Taking a brief walk after eating can help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a recent study published in Sports Medicine (2022 Aug;52:1765-87).

Light walking after a meal – even for 2-5 minutes – can reduce blood sugar and insulin levels, the researchers found.

Blood sugar levels spike after eating, and the insulin produced to control them can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular issues, the researchers explained.

“With standing and walking, there are contractions of your muscles” that use glucose and lower blood sugar levels, Aidan Buffey, the lead study author and a PhD student in physical education and sport sciences at the University of Limerick (Ireland), told The Times.

“If you can do physical activity before the glucose peak, typically 60-90 minutes [after eating], that is when you’re going to have the benefit of not having the glucose spike,” he said.

Mr. Buffey and colleagues looked at seven studies to understand what would happen if you used standing or easy walking to interrupt prolonged sitting.

In five of the studies, none of the participants had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. The other two studies included people with and without diabetes. The people in the studies were asked to either stand or walk for 2-5 minutes every 20-30 minutes over the course of a full day.

All seven studies showed that standing after a meal is better than sitting, and taking a short walk offered even better health benefits. Those who stood up for a short period of time after a meal had improved blood sugar levels but not insulin, while those who took a brief walk after a meal had lower blood sugar and insulin levels. Those who walked also had blood sugar levels that rose and fell more gradually, which is critical for managing diabetes.

Going for a walk, doing housework, or finding other ways to move your body within 60-90 minutes after eating could offer the best results, the study authors concluded.

These “mini-walks” could also be useful during the workday to break up prolonged periods of sitting at a desk.

“People are not going to get up and run on a treadmill or run around the office,” Mr. Buffey told The New York Times.

But making mini-walks a normal thing during the workday could be easy and acceptable at the office, he said. Even if people can’t take walks, standing up will help somewhat.

“Each small thing you do will have benefits, even if it is a small step,” Kershaw Patel, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Houston Methodist Hospital, told the newspaper. Dr. Patel wasn’t involved with the study.

“It’s a gradual effect of more activity, better health,” he said. “Each incremental step, each incremental stand or brisk walk appears to have a benefit.”

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

Taking a brief walk after eating can help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a recent study published in Sports Medicine (2022 Aug;52:1765-87).

Light walking after a meal – even for 2-5 minutes – can reduce blood sugar and insulin levels, the researchers found.

Blood sugar levels spike after eating, and the insulin produced to control them can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular issues, the researchers explained.

“With standing and walking, there are contractions of your muscles” that use glucose and lower blood sugar levels, Aidan Buffey, the lead study author and a PhD student in physical education and sport sciences at the University of Limerick (Ireland), told The Times.

“If you can do physical activity before the glucose peak, typically 60-90 minutes [after eating], that is when you’re going to have the benefit of not having the glucose spike,” he said.

Mr. Buffey and colleagues looked at seven studies to understand what would happen if you used standing or easy walking to interrupt prolonged sitting.

In five of the studies, none of the participants had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. The other two studies included people with and without diabetes. The people in the studies were asked to either stand or walk for 2-5 minutes every 20-30 minutes over the course of a full day.

All seven studies showed that standing after a meal is better than sitting, and taking a short walk offered even better health benefits. Those who stood up for a short period of time after a meal had improved blood sugar levels but not insulin, while those who took a brief walk after a meal had lower blood sugar and insulin levels. Those who walked also had blood sugar levels that rose and fell more gradually, which is critical for managing diabetes.

Going for a walk, doing housework, or finding other ways to move your body within 60-90 minutes after eating could offer the best results, the study authors concluded.

These “mini-walks” could also be useful during the workday to break up prolonged periods of sitting at a desk.

“People are not going to get up and run on a treadmill or run around the office,” Mr. Buffey told The New York Times.

But making mini-walks a normal thing during the workday could be easy and acceptable at the office, he said. Even if people can’t take walks, standing up will help somewhat.

“Each small thing you do will have benefits, even if it is a small step,” Kershaw Patel, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Houston Methodist Hospital, told the newspaper. Dr. Patel wasn’t involved with the study.

“It’s a gradual effect of more activity, better health,” he said. “Each incremental step, each incremental stand or brisk walk appears to have a benefit.”

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

Taking a brief walk after eating can help lower the risk of type 2 diabetes, according to a recent study published in Sports Medicine (2022 Aug;52:1765-87).

Light walking after a meal – even for 2-5 minutes – can reduce blood sugar and insulin levels, the researchers found.

Blood sugar levels spike after eating, and the insulin produced to control them can lead to diabetes and cardiovascular issues, the researchers explained.

“With standing and walking, there are contractions of your muscles” that use glucose and lower blood sugar levels, Aidan Buffey, the lead study author and a PhD student in physical education and sport sciences at the University of Limerick (Ireland), told The Times.

“If you can do physical activity before the glucose peak, typically 60-90 minutes [after eating], that is when you’re going to have the benefit of not having the glucose spike,” he said.

Mr. Buffey and colleagues looked at seven studies to understand what would happen if you used standing or easy walking to interrupt prolonged sitting.

In five of the studies, none of the participants had prediabetes or type 2 diabetes. The other two studies included people with and without diabetes. The people in the studies were asked to either stand or walk for 2-5 minutes every 20-30 minutes over the course of a full day.

All seven studies showed that standing after a meal is better than sitting, and taking a short walk offered even better health benefits. Those who stood up for a short period of time after a meal had improved blood sugar levels but not insulin, while those who took a brief walk after a meal had lower blood sugar and insulin levels. Those who walked also had blood sugar levels that rose and fell more gradually, which is critical for managing diabetes.

Going for a walk, doing housework, or finding other ways to move your body within 60-90 minutes after eating could offer the best results, the study authors concluded.

These “mini-walks” could also be useful during the workday to break up prolonged periods of sitting at a desk.

“People are not going to get up and run on a treadmill or run around the office,” Mr. Buffey told The New York Times.

But making mini-walks a normal thing during the workday could be easy and acceptable at the office, he said. Even if people can’t take walks, standing up will help somewhat.

“Each small thing you do will have benefits, even if it is a small step,” Kershaw Patel, MD, a preventive cardiologist at Houston Methodist Hospital, told the newspaper. Dr. Patel wasn’t involved with the study.

“It’s a gradual effect of more activity, better health,” he said. “Each incremental step, each incremental stand or brisk walk appears to have a benefit.”

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

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Nearly one-third of smokers who were offered smoking cessation support on the spot when they showed up for lung cancer screening remained off cigarettes 1 year later, a quit-smoking rate considerably higher than that reported in clinical studies, investigators from the United Kingdom found.

When they added a stop-smoking component to the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, Rachael Murray, PhD, and colleagues at the University of Nottingham (England), found that immediately offering a combination of behavioral support and pharmacotherapy to help smokers kick the habit resulted in a 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence rate at 3 months of 30% among smokers randomized to a standard smoking cessation program, and 33.6% among patients randomized to also receive a personalized intervention that included images of their heart and lungs to demonstrate the harmful effects of tobacco.

In contrast, smoking cessation rates reported in trials of lung cancer screening have ranged from approximately 10% to 20%.

Although there was no overall statistical difference in quit-smoking rates between the standard and enhanced intervention arms of the study, the investigators found that women, but not men, were significantly more likely to quit when shown the heart and lung images, compared with those who received the standard smoking cessation support, Dr. Murray said at the World Conference on Lung Cancer held this week in Vienna.

“I think having smoking cessation as an integrated part of the lung cancer track was really positively received by our participants, particularly through having a physical presence and being conveniently located within the setting,” she said in a presidential symposium highlighting the best abstracts presented at the meeting.

“We’ve offered a high-intensity intervention, which is not going to be cheap to offer but I think is really important for these individuals with complex smoking histories and multiple comorbidities,” she added.
 

No judgment

In an interview, Dr. Murray noted that colocating stop-smoking services with lung screening is important for capturing smokers who may have the will but not the means to quit, and that participants especially appreciated the offer of help without the usual condescending attitude.

“We’re not an add-on: We’re there and physically present at the time of the lung health check,” she said. “It’s a standard of care that our smoking cessation advisers are able to provide. It’s very nonjudgmental and very holistic, providing social support that these people need. They’ve got long smoking histories, and they’re often made to feel guilty for that, and just being able to approach them in a nonjudgmental way makes a big difference.”

Smoking cessation is known to be the most effective way to reduce lung cancer deaths, Dr. Murray said in her presentation, pointing to a 2020 study by University of Michigan researchers showing that adding tobacco treatment to lung cancer screening can reduce deaths by 14% and increase the overall number of life-years gained by 81%.
 

Reduce smoking?

