaluated with a risk-benefit analysis to speed up the time it takes to make the devices available.

And, Mr. McKinney said, for some devices, the FDA provides recommendations on the expected performance through guidance documents. For instance, for rapid devices developed to detect influenza A virus antigen, the FDA recommends including enough sample to generate sensitivity of greater than 60% and testing at least 50 samples.
 

LFTs: The potential, the challenges

Mr. Stackawitz predicted that, as more LFT self-tests become available, more people will seek care, just as they did with the COVID rapid tests. A 22-year-old who thinks he has chlamydia may balk at going to a doctor right away. However, “if he can go buy a soda and a test at CVS, it’s different, it really is. With a little anonymity, people will seek care.”

He has a vision shared by other experts: That testing technology will evolve so that after getting the results at home, people would follow through by sending those results to their health care provider and obtaining needed care or medication. In his opinion, this is superior to the traditional way, which often involves visiting a doctor with symptoms, going for tests, waiting for results, and then beginning treatment.

“It would make more sense if you came in knowing your results,” Mr. Stackawitz said. “It’s a much smarter pathway, gives better outcomes for the patient, is much quicker and at much less cost. And it frees up time for doctors. I think most physicians would embrace that.”

Although rapid testing is gaining well-deserved recognition, funding is an issue, according to the Nature Reviews report. Those experts warned that “a reduction in funding for LFT research post COVID-19 may hamper efforts to capitalize on gains in decentralized testing, especially self-testing, which may be critical to address future pandemic threats.”

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

Before the pandemic, most of the public probably had a fleeting and limited familiarity with lateral flow tests (LFTs), also known as rapid antigen tests. Perhaps they used, or awaited the results of, a lateral flow home pregnancy test, which detects human chorionic gonadotropin in urine.

Then came COVID-19, and the need for large-scale testing. By late 2022, more than 3 billion tests for SARS-CoV-2 had been done worldwide. Although testing with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID, LFTs made possible large-scale testing at low cost with rapid results.

As of Sept. 12, the Food and Drug Administration lists 32 rapid antigen tests with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for home use.

Now, many experts conclude, it’s time to expand the role of LFTs so the technology can help detect a host of other diseases. In a Nature Reviews bioengineering report, global experts from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries pointed out that commercial LFTs are currently not available for four of the eight known priority diseases of epidemic potential: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Nipah and other henipaviruses, and Rift Valley fever.

It is prime time, these experts and others contend, to build a global network of LFT research and development hubs to strengthen diagnostic capability.

Expansion should not only include more tests for more diseases, some experts say, but also make use of existing technology to provide “full-circle” care. After a rapid test, for instance, users could download a mobile phone app, transmit the results to their health care provider, and then set up an appointment if needed or get a prescribed medication at the pharmacy.
 

Medical community on board

Clinicians support increased availability of LFTs, said Eric J. Topol, MD, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif.“Rapid antigen tests are critical, made a big difference in the pandemic, and will be used increasingly for many other applications in the years ahead,” Dr. Topol said in an email.

Physicians welcome their potential, agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. At the start of the pandemic, when he was briefed about a lateral flow device in development, he said, “I was blown away by the technology, ease of use, rapidity of getting a result, its reasonable accuracy and its anticipated relatively low price.”

Clinicians would probably see many advantages to having more LFTs for more diseases, Dr. Schaffner said, because they are of use not only at home but also in doctors’ offices and in emergency departments. Their increased use “would help [people] make quick decisions about treatment, especially for flu and COVID.”
 

How LFTs work

LFTs are capable of targeting antigens, such as for the COVID tests, and antibodies such as IgG or IgM. The tests are also capable of detecting nucleic acids, although the availability of these tests is currently rare.

First, a sample from blood, urine, saliva or other bodily sources is placed onto a sample pad. It travels to a conjugate pad containing antibodies. If the target being looked for is present, the target and antibodies bind and, as the sample moves along to the test line, produces a positive result line along with the control line (to show that the test worked).
 

Global market outlook

By 2030, the lateral flow assays market is predicted to rise to $14.1 billion, according to a report issued in September by the firm Research and Markets. In 2022, the market was estimated at $9.4 billion, with $3.6 billion of that in the United States.

The report details the performances of 55 major competitors, such as Abbott Laboratories, Siemens, and QuidelOrtho, but smaller companies and start-ups are also involved in LFT development.
 

LFTs: Pros and cons

Although LFTs give rapid results, their accuracy is lower than that of PCR, especially the sensitivity. For COVID antigen LFTs, the sensitivity ranges from 34.1% to 88.1%, with an overall specificity of 99.6%, according to a Cochrane Review report. The analytical sensitivity performance of PCR testing for COVID is near 100%.

Everyone acknowledges the accuracy challenge of LFTs. The technologies “are generally thought to have limitations of detection that for some applications may present a challenge,” said Douglas C. Bryant, president and CEO of QuidelOrtho, San Diego, which counts the QuickVue rapid test for COVID detection among its products.

However, Mr. Bryant added, “as we saw during the pandemic, there was a place for more sensitive PCR-based technologies that are often run in a lab and there was a place for the use of rapid tests: The key is knowing the strengths and best use cases when applying the different technologies.”

One strength, he said, was that the tests “were shown to be highly effective at detecting active, infectious cases of SARS-CoV-2 and the rapid turnaround time allowed patients to isolate themselves from others quickly to help curb the spread of infection to others.” Another advantage was the ability to screen high-risk populations such as nursing homes to detect positive cases and help prevent outbreaks.

The pandemic familiarized people with the tests, said Jeremy Stackawitz, CEO of Senzo, a start-up in vitro diagnostics company developing an amplified LFT platform for rapid tests for flu, tuberculosis, COVID, and Clostridioides difficile. People liked using them. Physicians generally accepted them. It works great with tele-doc. It works great with personalized medicine.

Now, he said, people used to the COVID self-tests are asking: “Where is my strep test? Where is my sexual health test?”
 

FDA’s perspective on LFTs

The FDA has no one-size-fits-all standard for evaluating LFTs.

“LFTs are evaluated with respect to their individual indications and the pathway under which they are being reviewed,” said James McKinney, an FDA spokesperson. “A performance recommendation for one type of lateral flow test may not be appropriate for another.”

EUAs, such as those given for the COVID at-home tests, require different levels of evidence than traditional premarket review, he said, whether de novo marketing authorization, 510(k) premarket notification, or premarket approval. The EUAs are evaluated with a risk-benefit analysis to speed up the time it takes to make the devices available.

And, Mr. McKinney said, for some devices, the FDA provides recommendations on the expected performance through guidance documents. For instance, for rapid devices developed to detect influenza A virus antigen, the FDA recommends including enough sample to generate sensitivity of greater than 60% and testing at least 50 samples.
 

LFTs: The potential, the challenges

Mr. Stackawitz predicted that, as more LFT self-tests become available, more people will seek care, just as they did with the COVID rapid tests. A 22-year-old who thinks he has chlamydia may balk at going to a doctor right away. However, “if he can go buy a soda and a test at CVS, it’s different, it really is. With a little anonymity, people will seek care.”

He has a vision shared by other experts: That testing technology will evolve so that after getting the results at home, people would follow through by sending those results to their health care provider and obtaining needed care or medication. In his opinion, this is superior to the traditional way, which often involves visiting a doctor with symptoms, going for tests, waiting for results, and then beginning treatment.

“It would make more sense if you came in knowing your results,” Mr. Stackawitz said. “It’s a much smarter pathway, gives better outcomes for the patient, is much quicker and at much less cost. And it frees up time for doctors. I think most physicians would embrace that.”

Although rapid testing is gaining well-deserved recognition, funding is an issue, according to the Nature Reviews report. Those experts warned that “a reduction in funding for LFT research post COVID-19 may hamper efforts to capitalize on gains in decentralized testing, especially self-testing, which may be critical to address future pandemic threats.”

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

Before the pandemic, most of the public probably had a fleeting and limited familiarity with lateral flow tests (LFTs), also known as rapid antigen tests. Perhaps they used, or awaited the results of, a lateral flow home pregnancy test, which detects human chorionic gonadotropin in urine.

Then came COVID-19, and the need for large-scale testing. By late 2022, more than 3 billion tests for SARS-CoV-2 had been done worldwide. Although testing with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is the gold standard for diagnosing COVID, LFTs made possible large-scale testing at low cost with rapid results.

As of Sept. 12, the Food and Drug Administration lists 32 rapid antigen tests with emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for home use.

Now, many experts conclude, it’s time to expand the role of LFTs so the technology can help detect a host of other diseases. In a Nature Reviews bioengineering report, global experts from the United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries pointed out that commercial LFTs are currently not available for four of the eight known priority diseases of epidemic potential: Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, Nipah and other henipaviruses, and Rift Valley fever.

It is prime time, these experts and others contend, to build a global network of LFT research and development hubs to strengthen diagnostic capability.

Expansion should not only include more tests for more diseases, some experts say, but also make use of existing technology to provide “full-circle” care. After a rapid test, for instance, users could download a mobile phone app, transmit the results to their health care provider, and then set up an appointment if needed or get a prescribed medication at the pharmacy.
 

Medical community on board

Clinicians support increased availability of LFTs, said Eric J. Topol, MD, professor and executive vice president of Scripps Research, La Jolla, Calif.“Rapid antigen tests are critical, made a big difference in the pandemic, and will be used increasingly for many other applications in the years ahead,” Dr. Topol said in an email.

Physicians welcome their potential, agreed William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. At the start of the pandemic, when he was briefed about a lateral flow device in development, he said, “I was blown away by the technology, ease of use, rapidity of getting a result, its reasonable accuracy and its anticipated relatively low price.”

Clinicians would probably see many advantages to having more LFTs for more diseases, Dr. Schaffner said, because they are of use not only at home but also in doctors’ offices and in emergency departments. Their increased use “would help [people] make quick decisions about treatment, especially for flu and COVID.”
 