To see whether adding a personalized on-site smoking cessation program to lung cancer screening could improve quit-smoking rates, Dr. Murray and colleagues enrolled 1,003 smokers who attended the lung cancer screening program and randomly assigned them to either the intervention arm with personalized feedback, supportive communications, ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy, or to a control arm consisting of ongoing behavioral support and pharmacotherapy.

Participants in the intervention arm were shown CT scans of the heart and lungs plus drawings highlighting coronary artery calcification and areas of their lungs damaged by smoking, and information on how quitting smoking can help to improve their health. The smoking cessation advisers followed a tightly controlled script to ensure that the messages were delivered in a uniform fashion to all participants.

As noted before, rates of 7-day validated point prevalent abstinence, measured by exhaled carbon dioxide, were 33.8% in the intervention arm, and 30% in the control arm. The respective costs per quitter were £521.30 ($630.77) and £412.80 ($499.48).

The validated 12-month smoking-free rates were 29.% in the intervention arm, and 28.6% in the control arm. None of the differences were statistically significant.

However, when they looked at between-arm differences by sex, the investigators found that significantly more women assigned to the intervention arm remained abstinent at 3 months, with rates of 33.9% compared with 23.1% of controls, a difference that translated into an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.70 favoring the intervention among women (P = .008).
 

Effective and durable

“My interpretation of this study is that the abstinence rates were very high, and this in fact was durable because this effect was maintained after 12 months,” commented invited discussant and smoking cessation expert Jacek Jassem, MD, from the University of Gdansk (Poland).

He said that the lack of a difference between the intervention and control arms might be attributable to lower levels of concern about heart disease or emphysema among participants, or possibly to the efficacy of the on-site support program itself.

The differences in efficacy of the intervention between men and women suggest that there may be a need for a sex- or gender-adapted approach, he said at the conference sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer.

“Lung cancer screening is a unique opportunity to motivate smoking cessation. All cancer screening programs should included best available and ongoing cessation support, and please, don’t blame smoking persons: Be compassionate, and helpful, and smile like our British colleagues did,” he concluded.

The study was supported by Yorkshire Cancer Research. Dr. Murray and Dr. Jassem reported no financial conflicts of interest.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), also called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, is a potentially fatal drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by a cutaneous eruption, multiorgan involvement, viral reactivation, and hematologic abnormalities. As the nomenclature of this disease advances, consensus groups have adopted DIHS/DRESS to underscore that both names refer to the same clinical phenomenon.¹ Autoimmune sequelae have been reported after DIHS/DRESS that include vitiligo, thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We present a case of lamotrigine-associated DIHS/DRESS complicated by an unusually prolonged course requiring oral corticosteroids and narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment and with development of extensive alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Case Presentation

A 35-year-old female Filipino patient was prescribed lamotrigine 25 mg daily for bipolar II disorder and titrated to 100 mg twice daily after 1 month. One week after the increase, the patient developed a diffuse morbilliform rash covering their entire body along with facial swelling and generalized pruritus. Lamotrigine was discontinued after lamotrigine allergy was diagnosed. The patient improved following a 9-day oral prednisone taper and was placed on oxcarbazepine 300 mg twice daily to manage their bipolar disorder. One day after completing the taper, the patient presented again with worsening rash, swelling, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Oxcarbazepine was discontinued, and oral prednisone 60 mg was reinstituted for an additional 11 days.

Dermatology evaluated the patient 10 days after completion of the second oral steroid taper (1 month after cessation of lamotrigine). The patient had erythroderma along with malaise, fevers, chills, and fatigue and a diffuse burning sensation (Figure 1). The patient was hypotensive and tachycardic with significant eosinophilia (42%; reference range, 0%-8%), transaminitis, and renal insufficiency. The patient was diagnosed with DIHS/DRESS based on their clinical presentation and calculated RegiSCAR score of 7 (score > 5 corresponds with definite DIHS/DRESS and points were given for fever, enlarged lymph nodes, eosinophilia ≥ 20%, skin rash extending > 50% of their body, edema and scaling, and 2 organs involved).² A punch biopsy was confirmatory (Figure 2A).³ The patient was started on prednisone 80 mg once daily along with topical fluocinonide 0.05% ointment. However, the patient’s clinical status deteriorated, requiring hospital admission for heart failure evaluation. The echocardiogram revealed hyperdynamic circulation but was otherwise unremarkable.

Four months after DIHS/DRESS resolution and cessation of steroids, the patient noted significant patches of smooth alopecia on their posterior scalp and was diagnosed with alopecia areata. Treatment with intralesional triamcinolone over 2 months resulted in regrowth of hair (Figure 3). A month later, the patient reported increasing fatigue and anorexia. The patient was evaluated once more for AI, this time with low morning cortisol and low adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) levels—consistent with AI secondary to prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. The patient also was concomitantly evaluated for hypothyroidism with significantly elevated thyroperoxidase antibodies—confirming the diagnosis of Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Discussion

DIHS/DRESS syndrome is a rare, but potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity to a medication, often beginning 2 to 6 weeks after exposure to the causative agent. The incidence of DIHS/DRESS in the general population is about 2 per 100,000.³ Our patient presented with DIHS/DRESS 33 days after starting lamotrigine, which corresponds with the published mean onset of anticonvulsant-induced DIHS/DRESS (29.7-33.3 days).⁴ Recent evidence shows that time from drug exposure to DIHS/DRESS symptoms may vary by drug class, with antibiotics implicated as precipitating DIHS/DRESS in < 15 days.³ The diagnosis of DIHS/DRESS may be complicated for many reasons. The accompanying rash may be morbilliform, erythroderma, or exfoliative dermatitis with multiple anatomic regions affected.⁵ Systemic involvement with various internal organs occurs in > 90% of cases, with the liver and kidney involved most frequently.⁵ Overall mortality rate may be as high as 10% most commonly due to acute liver failure.⁵ Biopsy may be helpful in the diagnosis but is not always specific.⁵ Diagnostic criteria include RegiSCAR and J-SCAR scores; our patient met criteria for both (Table).⁵ 

The pathogenesis of DIHS/DRESS remains unclear. Proposed mechanisms include genetic predisposition with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes, autoimmune with a delayed cell-mediated immune response associated with herpesviruses, and abnormal enzymatic pathways that metabolize medications.² Although no HLA has been identified between lamotrigine and DIHS, HLA-A*02:07 and HLA-B*15:02 have been associated with lamotrigine-induced cutaneous drug reactions in patients of Thai ancestry.⁶ Immunosuppression also is a risk factor, especially when accompanied by a primary or reactivated HHV-6 infection, as seen in our patient.² Additionally, HHV-6 infection may be a common link between DIHS/DRESS and autoimmune thyroiditis but is believed to involve elevated levels of interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10) that may lead to excessive recruitment of cytotoxic T cells into target tissues.⁷ Elevated levels of IP-10 are seen in many autoimmune conditions, such as autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjögren syndrome, and Graves disease.⁸

Treatment

For management, early recognition and discontinuation of the offending agent is paramount. Systemic corticosteroids are the accepted treatment standard. Symptoms of DIHS/DRESS usually resolve between 3 and 18 weeks, with the mean resolution time at 7 weeks.¹⁰ Our patient developed a prolonged course with persistent eosinophilia for 20 weeks and cutaneous symptoms for 32 weeks—requiring 40 weeks of oral prednisone. The most significant clinical improvement occurred during the 8-week period low-dose nbUVB was used (Figure 4). There also are reports outlining the successful use of intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or plasma exchange in cases refractory to oral corticosteroids.¹¹

A recent retrospective case control study showed that treatment of DIHS/DRESS with cyclosporine in patients who had a contraindication to steroids resulted in faster resolution of symptoms, shorter treatment durations, and shorter hospitalizations than did those treated with corticosteroids.¹² However, the data are limited by a significantly smaller number of patients treated with cyclosporine than steroids and the cyclosporine treatment group having milder cases of DIHS/DRESS.¹²

The risk of AI is increased for patients who have taken > 20 mg of prednisone daily ≥ 3 weeks, an evening dose ≥ 5 mg for a few weeks, or have a Cushingoid appearance.¹³ Patients may not regain full adrenal function for 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Our patient had a normal basal serum cortisol level 2 weeks after prednisone cessation and then presented 5 months later with AI. While the reason for this period of normality is unclear, it may partly be due to the variable length of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis recovery time. Thus, ACTH stimulation tests in addition to serum cortisol may be done in patients with suspected AI for higher diagnostic certainty.¹⁰