How LFTs work

LFTs are capable of targeting antigens, such as for the COVID tests, and antibodies such as IgG or IgM. The tests are also capable of detecting nucleic acids, although the availability of these tests is currently rare.

First, a sample from blood, urine, saliva or other bodily sources is placed onto a sample pad. It travels to a conjugate pad containing antibodies. If the target being looked for is present, the target and antibodies bind and, as the sample moves along to the test line, produces a positive result line along with the control line (to show that the test worked).
 

Global market outlook

By 2030, the lateral flow assays market is predicted to rise to $14.1 billion, according to a report issued in September by the firm Research and Markets. In 2022, the market was estimated at $9.4 billion, with $3.6 billion of that in the United States.

The report details the performances of 55 major competitors, such as Abbott Laboratories, Siemens, and QuidelOrtho, but smaller companies and start-ups are also involved in LFT development.
 

LFTs: Pros and cons

Although LFTs give rapid results, their accuracy is lower than that of PCR, especially the sensitivity. For COVID antigen LFTs, the sensitivity ranges from 34.1% to 88.1%, with an overall specificity of 99.6%, according to a Cochrane Review report. The analytical sensitivity performance of PCR testing for COVID is near 100%.

Everyone acknowledges the accuracy challenge of LFTs. The technologies “are generally thought to have limitations of detection that for some applications may present a challenge,” said Douglas C. Bryant, president and CEO of QuidelOrtho, San Diego, which counts the QuickVue rapid test for COVID detection among its products.

However, Mr. Bryant added, “as we saw during the pandemic, there was a place for more sensitive PCR-based technologies that are often run in a lab and there was a place for the use of rapid tests: The key is knowing the strengths and best use cases when applying the different technologies.”

One strength, he said, was that the tests “were shown to be highly effective at detecting active, infectious cases of SARS-CoV-2 and the rapid turnaround time allowed patients to isolate themselves from others quickly to help curb the spread of infection to others.” Another advantage was the ability to screen high-risk populations such as nursing homes to detect positive cases and help prevent outbreaks.

The pandemic familiarized people with the tests, said Jeremy Stackawitz, CEO of Senzo, a start-up in vitro diagnostics company developing an amplified LFT platform for rapid tests for flu, tuberculosis, COVID, and Clostridioides difficile. People liked using them. Physicians generally accepted them. It works great with tele-doc. It works great with personalized medicine.

Now, he said, people used to the COVID self-tests are asking: “Where is my strep test? Where is my sexual health test?”
 

FDA’s perspective on LFTs

The FDA has no one-size-fits-all standard for evaluating LFTs.

“LFTs are evaluated with respect to their individual indications and the pathway under which they are being reviewed,” said James McKinney, an FDA spokesperson. “A performance recommendation for one type of lateral flow test may not be appropriate for another.”

EUAs, such as those given for the COVID at-home tests, require different levels of evidence than traditional premarket review, he said, whether de novo marketing authorization, 510(k) premarket notification, or premarket approval. The EUAs are evaluated with a risk-benefit analysis to speed up the time it takes to make the devices available.

And, Mr. McKinney said, for some devices, the FDA provides recommendations on the expected performance through guidance documents. For instance, for rapid devices developed to detect influenza A virus antigen, the FDA recommends including enough sample to generate sensitivity of greater than 60% and testing at least 50 samples.
 

LFTs: The potential, the challenges

Mr. Stackawitz predicted that, as more LFT self-tests become available, more people will seek care, just as they did with the COVID rapid tests. A 22-year-old who thinks he has chlamydia may balk at going to a doctor right away. However, “if he can go buy a soda and a test at CVS, it’s different, it really is. With a little anonymity, people will seek care.”

He has a vision shared by other experts: That testing technology will evolve so that after getting the results at home, people would follow through by sending those results to their health care provider and obtaining needed care or medication. In his opinion, this is superior to the traditional way, which often involves visiting a doctor with symptoms, going for tests, waiting for results, and then beginning treatment.

“It would make more sense if you came in knowing your results,” Mr. Stackawitz said. “It’s a much smarter pathway, gives better outcomes for the patient, is much quicker and at much less cost. And it frees up time for doctors. I think most physicians would embrace that.”

Although rapid testing is gaining well-deserved recognition, funding is an issue, according to the Nature Reviews report. Those experts warned that “a reduction in funding for LFT research post COVID-19 may hamper efforts to capitalize on gains in decentralized testing, especially self-testing, which may be critical to address future pandemic threats.”

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with both systemic sclerosis (SSc) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are more likely to be female, Black, and diagnosed with limited cutaneous SSc.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used the 2019 SLE classification criteria from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology to identify patients with SSc who also met criteria for SLE at a single academic center.
• The study population included 402 adults with SSc.
• The researchers compared demographics, laboratory data, clinical features, and mortality between patients with SSc-SLE and patients with SSc only.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 402 patients with SSc who were analyzed, 40 (10%) met the 2019 EULAR/ACR Classification Criteria for SLE.
• Patients with both SSc and SLE were significantly more likely to be female and Black, which is consistent with previous studies; patients with both conditions also were more likely than those with SSc alone to have limited cutaneous SSc (75% vs. 52.2%; P = .006).
• The prevalence of anti-U1-RNP antibody positivity, a classic marker for mixed connective tissue disease, was 30% in SSc-SLE patients and 6.6% in those with SSc only (P < .001).
• Mortality was similar between the two groups, and similar rates were also seen between the two for severe SSc-related end-organ damage, including pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and scleroderma renal crisis.

IN PRACTICE:

The results highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the SSc-SLE overlap syndrome and to watch for scleroderma organ involvement in patients with features of SLE, Raynaud syndrome, anti-U1-RNP antibody positivity, or an isolated nucleolar pattern of antinuclear antibodies.

SOURCE:

First author Ronald D. Bass, MD, MBA, of Georgetown University, Washington, and colleagues published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The primary cohort was designed to compare Black to non-Black patients with SSc, and the process of matching these patients may have introduced unmeasured selection bias. Also, since the study was based on classification criteria and not diagnostic criteria, the overlapping patients may not reflect patients with true overlapping of both conditions.

DISCLOSURES:

No outside funding source was listed by the authors. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with both systemic sclerosis (SSc) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are more likely to be female, Black, and diagnosed with limited cutaneous SSc.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used the 2019 SLE classification criteria from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology to identify patients with SSc who also met criteria for SLE at a single academic center.
• The study population included 402 adults with SSc.
• The researchers compared demographics, laboratory data, clinical features, and mortality between patients with SSc-SLE and patients with SSc only.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 402 patients with SSc who were analyzed, 40 (10%) met the 2019 EULAR/ACR Classification Criteria for SLE.
• Patients with both SSc and SLE were significantly more likely to be female and Black, which is consistent with previous studies; patients with both conditions also were more likely than those with SSc alone to have limited cutaneous SSc (75% vs. 52.2%; P = .006).
• The prevalence of anti-U1-RNP antibody positivity, a classic marker for mixed connective tissue disease, was 30% in SSc-SLE patients and 6.6% in those with SSc only (P < .001).
• Mortality was similar between the two groups, and similar rates were also seen between the two for severe SSc-related end-organ damage, including pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and scleroderma renal crisis.

IN PRACTICE:

The results highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the SSc-SLE overlap syndrome and to watch for scleroderma organ involvement in patients with features of SLE, Raynaud syndrome, anti-U1-RNP antibody positivity, or an isolated nucleolar pattern of antinuclear antibodies.

SOURCE:

First author Ronald D. Bass, MD, MBA, of Georgetown University, Washington, and colleagues published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The primary cohort was designed to compare Black to non-Black patients with SSc, and the process of matching these patients may have introduced unmeasured selection bias. Also, since the study was based on classification criteria and not diagnostic criteria, the overlapping patients may not reflect patients with true overlapping of both conditions.

DISCLOSURES:

No outside funding source was listed by the authors. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with both systemic sclerosis (SSc) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) are more likely to be female, Black, and diagnosed with limited cutaneous SSc.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used the 2019 SLE classification criteria from the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology to identify patients with SSc who also met criteria for SLE at a single academic center.
• The study population included 402 adults with SSc.
• The researchers compared demographics, laboratory data, clinical features, and mortality between patients with SSc-SLE and patients with SSc only.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 402 patients with SSc who were analyzed, 40 (10%) met the 2019 EULAR/ACR Classification Criteria for SLE.
• Patients with both SSc and SLE were significantly more likely to be female and Black, which is consistent with previous studies; patients with both conditions also were more likely than those with SSc alone to have limited cutaneous SSc (75% vs. 52.2%; P = .006).
• The prevalence of anti-U1-RNP antibody positivity, a classic marker for mixed connective tissue disease, was 30% in SSc-SLE patients and 6.6% in those with SSc only (P < .001).
• Mortality was similar between the two groups, and similar rates were also seen between the two for severe SSc-related end-organ damage, including pulmonary fibrosis, pulmonary hypertension, and scleroderma renal crisis.

IN PRACTICE:

The results highlight the need for clinicians to recognize the SSc-SLE overlap syndrome and to watch for scleroderma organ involvement in patients with features of SLE, Raynaud syndrome, anti-U1-RNP antibody positivity, or an isolated nucleolar pattern of antinuclear antibodies.

SOURCE:

First author Ronald D. Bass, MD, MBA, of Georgetown University, Washington, and colleagues published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The primary cohort was designed to compare Black to non-Black patients with SSc, and the process of matching these patients may have introduced unmeasured selection bias. Also, since the study was based on classification criteria and not diagnostic criteria, the overlapping patients may not reflect patients with true overlapping of both conditions.