Conclusions

DIHS/DRESS is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction that may require a prolonged treatment course until symptom resolution (40 weeks of oral prednisone in our patient). Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, but long-term use is associated with significant adverse effects, such as AI in our patient. Alternative therapies, such as cyclosporine, look promising, but further studies are needed to determine safety profile and efficacy.¹² Additionally, patients with DIHS/DRESS should be educated and followed for potential autoimmune sequelae; in our patient alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis were late sequelae, occurring 14 and 15 months, respectively, after onset of DIHS/DRESS.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), also called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, is a potentially fatal drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by a cutaneous eruption, multiorgan involvement, viral reactivation, and hematologic abnormalities. As the nomenclature of this disease advances, consensus groups have adopted DIHS/DRESS to underscore that both names refer to the same clinical phenomenon.¹ Autoimmune sequelae have been reported after DIHS/DRESS that include vitiligo, thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We present a case of lamotrigine-associated DIHS/DRESS complicated by an unusually prolonged course requiring oral corticosteroids and narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment and with development of extensive alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Case Presentation

A 35-year-old female Filipino patient was prescribed lamotrigine 25 mg daily for bipolar II disorder and titrated to 100 mg twice daily after 1 month. One week after the increase, the patient developed a diffuse morbilliform rash covering their entire body along with facial swelling and generalized pruritus. Lamotrigine was discontinued after lamotrigine allergy was diagnosed. The patient improved following a 9-day oral prednisone taper and was placed on oxcarbazepine 300 mg twice daily to manage their bipolar disorder. One day after completing the taper, the patient presented again with worsening rash, swelling, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Oxcarbazepine was discontinued, and oral prednisone 60 mg was reinstituted for an additional 11 days.

Dermatology evaluated the patient 10 days after completion of the second oral steroid taper (1 month after cessation of lamotrigine). The patient had erythroderma along with malaise, fevers, chills, and fatigue and a diffuse burning sensation (Figure 1). The patient was hypotensive and tachycardic with significant eosinophilia (42%; reference range, 0%-8%), transaminitis, and renal insufficiency. The patient was diagnosed with DIHS/DRESS based on their clinical presentation and calculated RegiSCAR score of 7 (score > 5 corresponds with definite DIHS/DRESS and points were given for fever, enlarged lymph nodes, eosinophilia ≥ 20%, skin rash extending > 50% of their body, edema and scaling, and 2 organs involved).² A punch biopsy was confirmatory (Figure 2A).³ The patient was started on prednisone 80 mg once daily along with topical fluocinonide 0.05% ointment. However, the patient’s clinical status deteriorated, requiring hospital admission for heart failure evaluation. The echocardiogram revealed hyperdynamic circulation but was otherwise unremarkable.

Four months after DIHS/DRESS resolution and cessation of steroids, the patient noted significant patches of smooth alopecia on their posterior scalp and was diagnosed with alopecia areata. Treatment with intralesional triamcinolone over 2 months resulted in regrowth of hair (Figure 3). A month later, the patient reported increasing fatigue and anorexia. The patient was evaluated once more for AI, this time with low morning cortisol and low adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) levels—consistent with AI secondary to prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. The patient also was concomitantly evaluated for hypothyroidism with significantly elevated thyroperoxidase antibodies—confirming the diagnosis of Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Discussion

DIHS/DRESS syndrome is a rare, but potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity to a medication, often beginning 2 to 6 weeks after exposure to the causative agent. The incidence of DIHS/DRESS in the general population is about 2 per 100,000.³ Our patient presented with DIHS/DRESS 33 days after starting lamotrigine, which corresponds with the published mean onset of anticonvulsant-induced DIHS/DRESS (29.7-33.3 days).⁴ Recent evidence shows that time from drug exposure to DIHS/DRESS symptoms may vary by drug class, with antibiotics implicated as precipitating DIHS/DRESS in < 15 days.³ The diagnosis of DIHS/DRESS may be complicated for many reasons. The accompanying rash may be morbilliform, erythroderma, or exfoliative dermatitis with multiple anatomic regions affected.⁵ Systemic involvement with various internal organs occurs in > 90% of cases, with the liver and kidney involved most frequently.⁵ Overall mortality rate may be as high as 10% most commonly due to acute liver failure.⁵ Biopsy may be helpful in the diagnosis but is not always specific.⁵ Diagnostic criteria include RegiSCAR and J-SCAR scores; our patient met criteria for both (Table).⁵ 

The pathogenesis of DIHS/DRESS remains unclear. Proposed mechanisms include genetic predisposition with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes, autoimmune with a delayed cell-mediated immune response associated with herpesviruses, and abnormal enzymatic pathways that metabolize medications.² Although no HLA has been identified between lamotrigine and DIHS, HLA-A*02:07 and HLA-B*15:02 have been associated with lamotrigine-induced cutaneous drug reactions in patients of Thai ancestry.⁶ Immunosuppression also is a risk factor, especially when accompanied by a primary or reactivated HHV-6 infection, as seen in our patient.² Additionally, HHV-6 infection may be a common link between DIHS/DRESS and autoimmune thyroiditis but is believed to involve elevated levels of interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10) that may lead to excessive recruitment of cytotoxic T cells into target tissues.⁷ Elevated levels of IP-10 are seen in many autoimmune conditions, such as autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjögren syndrome, and Graves disease.⁸

Treatment

For management, early recognition and discontinuation of the offending agent is paramount. Systemic corticosteroids are the accepted treatment standard. Symptoms of DIHS/DRESS usually resolve between 3 and 18 weeks, with the mean resolution time at 7 weeks.¹⁰ Our patient developed a prolonged course with persistent eosinophilia for 20 weeks and cutaneous symptoms for 32 weeks—requiring 40 weeks of oral prednisone. The most significant clinical improvement occurred during the 8-week period low-dose nbUVB was used (Figure 4). There also are reports outlining the successful use of intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or plasma exchange in cases refractory to oral corticosteroids.¹¹

A recent retrospective case control study showed that treatment of DIHS/DRESS with cyclosporine in patients who had a contraindication to steroids resulted in faster resolution of symptoms, shorter treatment durations, and shorter hospitalizations than did those treated with corticosteroids.¹² However, the data are limited by a significantly smaller number of patients treated with cyclosporine than steroids and the cyclosporine treatment group having milder cases of DIHS/DRESS.¹²

The risk of AI is increased for patients who have taken > 20 mg of prednisone daily ≥ 3 weeks, an evening dose ≥ 5 mg for a few weeks, or have a Cushingoid appearance.¹³ Patients may not regain full adrenal function for 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Our patient had a normal basal serum cortisol level 2 weeks after prednisone cessation and then presented 5 months later with AI. While the reason for this period of normality is unclear, it may partly be due to the variable length of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis recovery time. Thus, ACTH stimulation tests in addition to serum cortisol may be done in patients with suspected AI for higher diagnostic certainty.¹⁰

Conclusions

DIHS/DRESS is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction that may require a prolonged treatment course until symptom resolution (40 weeks of oral prednisone in our patient). Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, but long-term use is associated with significant adverse effects, such as AI in our patient. Alternative therapies, such as cyclosporine, look promising, but further studies are needed to determine safety profile and efficacy.¹² Additionally, patients with DIHS/DRESS should be educated and followed for potential autoimmune sequelae; in our patient alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis were late sequelae, occurring 14 and 15 months, respectively, after onset of DIHS/DRESS.

Drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), also called drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, is a potentially fatal drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction that is characterized by a cutaneous eruption, multiorgan involvement, viral reactivation, and hematologic abnormalities. As the nomenclature of this disease advances, consensus groups have adopted DIHS/DRESS to underscore that both names refer to the same clinical phenomenon.¹ Autoimmune sequelae have been reported after DIHS/DRESS that include vitiligo, thyroid disease, and type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). We present a case of lamotrigine-associated DIHS/DRESS complicated by an unusually prolonged course requiring oral corticosteroids and narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) treatment and with development of extensive alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis.

Case Presentation

A 35-year-old female Filipino patient was prescribed lamotrigine 25 mg daily for bipolar II disorder and titrated to 100 mg twice daily after 1 month. One week after the increase, the patient developed a diffuse morbilliform rash covering their entire body along with facial swelling and generalized pruritus. Lamotrigine was discontinued after lamotrigine allergy was diagnosed. The patient improved following a 9-day oral prednisone taper and was placed on oxcarbazepine 300 mg twice daily to manage their bipolar disorder. One day after completing the taper, the patient presented again with worsening rash, swelling, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Oxcarbazepine was discontinued, and oral prednisone 60 mg was reinstituted for an additional 11 days.