DISCLOSURES:

No outside funding source was listed by the authors. The researchers report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Currently, more than 3.8 million breast cancer survivors reside in the United States, reflecting high prevalence as well as cure rates for this common malignancy.

When over-the-counter measures including vaginal lubricants and moisturizers are not adequate, vaginal estrogen may be a highly effective treatment for genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM), a common condition associated with hypoestrogenism that impairs sexual function and quality of life.

Use of vaginal formulations does not result in systemic levels of estrogen above the normal postmenopausal range. Nonetheless, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration lists a history of breast cancer as a contraindication to the use of all systemic as well as vaginal estrogens.

In premenopausal women, chemotherapy for breast cancer often results in early menopause. Aromatase inhibitors, although effective in preventing recurrent disease in menopausal women, exacerbate GSM. These factors result in a high prevalence of GSM in breast cancer survivors.

Because the safety of vaginal estrogen in the setting of breast cancer is uncertain, investigators at Johns Hopkins conducted a cohort study using claims-based data from more than 200 million U.S. patients that identified women with GSM who had previously been diagnosed with breast cancer. Among some 42,000 women diagnosed with GSM after breast cancer, 5% had three or more prescriptions and were considered vaginal estrogen users.

No significant differences were noted in recurrence-free survival between the vaginal estrogen group and the no estrogen group. At 5 and 10 years of follow-up, use of vaginal estrogen was not associated with higher all-cause mortality. Among women with estrogen receptor–positive tumors, risk for breast cancer recurrence was similar between estrogen users and nonusers.

However, concomitant use of vaginal estrogen and aromatase inhibitors was associated with a higher risk for breast cancer recurrence than was use of vaginal estrogen alone.

Although this important study’s findings have the limitations characteristic of observational studies, its large size and careful analyses suggest that in selected well-counseled breast cancer survivors, off-label use of vaginal estrogen may safely improve their sexual function and quality of life.

Dr. Kaunitz is associate chairman, department of obstetrics and gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville. This transcript has been edited for clarity. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA) has declined over time, but the manifestations’ association with increased mortality risk has not changed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included 907 adults with incident RA diagnosed during 1985-1999 (n = 296) or 2000-2014 (n = 611) in Olmsted County, Minn.
• Researchers assessed the cumulative incidence of ExRA in groups from both time periods.
• Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between mortality and ExRA.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ExRA had double the risk for premature mortality compared with those without ExRA (hazard ratio, 2.0), with increased mortality for both severe and nonsevere cases of ExRA (HR, 3.05 and 1.83, respectively).
• The 10-year cumulative incidence of developing any ExRA decreased significantly between the 1985-1999 group and the 2000-2014 group (45.1% vs. 31.6%; P = .001).
• The incidence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules decreased significantly between the two time periods (30.9% vs. 15.8%, respectively; P < .001), as did the incidence of nonsevere ExRA (41.4% vs. 28.8%, respectively; P < .001).
• Rheumatoid nodules were associated with increased mortality risk, and rheumatoid factor positivity was the strongest risk factor for developing ExRA and rheumatoid nodules.

IN PRACTICE:

The results illustrate the need to recognize the increased mortality risk for patients with severe or nonsevere ExRA.

SOURCE:

First author Bradly A. Kimbrough, MD, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The single geographic region and demographics of the study limit its generalizability, and its interpretation is affected by a lack of data on disease activity and the impact of improved therapeutics and management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and SkinDiseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kimbrough had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The incidence of extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA) has declined over time, but the manifestations’ association with increased mortality risk has not changed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included 907 adults with incident RA diagnosed during 1985-1999 (n = 296) or 2000-2014 (n = 611) in Olmsted County, Minn.
• Researchers assessed the cumulative incidence of ExRA in groups from both time periods.
• Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between mortality and ExRA.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ExRA had double the risk for premature mortality compared with those without ExRA (hazard ratio, 2.0), with increased mortality for both severe and nonsevere cases of ExRA (HR, 3.05 and 1.83, respectively).
• The 10-year cumulative incidence of developing any ExRA decreased significantly between the 1985-1999 group and the 2000-2014 group (45.1% vs. 31.6%; P = .001).
• The incidence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules decreased significantly between the two time periods (30.9% vs. 15.8%, respectively; P < .001), as did the incidence of nonsevere ExRA (41.4% vs. 28.8%, respectively; P < .001).
• Rheumatoid nodules were associated with increased mortality risk, and rheumatoid factor positivity was the strongest risk factor for developing ExRA and rheumatoid nodules.

IN PRACTICE:

The results illustrate the need to recognize the increased mortality risk for patients with severe or nonsevere ExRA.

SOURCE:

First author Bradly A. Kimbrough, MD, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The single geographic region and demographics of the study limit its generalizability, and its interpretation is affected by a lack of data on disease activity and the impact of improved therapeutics and management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and SkinDiseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kimbrough had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies.

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

TOPLINE:

The incidence of extra-articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis (ExRA) has declined over time, but the manifestations’ association with increased mortality risk has not changed.