Dermatology evaluated the patient 10 days after completion of the second oral steroid taper (1 month after cessation of lamotrigine). The patient had erythroderma along with malaise, fevers, chills, and fatigue and a diffuse burning sensation (Figure 1). The patient was hypotensive and tachycardic with significant eosinophilia (42%; reference range, 0%-8%), transaminitis, and renal insufficiency. The patient was diagnosed with DIHS/DRESS based on their clinical presentation and calculated RegiSCAR score of 7 (score > 5 corresponds with definite DIHS/DRESS and points were given for fever, enlarged lymph nodes, eosinophilia ≥ 20%, skin rash extending > 50% of their body, edema and scaling, and 2 organs involved).² A punch biopsy was confirmatory (Figure 2A).³ The patient was started on prednisone 80 mg once daily along with topical fluocinonide 0.05% ointment. However, the patient’s clinical status deteriorated, requiring hospital admission for heart failure evaluation. The echocardiogram revealed hyperdynamic circulation but was otherwise unremarkable.

Four months after DIHS/DRESS resolution and cessation of steroids, the patient noted significant patches of smooth alopecia on their posterior scalp and was diagnosed with alopecia areata. Treatment with intralesional triamcinolone over 2 months resulted in regrowth of hair (Figure 3). A month later, the patient reported increasing fatigue and anorexia. The patient was evaluated once more for AI, this time with low morning cortisol and low adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) levels—consistent with AI secondary to prolonged glucocorticoid therapy. The patient also was concomitantly evaluated for hypothyroidism with significantly elevated thyroperoxidase antibodies—confirming the diagnosis of Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Discussion

DIHS/DRESS syndrome is a rare, but potentially life-threatening hypersensitivity to a medication, often beginning 2 to 6 weeks after exposure to the causative agent. The incidence of DIHS/DRESS in the general population is about 2 per 100,000.³ Our patient presented with DIHS/DRESS 33 days after starting lamotrigine, which corresponds with the published mean onset of anticonvulsant-induced DIHS/DRESS (29.7-33.3 days).⁴ Recent evidence shows that time from drug exposure to DIHS/DRESS symptoms may vary by drug class, with antibiotics implicated as precipitating DIHS/DRESS in < 15 days.³ The diagnosis of DIHS/DRESS may be complicated for many reasons. The accompanying rash may be morbilliform, erythroderma, or exfoliative dermatitis with multiple anatomic regions affected.⁵ Systemic involvement with various internal organs occurs in > 90% of cases, with the liver and kidney involved most frequently.⁵ Overall mortality rate may be as high as 10% most commonly due to acute liver failure.⁵ Biopsy may be helpful in the diagnosis but is not always specific.⁵ Diagnostic criteria include RegiSCAR and J-SCAR scores; our patient met criteria for both (Table).⁵ 

The pathogenesis of DIHS/DRESS remains unclear. Proposed mechanisms include genetic predisposition with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) haplotypes, autoimmune with a delayed cell-mediated immune response associated with herpesviruses, and abnormal enzymatic pathways that metabolize medications.² Although no HLA has been identified between lamotrigine and DIHS, HLA-A*02:07 and HLA-B*15:02 have been associated with lamotrigine-induced cutaneous drug reactions in patients of Thai ancestry.⁶ Immunosuppression also is a risk factor, especially when accompanied by a primary or reactivated HHV-6 infection, as seen in our patient.² Additionally, HHV-6 infection may be a common link between DIHS/DRESS and autoimmune thyroiditis but is believed to involve elevated levels of interferon-γ-induced protein-10 (IP-10) that may lead to excessive recruitment of cytotoxic T cells into target tissues.⁷ Elevated levels of IP-10 are seen in many autoimmune conditions, such as autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjögren syndrome, and Graves disease.⁸

Treatment

For management, early recognition and discontinuation of the offending agent is paramount. Systemic corticosteroids are the accepted treatment standard. Symptoms of DIHS/DRESS usually resolve between 3 and 18 weeks, with the mean resolution time at 7 weeks.¹⁰ Our patient developed a prolonged course with persistent eosinophilia for 20 weeks and cutaneous symptoms for 32 weeks—requiring 40 weeks of oral prednisone. The most significant clinical improvement occurred during the 8-week period low-dose nbUVB was used (Figure 4). There also are reports outlining the successful use of intravenous immunoglobulin, cyclosporine, cyclophosphamide, rituximab, or plasma exchange in cases refractory to oral corticosteroids.¹¹

A recent retrospective case control study showed that treatment of DIHS/DRESS with cyclosporine in patients who had a contraindication to steroids resulted in faster resolution of symptoms, shorter treatment durations, and shorter hospitalizations than did those treated with corticosteroids.¹² However, the data are limited by a significantly smaller number of patients treated with cyclosporine than steroids and the cyclosporine treatment group having milder cases of DIHS/DRESS.¹²

The risk of AI is increased for patients who have taken > 20 mg of prednisone daily ≥ 3 weeks, an evening dose ≥ 5 mg for a few weeks, or have a Cushingoid appearance.¹³ Patients may not regain full adrenal function for 12 to 18 months.¹⁴ Our patient had a normal basal serum cortisol level 2 weeks after prednisone cessation and then presented 5 months later with AI. While the reason for this period of normality is unclear, it may partly be due to the variable length of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis recovery time. Thus, ACTH stimulation tests in addition to serum cortisol may be done in patients with suspected AI for higher diagnostic certainty.¹⁰

Conclusions

DIHS/DRESS is a severe cutaneous adverse reaction that may require a prolonged treatment course until symptom resolution (40 weeks of oral prednisone in our patient). Oral corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, but long-term use is associated with significant adverse effects, such as AI in our patient. Alternative therapies, such as cyclosporine, look promising, but further studies are needed to determine safety profile and efficacy.¹² Additionally, patients with DIHS/DRESS should be educated and followed for potential autoimmune sequelae; in our patient alopecia areata and autoimmune thyroiditis were late sequelae, occurring 14 and 15 months, respectively, after onset of DIHS/DRESS.

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

In a recently obtained plan by Politico, the Biden administration is zeroing in on a broad student loan forgiveness plan to be released imminently. The plan would broadly forgive $10,000 in federal student loans, including graduate and PLUS loans. However, there’s a rub: The plan restricts the forgiveness to those with incomes below $150,000.

This would unfairly exclude many in health care from receiving this forgiveness, an egregious oversight given how much health care providers have sacrificed during the pandemic.
 

What was proposed?

Previously, it was reported that the Biden administration was considering this same amount of forgiveness, but with plans to exclude borrowers by either career or income. Student loan payments have been on an extended CARES Act forbearance since March 2020, with payment resumption planned for Aug. 31. The administration has said that they would deliver a plan for further extensions before this date and have repeatedly teased including forgiveness.

Forgiveness for some ...

Forgiving $10,000 of federal student loans would relieve some 15 million borrowers of student debt, roughly one-third of the 45 million borrowers with debt.

This would provide a massive boost to these borrowers (who disproportionately are female, low-income, and non-White), many of whom were targeted by predatory institutions whose education didn’t offer any actual tangible benefit to their earnings. While this is a group that absolutely ought to have their loans forgiven, drawing an income line inappropriately restricts those in health care from receiving any forgiveness.
 

... But not for others

Someone making an annual gross income of $150,000 is in the 80th percentile of earners in the United States (for comparison, the top 1% took home more than $505,000 in 2021). What student loan borrowers make up the remaining 20%? Overwhelmingly, health care providers occupy that tier: physicians, dentists, veterinarians, and advanced-practice nurses.

These schools leave their graduates with some of the highest student loan burdens, with veterinarians, dentists, and physicians having the highest debt-to-income ratios of any professional careers.
 

Flat forgiveness is regressive

Forgiving any student debt is the right direction. Too may have fallen victim to an industry without quality control, appropriate regulation, or price control. Quite the opposite, the blank-check model of student loan financing has led to an arms race as it comes to capital improvements in university spending.

The price of medical schools has risen more than four times as fast as inflation over the past 30 years, with dental and veterinary schools and nursing education showing similarly exaggerated price increases. Trainees in these fields are more likely to have taken on six-figure debt, with average debt loads at graduation in the table below. While $10,000 will move the proverbial needle less for these borrowers, does that mean they should be excluded?
 

Health care workers’ income declines during the pandemic

Now, over 2½ years since the start of the COVID pandemic, multiple reports have demonstrated that health care workers have suffered a loss in income. This loss in income was never compensated for, as the Paycheck Protection Program and the individual economic stimuli typically excluded doctors and high earners.

COVID and the hazard tax

As a provider during the COVID-19 pandemic, I didn’t ask for hazard pay. I supported those who did but recognized their requests were more ceremonial than they were likely to be successful.