METHODOLOGY:

• A retrospective, population-based cohort study that included 907 adults with incident RA diagnosed during 1985-1999 (n = 296) or 2000-2014 (n = 611) in Olmsted County, Minn.
• Researchers assessed the cumulative incidence of ExRA in groups from both time periods.
• Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify associations between mortality and ExRA.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with ExRA had double the risk for premature mortality compared with those without ExRA (hazard ratio, 2.0), with increased mortality for both severe and nonsevere cases of ExRA (HR, 3.05 and 1.83, respectively).
• The 10-year cumulative incidence of developing any ExRA decreased significantly between the 1985-1999 group and the 2000-2014 group (45.1% vs. 31.6%; P = .001).
• The incidence of subcutaneous rheumatoid nodules decreased significantly between the two time periods (30.9% vs. 15.8%, respectively; P < .001), as did the incidence of nonsevere ExRA (41.4% vs. 28.8%, respectively; P < .001).
• Rheumatoid nodules were associated with increased mortality risk, and rheumatoid factor positivity was the strongest risk factor for developing ExRA and rheumatoid nodules.

IN PRACTICE:

The results illustrate the need to recognize the increased mortality risk for patients with severe or nonsevere ExRA.

SOURCE:

First author Bradly A. Kimbrough, MD, and colleagues at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., published their report online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The single geographic region and demographics of the study limit its generalizability, and its interpretation is affected by a lack of data on disease activity and the impact of improved therapeutics and management strategies.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and SkinDiseases, the National Institute on Aging, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Dr. Kimbrough had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors reported financial relationships with one or more pharmaceutical companies.

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

Key clinical point: The incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the pandemic period was significantly higher in individuals who did vs did not develop COVID-19, with patients age 51-60 years having the seemingly highest risk.

Major finding: The incidence rates of developing seropositive RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.16-2.22) and unspecified RA (IRR 2.93; 95% CI 2.04-4.19) during the pandemic period (2020-2022) were significantly higher in patients with vs without previous COVID-19, with the incidence rates being the highest in the age group of 51-60 years vs the age group of 18-30 years (hazard ratio 9.16; 95% CI 7.24-11.59).

Study details: This retrospective, population-based cohort study analyzed the data of 3,335,084 individuals from the COOSALUD EPS registry (Columbia).

Disclosures: This study was supported by funds from COOSALUD EPS, Columbia. JS Marín and J-M Anaya declared employment with and receiving financial support from COOSALUD EPS, respectively.

Source: Marín JS et al. Increased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis after COVID-19. Autoimmun Rev. 2023;22(10):103409 (Aug 18). doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103409

Key clinical point: The incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the pandemic period was significantly higher in individuals who did vs did not develop COVID-19, with patients age 51-60 years having the seemingly highest risk.

Major finding: The incidence rates of developing seropositive RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.16-2.22) and unspecified RA (IRR 2.93; 95% CI 2.04-4.19) during the pandemic period (2020-2022) were significantly higher in patients with vs without previous COVID-19, with the incidence rates being the highest in the age group of 51-60 years vs the age group of 18-30 years (hazard ratio 9.16; 95% CI 7.24-11.59).

Study details: This retrospective, population-based cohort study analyzed the data of 3,335,084 individuals from the COOSALUD EPS registry (Columbia).

Disclosures: This study was supported by funds from COOSALUD EPS, Columbia. JS Marín and J-M Anaya declared employment with and receiving financial support from COOSALUD EPS, respectively.

Source: Marín JS et al. Increased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis after COVID-19. Autoimmun Rev. 2023;22(10):103409 (Aug 18). doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103409

Key clinical point: The incidence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) during the pandemic period was significantly higher in individuals who did vs did not develop COVID-19, with patients age 51-60 years having the seemingly highest risk.

Major finding: The incidence rates of developing seropositive RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.60; 95% CI 1.16-2.22) and unspecified RA (IRR 2.93; 95% CI 2.04-4.19) during the pandemic period (2020-2022) were significantly higher in patients with vs without previous COVID-19, with the incidence rates being the highest in the age group of 51-60 years vs the age group of 18-30 years (hazard ratio 9.16; 95% CI 7.24-11.59).

Study details: This retrospective, population-based cohort study analyzed the data of 3,335,084 individuals from the COOSALUD EPS registry (Columbia).

Disclosures: This study was supported by funds from COOSALUD EPS, Columbia. JS Marín and J-M Anaya declared employment with and receiving financial support from COOSALUD EPS, respectively.

Source: Marín JS et al. Increased incidence of rheumatoid arthritis after COVID-19. Autoimmun Rev. 2023;22(10):103409 (Aug 18). doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103409

Key clinical point: Multimorbidity was more prevalent in women vs men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with psychological and musculoskeletal conditions being more prevalent in women and cardiovascular-related conditions being more prevalent in men, thus highlighting the need for individualized treatment plans.

Major finding: Among patients with RA age 18-50 years, women vs men were at higher risk for ≥ 2 morbidities (difference in adjusted absolute risk [Δ] 7.5 percentage points; P < .001) and ≥ 5 morbidities (Δ 4.4 percentage points; P < .001). Moreover, the prevalence of psychological and musculoskeletal conditions was higher in women vs men with RA, whereas the prevalence of cardiovascular-related conditions was higher in men vs women with RA (all P < .05).

Study details: This cross-sectional analysis of national administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse included 154,391 patients with RA who were matched with 154,391 comparator individuals without RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors declared receiving unrelated funding support from various sources.

Source: Stevens MA et al. Disparities in multimorbidity and comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis by sex acrossthe lifespan. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead454

Key clinical point: Multimorbidity was more prevalent in women vs men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with psychological and musculoskeletal conditions being more prevalent in women and cardiovascular-related conditions being more prevalent in men, thus highlighting the need for individualized treatment plans.

Major finding: Among patients with RA age 18-50 years, women vs men were at higher risk for ≥ 2 morbidities (difference in adjusted absolute risk [Δ] 7.5 percentage points; P < .001) and ≥ 5 morbidities (Δ 4.4 percentage points; P < .001). Moreover, the prevalence of psychological and musculoskeletal conditions was higher in women vs men with RA, whereas the prevalence of cardiovascular-related conditions was higher in men vs women with RA (all P < .05).

Study details: This cross-sectional analysis of national administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse included 154,391 patients with RA who were matched with 154,391 comparator individuals without RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors declared receiving unrelated funding support from various sources.

Source: Stevens MA et al. Disparities in multimorbidity and comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis by sex acrossthe lifespan. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead454

Key clinical point: Multimorbidity was more prevalent in women vs men with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with psychological and musculoskeletal conditions being more prevalent in women and cardiovascular-related conditions being more prevalent in men, thus highlighting the need for individualized treatment plans.

Major finding: Among patients with RA age 18-50 years, women vs men were at higher risk for ≥ 2 morbidities (difference in adjusted absolute risk [Δ] 7.5 percentage points; P < .001) and ≥ 5 morbidities (Δ 4.4 percentage points; P < .001). Moreover, the prevalence of psychological and musculoskeletal conditions was higher in women vs men with RA, whereas the prevalence of cardiovascular-related conditions was higher in men vs women with RA (all P < .05).

Study details: This cross-sectional analysis of national administrative claims data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse included 154,391 patients with RA who were matched with 154,391 comparator individuals without RA.

Disclosures: This study was supported by grants from the US National Institutes of Health and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Two authors declared receiving unrelated funding support from various sources.

Source: Stevens MA et al. Disparities in multimorbidity and comorbidities in rheumatoid arthritis by sex acrossthe lifespan. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2023 (Aug 31). doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kead454

Key clinical point: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) were more potent in inhibiting bone mineral density (BMD) loss compared with other targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), specifically in those with anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA)-positive RA.

Major finding: JAKi therapy led to greater gains in bilateral femoral BMD than conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD; P < .05), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and non-TNFi biologics, with the improvements in femoral BMD being significant in patients with ACPA-positive RA (P < .01) but not in those with ACPA-negative RA. Similar trends were observed for BMD values at the lumbar spine.

Study details: This retrospective observational study included 362 patients with RA who were treated with JAKi, csDMARD, TNFi, and non-TNFi biologics.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen YW et al. Potential alleviation of bone mineral density loss with Janus kinase inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Sep 2). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06735-0

Key clinical point: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) were more potent in inhibiting bone mineral density (BMD) loss compared with other targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), specifically in those with anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA)-positive RA.

Major finding: JAKi therapy led to greater gains in bilateral femoral BMD than conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD; P < .05), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and non-TNFi biologics, with the improvements in femoral BMD being significant in patients with ACPA-positive RA (P < .01) but not in those with ACPA-negative RA. Similar trends were observed for BMD values at the lumbar spine.

Study details: This retrospective observational study included 362 patients with RA who were treated with JAKi, csDMARD, TNFi, and non-TNFi biologics.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen YW et al. Potential alleviation of bone mineral density loss with Janus kinase inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Sep 2). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06735-0

Key clinical point: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) were more potent in inhibiting bone mineral density (BMD) loss compared with other targeted therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), specifically in those with anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody (ACPA)-positive RA.

Major finding: JAKi therapy led to greater gains in bilateral femoral BMD than conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD; P < .05), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), and non-TNFi biologics, with the improvements in femoral BMD being significant in patients with ACPA-positive RA (P < .01) but not in those with ACPA-negative RA. Similar trends were observed for BMD values at the lumbar spine.

Study details: This retrospective observational study included 362 patients with RA who were treated with JAKi, csDMARD, TNFi, and non-TNFi biologics.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chen YW et al. Potential alleviation of bone mineral density loss with Janus kinase inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2023 (Sep 2). doi: 10.1007/s10067-023-06735-0

Key clinical point: Circulating semaphorin 4A (SEMA4A) serum levels predicted treatment failure and showed an association with response to therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Baseline serum levels of SEMA4A > 94 ng/mL predicted the risk for treatment failure defined by the occurrence of flares and treatment escalation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.73; 95% CI 1.24-5.96). The baseline SEMA4A serum levels were significantly higher in patients who experienced no or moderate response than in those with a good response (P = .035).