However, I flatly reject the idea that my fellow health care practitioners are not deserving of student loan forgiveness simply based on an arbitrary income threshold. Health care providers are saddled with high debt burden, have suffered lost income, and have given of themselves during a devastating pandemic, where more than 1 million perished in the United States.
 

Bottom line

Health care workers should not be excluded from student loan forgiveness. Sadly, the Biden administration has signaled that they are dropping career-based exclusions in favor of more broadly harmful income-based forgiveness restrictions. This will disproportionately harm physicians and other health care workers.

These practitioners have suffered financially as a result of working through the COVID pandemic; should they also be forced to shoulder another financial injury by being excluded from student loan forgiveness?

Dr. Palmer is the chief operating officer and cofounder of Panacea Financial. He is also a practicing pediatric hospitalist at Boston Children’s Hospital and is on faculty at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.



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

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

Click to view more from Federal Health Care Data Trends 2022

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should conduct an ecologic risk assessment of the UV filters found in sunscreens to understand their effects on aquatic environments and human health, an expert panel of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) said on Aug. 9.

The assessment is urgently needed, the experts said, and the results should be shared with the Food and Drug Administration, which oversees sunscreens.

mark wragg/iStockphoto.com

In its 400-page report, titled the Review of Fate, Exposure, and Effects of Sunscreens in Aquatic Environments and Implications for Sunscreen Usage and Human Health, the panel does not make recommendations but suggests that such an EPA risk assessment should highlight gaps in knowledge.

“We are teeing up the critical information that will be used to take on the challenge of risk assessment,” Charles A. Menzie, PhD, chair of the committee that wrote the report, said at a media briefing Aug. 9 when the report was released. Dr. Menzie is a principal at Exponent, Inc., an engineering and scientific consulting firm. He is former executive director of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

The EPA sponsored the study, which was conducted by a committee of the National Academy of Sciences, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization authorized by Congress that studies issues related to science, technology, and medicine.
 

Balancing aquatic, human health concerns

Such an EPA assessment, Dr. Menzie said in a statement, will help inform efforts to understand the environmental effects of UV filters as well as clarify a path forward for managing sunscreens. For years, concerns have been raised about the potential toxicity of sunscreens regarding many marine and freshwater aquatic organisms, especially coral. That concern, however, must be balanced against the benefits of sunscreens, which are known to protect against skin cancer. A low percentage of people use sunscreen regularly, Dr. Menzie and other panel members said.

“Only about a third of the U.S. population regularly uses sunscreen,” Mark Cullen, MD, vice chair of the NAS committee and former director of the Center for Population Health Sciences, Stanford (Calif.) University, said at the briefing. About 70% or 80% of people use it at the beach or outdoors, he said.
 

Report background, details

UV filters are the active ingredients in physical as well as chemical sunscreen products. They decrease the amount of UV radiation that reaches the skin. They have been found in water, sediments, and marine organisms, both saltwater and freshwater.

Currently, 17 UV filters are used in U.S. sunscreens; 15 of those are organic, such as oxybenzone and avobenzone, and are used in chemical sunscreens. They work by absorbing the rays before they damage the skin. In addition, two inorganic filters, which are used in physical sunscreens, sit on the skin and as a shield to block the rays.

The recommendations

The panel is urging the EPA to complete a formal risk assessment of the UV filters “with some urgency,” Dr. Cullen said. That will enable decisions to be made about the use of the products. The risks to aquatic life must be balanced against the need for sun protection to reduce skin cancer risk.

The experts made two recommendations:

• The EPA should conduct ecologic risk assessments for all the UV filters now marketed and for all new ones. The assessment should evaluate the filters individually as well as the risk from co-occurring filters. The assessments should take into account the different exposure scenarios.
• The EPA, along with partner agencies, and sunscreen and UV filter manufacturers should fund, support, and conduct research and share data. Research should include study of human health outcomes if usage and availability of sunscreens change.

Dermatologists should “continue to emphasize the importance of protection from UV radiation in every way that can be done,” Dr. Cullen said, including the use of sunscreen as well as other protective practices, such as wearing long sleeves and hats, seeking shade, and avoiding the sun during peak hours.
 

A dermatologist’s perspective

“I applaud their scientific curiosity to know one way or the other whether this is an issue,” said Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “I welcome this investigation.”

The multitude of studies, Dr. Friedman said, don’t always agree about whether the filters pose dangers. He noted that the concentration of UV filters detected in water is often lower than the concentrations found to be harmful in a lab setting to marine life, specifically coral.

However, he said, “these studies are snapshots.” For that reason, calling for more assessment of risk is desirable, Dr. Friedman said, but “I want to be sure the call to do more research is not an admission of guilt. It’s very easy to vilify sunscreens – but the facts we know are that UV light causes skin cancer and aging, and sunscreen protects us against this.”

Dr. Friedman has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) are more likely to develop infections than are those who take a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), results of an industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial suggest.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib and TNFi biologics are common RA treatments that, along with factors including age, disease activity, and comorbidities, can put patients with RA at increased risk for infections.

“In this secondary analysis of the ORAL Surveillance trial, infections were increased with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi,” study coauthor Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, explained in an interview.

As reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Bhatt and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the final dataset from the phase 3b/4 open-label safety trial of tofacitinib in RA conducted between March 2014 and July 2020, in 345 study locations worldwide.

Study participants were 50 years of age or older with moderate to severe RA who were taking methotrexate but having inadequate symptom control. They had at least one cardiovascular risk factor such as being a current smoker or having hypertension, past heart attack, family history of coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, or extra-articular RA. Patients with current or recent infection, clinically significant laboratory abnormalities, or pregnancy, were excluded from the study.

In the study, 1,455 participants received oral tofacitinib 5 mg twice per day; 1,456 received oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice per day; and 1,451 were treated with subcutaneous TNFi (40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab [Humira] injection every 2 weeks in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada; and 50 mg subcutaneous etanercept [Enbrel] injection every week in all other countries. Participants continued their prestudy stable dose of methotrexate if clinically indicated.

The researchers calculated incidence rates and hazard ratios for infections, overall and by age (50-64 years, compared with 65 years and older). They calculated probabilities of infection using Kaplan-Meier estimates and identified infection risk factors through Cox modeling.

They found higher infection rates, serious infection events (SIEs), and nonserious infections (NSIs) with tofacitinib than with TNFi, including:

• Patients taking tofacitinib 5 mg (HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.50) and 10 mg (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.87) were at greater risk for SIEs.
• Patients older than 65 who were taking tofacitinib 10 mg had increased IRs and HRs for all infections and for SIEs, compared with those aged 50-64.
• The probability of a SIE rose from month 18 onward in participants taking tofacitinib 5 mg, as well as before month 6 in those taking tofacitinib 10 mg.
• In both tofacitinib groups, the probability of NSI increased before month 6.

The most common risk factors for SIEs were higher age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease, and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use. Risk factors for NSIs were female sex, history of chronic lung disease or infection, history of smoking, as well as time-dependent higher Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and C-reactive protein score.
 

‘Best information to date’

Michael George, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, welcomed the study’s results.

“This study provides the best information to date on the risk of infection with the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, compared to a TNF inhibitor,” Dr. George, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “It is rare to have such a large randomized trial with an active comparator focused on safety. This is a major strength.

“Being able to quantify the amount of increased risk will help with shared decision-making when counseling patients,” he added.

Dr. George said that, while the small overall risk may not be clinically meaningful for younger, healthier patients, trying biologics such as TNFi before tofacitinib may be optimal for high-risk patients who are older or have comorbidities.

Dr. Bhatt agreed.

“In deciding on appropriate therapies for RA (or other conditions where tofacitinib is used), it is important for the prescribing physician to explain the risks to the patient and weigh them against the potential benefits,” he advised.

Dr. Bhatt noted that increased infection is not the first risk that’s been linked with tofacitinib.

“ORAL Surveillance was designed primarily to assess cardiovascular safety and showed higher rates of cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, as well as cancer, with tofacitinib,” he explained.

He recommended further related research.

“Randomized trials are needed to determine the best ways to treat conditions such as RA while trying to minimize cardiovascular, cancer, and infectious risks,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. All authors reported financial involvements with Pfizer; most have financial involvements with other pharmaceutical companies as well; four authors are employees of Pfizer and three are also stockholders in the company. Dr. George reported involvements with the pharmaceutical industry.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) are more likely to develop infections than are those who take a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), results of an industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial suggest.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib and TNFi biologics are common RA treatments that, along with factors including age, disease activity, and comorbidities, can put patients with RA at increased risk for infections.