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational routine care study that included two cohorts; the first cohort comprised 101 patients with established RA and the second comprised 40 patients with RA who initiated new therapy due to insufficient disease control.

Disclosures: E Vandebeuque declared receiving grants from the Société Française de Rhumatologie, Paris, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Avouac J et al. Relevance of circulating Semaphorin 4A for rheumatoid arthritis response to treatment. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14626 (Sep 5). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-41943-3

Key clinical point: Circulating semaphorin 4A (SEMA4A) serum levels predicted treatment failure and showed an association with response to therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Baseline serum levels of SEMA4A > 94 ng/mL predicted the risk for treatment failure defined by the occurrence of flares and treatment escalation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.73; 95% CI 1.24-5.96). The baseline SEMA4A serum levels were significantly higher in patients who experienced no or moderate response than in those with a good response (P = .035).

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational routine care study that included two cohorts; the first cohort comprised 101 patients with established RA and the second comprised 40 patients with RA who initiated new therapy due to insufficient disease control.

Disclosures: E Vandebeuque declared receiving grants from the Société Française de Rhumatologie, Paris, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Avouac J et al. Relevance of circulating Semaphorin 4A for rheumatoid arthritis response to treatment. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14626 (Sep 5). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-41943-3

Key clinical point: Circulating semaphorin 4A (SEMA4A) serum levels predicted treatment failure and showed an association with response to therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Major finding: Baseline serum levels of SEMA4A > 94 ng/mL predicted the risk for treatment failure defined by the occurrence of flares and treatment escalation (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.73; 95% CI 1.24-5.96). The baseline SEMA4A serum levels were significantly higher in patients who experienced no or moderate response than in those with a good response (P = .035).

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational routine care study that included two cohorts; the first cohort comprised 101 patients with established RA and the second comprised 40 patients with RA who initiated new therapy due to insufficient disease control.

Disclosures: E Vandebeuque declared receiving grants from the Société Française de Rhumatologie, Paris, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Avouac J et al. Relevance of circulating Semaphorin 4A for rheumatoid arthritis response to treatment. Sci Rep. 2023;13:14626 (Sep 5). doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-41943-3

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib combined with iguratimod relieves clinical symptoms and results in a higher response rate compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with usual interstitial pneumonia (RA-UIP).

Major finding: After 6 months, treatment with tofacitinib + iguratimod vs csDMARD significantly improved forced vital capacity percentage (P = .031) and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis score (P = .015) and resulted in a higher overall response rate (66.7% vs 35.7%; P = .027), with no patients discontinuing tofacitinib or iguratimod due to side effects or poor efficacy.

Study details:This prospective observational cohort study included 78 patients with RA-UIP who received tofacitinib + iguratimod, csDMARD + iguratimod, or csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang S et al. A prospective observational cohort study of the efficacy of tofacitinib plus iguratimod on rheumatoid arthritis with usual interstitial pneumonia. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1215450 (Aug 23). doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1215450

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib combined with iguratimod relieves clinical symptoms and results in a higher response rate compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with usual interstitial pneumonia (RA-UIP).

Major finding: After 6 months, treatment with tofacitinib + iguratimod vs csDMARD significantly improved forced vital capacity percentage (P = .031) and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis score (P = .015) and resulted in a higher overall response rate (66.7% vs 35.7%; P = .027), with no patients discontinuing tofacitinib or iguratimod due to side effects or poor efficacy.

Study details:This prospective observational cohort study included 78 patients with RA-UIP who received tofacitinib + iguratimod, csDMARD + iguratimod, or csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang S et al. A prospective observational cohort study of the efficacy of tofacitinib plus iguratimod on rheumatoid arthritis with usual interstitial pneumonia. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1215450 (Aug 23). doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1215450

Key clinical point: Tofacitinib combined with iguratimod relieves clinical symptoms and results in a higher response rate compared with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with usual interstitial pneumonia (RA-UIP).

Major finding: After 6 months, treatment with tofacitinib + iguratimod vs csDMARD significantly improved forced vital capacity percentage (P = .031) and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis score (P = .015) and resulted in a higher overall response rate (66.7% vs 35.7%; P = .027), with no patients discontinuing tofacitinib or iguratimod due to side effects or poor efficacy.

Study details:This prospective observational cohort study included 78 patients with RA-UIP who received tofacitinib + iguratimod, csDMARD + iguratimod, or csDMARD.

Disclosures: This study did not declare any specific funding source. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang S et al. A prospective observational cohort study of the efficacy of tofacitinib plus iguratimod on rheumatoid arthritis with usual interstitial pneumonia. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1215450 (Aug 23). doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1215450