“In this secondary analysis of the ORAL Surveillance trial, infections were increased with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi,” study coauthor Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, explained in an interview.

As reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Bhatt and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the final dataset from the phase 3b/4 open-label safety trial of tofacitinib in RA conducted between March 2014 and July 2020, in 345 study locations worldwide.

Study participants were 50 years of age or older with moderate to severe RA who were taking methotrexate but having inadequate symptom control. They had at least one cardiovascular risk factor such as being a current smoker or having hypertension, past heart attack, family history of coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, or extra-articular RA. Patients with current or recent infection, clinically significant laboratory abnormalities, or pregnancy, were excluded from the study.

In the study, 1,455 participants received oral tofacitinib 5 mg twice per day; 1,456 received oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice per day; and 1,451 were treated with subcutaneous TNFi (40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab [Humira] injection every 2 weeks in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada; and 50 mg subcutaneous etanercept [Enbrel] injection every week in all other countries. Participants continued their prestudy stable dose of methotrexate if clinically indicated.

The researchers calculated incidence rates and hazard ratios for infections, overall and by age (50-64 years, compared with 65 years and older). They calculated probabilities of infection using Kaplan-Meier estimates and identified infection risk factors through Cox modeling.

They found higher infection rates, serious infection events (SIEs), and nonserious infections (NSIs) with tofacitinib than with TNFi, including:

• Patients taking tofacitinib 5 mg (HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.50) and 10 mg (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.87) were at greater risk for SIEs.
• Patients older than 65 who were taking tofacitinib 10 mg had increased IRs and HRs for all infections and for SIEs, compared with those aged 50-64.
• The probability of a SIE rose from month 18 onward in participants taking tofacitinib 5 mg, as well as before month 6 in those taking tofacitinib 10 mg.
• In both tofacitinib groups, the probability of NSI increased before month 6.

The most common risk factors for SIEs were higher age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease, and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use. Risk factors for NSIs were female sex, history of chronic lung disease or infection, history of smoking, as well as time-dependent higher Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and C-reactive protein score.
 

‘Best information to date’

Michael George, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, welcomed the study’s results.

“This study provides the best information to date on the risk of infection with the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, compared to a TNF inhibitor,” Dr. George, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “It is rare to have such a large randomized trial with an active comparator focused on safety. This is a major strength.

“Being able to quantify the amount of increased risk will help with shared decision-making when counseling patients,” he added.

Dr. George said that, while the small overall risk may not be clinically meaningful for younger, healthier patients, trying biologics such as TNFi before tofacitinib may be optimal for high-risk patients who are older or have comorbidities.

Dr. Bhatt agreed.

“In deciding on appropriate therapies for RA (or other conditions where tofacitinib is used), it is important for the prescribing physician to explain the risks to the patient and weigh them against the potential benefits,” he advised.

Dr. Bhatt noted that increased infection is not the first risk that’s been linked with tofacitinib.

“ORAL Surveillance was designed primarily to assess cardiovascular safety and showed higher rates of cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, as well as cancer, with tofacitinib,” he explained.

He recommended further related research.

“Randomized trials are needed to determine the best ways to treat conditions such as RA while trying to minimize cardiovascular, cancer, and infectious risks,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. All authors reported financial involvements with Pfizer; most have financial involvements with other pharmaceutical companies as well; four authors are employees of Pfizer and three are also stockholders in the company. Dr. George reported involvements with the pharmaceutical industry.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib (Xeljanz) are more likely to develop infections than are those who take a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), results of an industry-sponsored randomized controlled trial suggest.

The Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor tofacitinib and TNFi biologics are common RA treatments that, along with factors including age, disease activity, and comorbidities, can put patients with RA at increased risk for infections.

“In this secondary analysis of the ORAL Surveillance trial, infections were increased with tofacitinib, compared with TNFi,” study coauthor Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, explained in an interview.

As reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Dr. Bhatt and colleagues performed a subanalysis of the final dataset from the phase 3b/4 open-label safety trial of tofacitinib in RA conducted between March 2014 and July 2020, in 345 study locations worldwide.

Study participants were 50 years of age or older with moderate to severe RA who were taking methotrexate but having inadequate symptom control. They had at least one cardiovascular risk factor such as being a current smoker or having hypertension, past heart attack, family history of coronary heart disease, high cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, or extra-articular RA. Patients with current or recent infection, clinically significant laboratory abnormalities, or pregnancy, were excluded from the study.

In the study, 1,455 participants received oral tofacitinib 5 mg twice per day; 1,456 received oral tofacitinib 10 mg twice per day; and 1,451 were treated with subcutaneous TNFi (40 mg subcutaneous adalimumab [Humira] injection every 2 weeks in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada; and 50 mg subcutaneous etanercept [Enbrel] injection every week in all other countries. Participants continued their prestudy stable dose of methotrexate if clinically indicated.

The researchers calculated incidence rates and hazard ratios for infections, overall and by age (50-64 years, compared with 65 years and older). They calculated probabilities of infection using Kaplan-Meier estimates and identified infection risk factors through Cox modeling.

They found higher infection rates, serious infection events (SIEs), and nonserious infections (NSIs) with tofacitinib than with TNFi, including:

• Patients taking tofacitinib 5 mg (HR, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.50) and 10 mg (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.87) were at greater risk for SIEs.
• Patients older than 65 who were taking tofacitinib 10 mg had increased IRs and HRs for all infections and for SIEs, compared with those aged 50-64.
• The probability of a SIE rose from month 18 onward in participants taking tofacitinib 5 mg, as well as before month 6 in those taking tofacitinib 10 mg.
• In both tofacitinib groups, the probability of NSI increased before month 6.

The most common risk factors for SIEs were higher age, baseline opioid use, history of chronic lung disease, and time-dependent oral corticosteroid use. Risk factors for NSIs were female sex, history of chronic lung disease or infection, history of smoking, as well as time-dependent higher Disease Activity Score in 28 joints and C-reactive protein score.
 

‘Best information to date’

Michael George, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, welcomed the study’s results.

“This study provides the best information to date on the risk of infection with the JAK inhibitor tofacitinib, compared to a TNF inhibitor,” Dr. George, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview. “It is rare to have such a large randomized trial with an active comparator focused on safety. This is a major strength.

“Being able to quantify the amount of increased risk will help with shared decision-making when counseling patients,” he added.

Dr. George said that, while the small overall risk may not be clinically meaningful for younger, healthier patients, trying biologics such as TNFi before tofacitinib may be optimal for high-risk patients who are older or have comorbidities.

Dr. Bhatt agreed.

“In deciding on appropriate therapies for RA (or other conditions where tofacitinib is used), it is important for the prescribing physician to explain the risks to the patient and weigh them against the potential benefits,” he advised.

Dr. Bhatt noted that increased infection is not the first risk that’s been linked with tofacitinib.

“ORAL Surveillance was designed primarily to assess cardiovascular safety and showed higher rates of cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism, as well as cancer, with tofacitinib,” he explained.

He recommended further related research.

“Randomized trials are needed to determine the best ways to treat conditions such as RA while trying to minimize cardiovascular, cancer, and infectious risks,” he said.

The study was sponsored by Pfizer. All authors reported financial involvements with Pfizer; most have financial involvements with other pharmaceutical companies as well; four authors are employees of Pfizer and three are also stockholders in the company. Dr. George reported involvements with the pharmaceutical industry.

Kristal was only in her mid-30s when she decided to have surgery. Her doctor said it was too early. But the Oregon mom of three had found herself in the hospital twice for obesity-related lung complications before her 35th birthday. So she got the gastric sleeve.

And at first it seemed like the best decision for her and her family. She was losing weight – 100 pounds in 16 months – and so was her husband. The whole family was more active and seemed to have more energy. But then her husband’s weight began to creep back up.

While she joined a running group and signed up for half-marathons, her husband’s depression and drinking worsened. The healthier lifestyle they’d shared was now an unspoken wedge between them.

And the added attention Kristal was getting from men and women because of her thinner size only added to the tension. After 30 years together and 22 years of marriage, the high school sweethearts divorced in June 2021. Kristal’s weight loss wasn’t the only problem, but she and her ex-husband believe it was the beginning of the end.
 

An unexpected outcome?

New research from the University of Pittsburgh found that Kristal’s experience is a common one. People who have bariatric surgery double their chances of marriage or divorce. The study looked at data from 1,441 bariatric surgery patients and found that never-married patients were over 50% more likely to get married, and married patients were more than twice as likely to get divorced, compared to the general U.S. population.

This U.S. data follows two Scandinavian studies from 2018 and 2020 that found similar relationship changes after bariatric surgery. But the postsurgery divorce rate in the United States was only about half that found in the Danish and Swedish studies, according to the new study published in Annals of Surgery.

It’s important to note that even with an increase in the divorce rate, most marriages in the study were unchanged, said epidemiologist and lead author Wendy King, PhD. In fact, 81% of couples were still married 5 years after surgery. But where the U.S. population has a divorce rate of 3.5%, bariatric patients in the study had an 8% divorce rate. Likewise, those who’d never been married before the surgery had a marriage rate of 18%, compared to 7% in the U.S. population.

Surgery certainly isn’t a death sentence for a patient’s love life. But the uptick in marriage and divorce suggests bariatric surgery significantly impacts how people engage in relationships.

“It makes sense,” said clinical psychologist Rachel Goldman, PhD, who specializes in health and wellness issues and bariatric surgery cases in New York City. “People are changing their lifestyle.” And those changes don’t start or stop the day of surgery, they begin as soon as someone decides to have surgery and continue as a lifelong process, she said.

For some patients, these healthy habits may offer a “new lease on life,” said Dr. King. According to the study, patients who had better physical health after surgery were more likely to get married.

But the continual lifestyle changes can dramatically impact the rituals of existing relationships, said Dr. Goldman. Maybe a couple loved to go out and enjoy an extravagant meal before surgery, or they had ice cream and watched a movie every Friday. The habit changes that come with bariatric surgery can require one partner to focus less on those rituals.

These sorts of changes may leave one or both people feeling like their partner is turning away from them, said Don Cole, DMin, a relationship therapist and clinical director at the Gottman Institute in Seattle, a think tank focused on the science of relationships. The person who had surgery may feel unsupported in the new journey if the partner keeps advocating for unhealthy habits, he said. And the person who didn’t have surgery may feel cast aside by the partner’s new health priorities.

Changes, even those that are positive and healthy, create a kind of crisis for relationships, Dr. Cole said. It’s not just bariatric surgery. Bringing a baby into the home, infertility treatments, and substance abuse recovery are all considered positive changes that are also predictors of relationship dissatisfaction and divorce, he said.

A couple could have a range of emotions after one partner gets bariatric surgery, Dr. Cole said. Unfortunately, “my experience as a therapist says they aren’t that good [at talking about it],” he said.

But bariatric surgery isn’t the only thing at play in these relationship changes, according to the study. Married patients had a much lower chance of separation or divorce (13%) than patients who were unmarried but living together (44%) by 5 years after surgery. Similarly, most people who were already separated either got divorced or resumed being married. It’s as if the surgery and lifestyle changes served as a catalyst for people who already had one foot out of (or in) the door, Dr. Goldman said.

A high sexual desire after surgery was also a predictor of divorce. In fact, there were more things before surgery that impacted divorce than surgery-related changes. It’s possible that many of these patients are “on the path toward change already,” Dr. King said. “Who knows how much the surgery had to do with it.”

Dr. Goldman recalled a patient who, before surgery, had very low self-worth. She wasn’t satisfied with her relationship but admitted to staying because she didn’t believe she could do any better than her current partner. After surgery, her perspective radically changed. She started to get healthier, invested in her education, and changed jobs. And when her partner refused to join her in making changes, she left. Maybe some of these patients “were already thinking about leaving but just didn’t have the confidence,” Dr. Goldman said.

Still, it’s critical that patients receive more counseling on how choosing to have bariatric surgery can impact their relationship before and after their weight loss procedure, Dr. King said. It should be the standard of care.

Currently, relationship-specific counseling isn’t required, Dr. Goldman said. Most programs do require a psychosocial evaluation before surgery, “but they are quite varied.” And even in programs where relationships are mentioned, there often isn’t a psychologist or licensed mental health professional on the team.

Since Dr. King’s previous research on substance abuse after bariatric surgery changed common practice in the field, Dr. Goldman said she hopes the new data will have a similar influence and relationship counseling will become the norm.

Dr. Cole actually had bariatric surgery. He recalled potential relationship issues were briefly mentioned. Someone at the clinic said if his marriage felt challenged, he should seek help from a professional, and that was it.

For Dr. Cole, there were unexpected negative feelings of shame and disappointment after surgery. He felt the extreme weight loss was all his colleagues could talk about and was very disappointed when there was no change in his chronic pain, a primary reason he had the procedure.

Fortunately, he could talk to his wife – also is a relationship therapist at Gottman – about the range of emotions. “One of the things that we know that creates a deep sense of trust is [when] I know my partner is there for me when I’m not well,” Dr. Cole said.

But these negative emotions can be the very things that feel most difficult to talk about or hear from a partner. It’s hard to share our own negative feelings and to hear someone else’s, Dr. Cole said.

He advises creating a new “ritual of connection: moments in time when you plan to turn toward one another.”

That could be a daily walk, where you intentionally talk about the surgery-related changes that both of you have had. Dr. Cole said to ask yourself, “Are we intentional about turning toward one another in those [challenging] moments?”

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

Kristal was only in her mid-30s when she decided to have surgery. Her doctor said it was too early. But the Oregon mom of three had found herself in the hospital twice for obesity-related lung complications before her 35th birthday. So she got the gastric sleeve.

And at first it seemed like the best decision for her and her family. She was losing weight – 100 pounds in 16 months – and so was her husband. The whole family was more active and seemed to have more energy. But then her husband’s weight began to creep back up.

While she joined a running group and signed up for half-marathons, her husband’s depression and drinking worsened. The healthier lifestyle they’d shared was now an unspoken wedge between them.

And the added attention Kristal was getting from men and women because of her thinner size only added to the tension. After 30 years together and 22 years of marriage, the high school sweethearts divorced in June 2021. Kristal’s weight loss wasn’t the only problem, but she and her ex-husband believe it was the beginning of the end.
 

An unexpected outcome?

New research from the University of Pittsburgh found that Kristal’s experience is a common one. People who have bariatric surgery double their chances of marriage or divorce. The study looked at data from 1,441 bariatric surgery patients and found that never-married patients were over 50% more likely to get married, and married patients were more than twice as likely to get divorced, compared to the general U.S. population.

This U.S. data follows two Scandinavian studies from 2018 and 2020 that found similar relationship changes after bariatric surgery. But the postsurgery divorce rate in the United States was only about half that found in the Danish and Swedish studies, according to the new study published in Annals of Surgery.

It’s important to note that even with an increase in the divorce rate, most marriages in the study were unchanged, said epidemiologist and lead author Wendy King, PhD. In fact, 81% of couples were still married 5 years after surgery. But where the U.S. population has a divorce rate of 3.5%, bariatric patients in the study had an 8% divorce rate. Likewise, those who’d never been married before the surgery had a marriage rate of 18%, compared to 7% in the U.S. population.

Surgery certainly isn’t a death sentence for a patient’s love life. But the uptick in marriage and divorce suggests bariatric surgery significantly impacts how people engage in relationships.

“It makes sense,” said clinical psychologist Rachel Goldman, PhD, who specializes in health and wellness issues and bariatric surgery cases in New York City. “People are changing their lifestyle.” And those changes don’t start or stop the day of surgery, they begin as soon as someone decides to have surgery and continue as a lifelong process, she said.

For some patients, these healthy habits may offer a “new lease on life,” said Dr. King. According to the study, patients who had better physical health after surgery were more likely to get married.

But the continual lifestyle changes can dramatically impact the rituals of existing relationships, said Dr. Goldman. Maybe a couple loved to go out and enjoy an extravagant meal before surgery, or they had ice cream and watched a movie every Friday. The habit changes that come with bariatric surgery can require one partner to focus less on those rituals.

These sorts of changes may leave one or both people feeling like their partner is turning away from them, said Don Cole, DMin, a relationship therapist and clinical director at the Gottman Institute in Seattle, a think tank focused on the science of relationships. The person who had surgery may feel unsupported in the new journey if the partner keeps advocating for unhealthy habits, he said. And the person who didn’t have surgery may feel cast aside by the partner’s new health priorities.

Changes, even those that are positive and healthy, create a kind of crisis for relationships, Dr. Cole said. It’s not just bariatric surgery. Bringing a baby into the home, infertility treatments, and substance abuse recovery are all considered positive changes that are also predictors of relationship dissatisfaction and divorce, he said.

A couple could have a range of emotions after one partner gets bariatric surgery, Dr. Cole said. Unfortunately, “my experience as a therapist says they aren’t that good [at talking about it],” he said.

But bariatric surgery isn’t the only thing at play in these relationship changes, according to the study. Married patients had a much lower chance of separation or divorce (13%) than patients who were unmarried but living together (44%) by 5 years after surgery. Similarly, most people who were already separated either got divorced or resumed being married. It’s as if the surgery and lifestyle changes served as a catalyst for people who already had one foot out of (or in) the door, Dr. Goldman said.

A high sexual desire after surgery was also a predictor of divorce. In fact, there were more things before surgery that impacted divorce than surgery-related changes. It’s possible that many of these patients are “on the path toward change already,” Dr. King said. “Who knows how much the surgery had to do with it.”

Dr. Goldman recalled a patient who, before surgery, had very low self-worth. She wasn’t satisfied with her relationship but admitted to staying because she didn’t believe she could do any better than her current partner. After surgery, her perspective radically changed. She started to get healthier, invested in her education, and changed jobs. And when her partner refused to join her in making changes, she left. Maybe some of these patients “were already thinking about leaving but just didn’t have the confidence,” Dr. Goldman said.

Still, it’s critical that patients receive more counseling on how choosing to have bariatric surgery can impact their relationship before and after their weight loss procedure, Dr. King said. It should be the standard of care.

Currently, relationship-specific counseling isn’t required, Dr. Goldman said. Most programs do require a psychosocial evaluation before surgery, “but they are quite varied.” And even in programs where relationships are mentioned, there often isn’t a psychologist or licensed mental health professional on the team.

Since Dr. King’s previous research on substance abuse after bariatric surgery changed common practice in the field, Dr. Goldman said she hopes the new data will have a similar influence and relationship counseling will become the norm.

Dr. Cole actually had bariatric surgery. He recalled potential relationship issues were briefly mentioned. Someone at the clinic said if his marriage felt challenged, he should seek help from a professional, and that was it.

For Dr. Cole, there were unexpected negative feelings of shame and disappointment after surgery. He felt the extreme weight loss was all his colleagues could talk about and was very disappointed when there was no change in his chronic pain, a primary reason he had the procedure.

Fortunately, he could talk to his wife – also is a relationship therapist at Gottman – about the range of emotions. “One of the things that we know that creates a deep sense of trust is [when] I know my partner is there for me when I’m not well,” Dr. Cole said.

But these negative emotions can be the very things that feel most difficult to talk about or hear from a partner. It’s hard to share our own negative feelings and to hear someone else’s, Dr. Cole said.

He advises creating a new “ritual of connection: moments in time when you plan to turn toward one another.”

That could be a daily walk, where you intentionally talk about the surgery-related changes that both of you have had. Dr. Cole said to ask yourself, “Are we intentional about turning toward one another in those [challenging] moments?”

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

Kristal was only in her mid-30s when she decided to have surgery. Her doctor said it was too early. But the Oregon mom of three had found herself in the hospital twice for obesity-related lung complications before her 35th birthday. So she got the gastric sleeve.

And at first it seemed like the best decision for her and her family. She was losing weight – 100 pounds in 16 months – and so was her husband. The whole family was more active and seemed to have more energy. But then her husband’s weight began to creep back up.

While she joined a running group and signed up for half-marathons, her husband’s depression and drinking worsened. The healthier lifestyle they’d shared was now an unspoken wedge between them.

And the added attention Kristal was getting from men and women because of her thinner size only added to the tension. After 30 years together and 22 years of marriage, the high school sweethearts divorced in June 2021. Kristal’s weight loss wasn’t the only problem, but she and her ex-husband believe it was the beginning of the end.
 

An unexpected outcome?

New research from the University of Pittsburgh found that Kristal’s experience is a common one. People who have bariatric surgery double their chances of marriage or divorce. The study looked at data from 1,441 bariatric surgery patients and found that never-married patients were over 50% more likely to get married, and married patients were more than twice as likely to get divorced, compared to the general U.S. population.

This U.S. data follows two Scandinavian studies from 2018 and 2020 that found similar relationship changes after bariatric surgery. But the postsurgery divorce rate in the United States was only about half that found in the Danish and Swedish studies, according to the new study published in Annals of Surgery.

It’s important to note that even with an increase in the divorce rate, most marriages in the study were unchanged, said epidemiologist and lead author Wendy King, PhD. In fact, 81% of couples were still married 5 years after surgery. But where the U.S. population has a divorce rate of 3.5%, bariatric patients in the study had an 8% divorce rate. Likewise, those who’d never been married before the surgery had a marriage rate of 18%, compared to 7% in the U.S. population.

Surgery certainly isn’t a death sentence for a patient’s love life. But the uptick in marriage and divorce suggests bariatric surgery significantly impacts how people engage in relationships.

“It makes sense,” said clinical psychologist Rachel Goldman, PhD, who specializes in health and wellness issues and bariatric surgery cases in New York City. “People are changing their lifestyle.” And those changes don’t start or stop the day of surgery, they begin as soon as someone decides to have surgery and continue as a lifelong process, she said.

For some patients, these healthy habits may offer a “new lease on life,” said Dr. King. According to the study, patients who had better physical health after surgery were more likely to get married.

But the continual lifestyle changes can dramatically impact the rituals of existing relationships, said Dr. Goldman. Maybe a couple loved to go out and enjoy an extravagant meal before surgery, or they had ice cream and watched a movie every Friday. The habit changes that come with bariatric surgery can require one partner to focus less on those rituals.

These sorts of changes may leave one or both people feeling like their partner is turning away from them, said Don Cole, DMin, a relationship therapist and clinical director at the Gottman Institute in Seattle, a think tank focused on the science of relationships. The person who had surgery may feel unsupported in the new journey if the partner keeps advocating for unhealthy habits, he said. And the person who didn’t have surgery may feel cast aside by the partner’s new health priorities.

Changes, even those that are positive and healthy, create a kind of crisis for relationships, Dr. Cole said. It’s not just bariatric surgery. Bringing a baby into the home, infertility treatments, and substance abuse recovery are all considered positive changes that are also predictors of relationship dissatisfaction and divorce, he said.

A couple could have a range of emotions after one partner gets bariatric surgery, Dr. Cole said. Unfortunately, “my experience as a therapist says they aren’t that good [at talking about it],” he said.

But bariatric surgery isn’t the only thing at play in these relationship changes, according to the study. Married patients had a much lower chance of separation or divorce (13%) than patients who were unmarried but living together (44%) by 5 years after surgery. Similarly, most people who were already separated either got divorced or resumed being married. It’s as if the surgery and lifestyle changes served as a catalyst for people who already had one foot out of (or in) the door, Dr. Goldman said.

A high sexual desire after surgery was also a predictor of divorce. In fact, there were more things before surgery that impacted divorce than surgery-related changes. It’s possible that many of these patients are “on the path toward change already,” Dr. King said. “Who knows how much the surgery had to do with it.”

Dr. Goldman recalled a patient who, before surgery, had very low self-worth. She wasn’t satisfied with her relationship but admitted to staying because she didn’t believe she could do any better than her current partner. After surgery, her perspective radically changed. She started to get healthier, invested in her education, and changed jobs. And when her partner refused to join her in making changes, she left. Maybe some of these patients “were already thinking about leaving but just didn’t have the confidence,” Dr. Goldman said.

Still, it’s critical that patients receive more counseling on how choosing to have bariatric surgery can impact their relationship before and after their weight loss procedure, Dr. King said. It should be the standard of care.

Currently, relationship-specific counseling isn’t required, Dr. Goldman said. Most programs do require a psychosocial evaluation before surgery, “but they are quite varied.” And even in programs where relationships are mentioned, there often isn’t a psychologist or licensed mental health professional on the team.

Since Dr. King’s previous research on substance abuse after bariatric surgery changed common practice in the field, Dr. Goldman said she hopes the new data will have a similar influence and relationship counseling will become the norm.

Dr. Cole actually had bariatric surgery. He recalled potential relationship issues were briefly mentioned. Someone at the clinic said if his marriage felt challenged, he should seek help from a professional, and that was it.

For Dr. Cole, there were unexpected negative feelings of shame and disappointment after surgery. He felt the extreme weight loss was all his colleagues could talk about and was very disappointed when there was no change in his chronic pain, a primary reason he had the procedure.

Fortunately, he could talk to his wife – also is a relationship therapist at Gottman – about the range of emotions. “One of the things that we know that creates a deep sense of trust is [when] I know my partner is there for me when I’m not well,” Dr. Cole said.

But these negative emotions can be the very things that feel most difficult to talk about or hear from a partner. It’s hard to share our own negative feelings and to hear someone else’s, Dr. Cole said.

He advises creating a new “ritual of connection: moments in time when you plan to turn toward one another.”

That could be a daily walk, where you intentionally talk about the surgery-related changes that both of you have had. Dr. Cole said to ask yourself, “Are we intentional about turning toward one another in those [challenging] moments?”

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