Gynecologists have experience managing human papillomavirus–associated diseases of the lower genital tract. However, HPV also causes warty disease, dysplasia, and carcinoma of the head and neck. Risk factors for head and neck cancer include smoking and smokeless tobacco use, alcohol consumption, periodontal disease, radiation exposure, and HPV. The incidence of HPV-associated head and neck cancer is rising, particularly among men, at a rate of 2.7% per year.¹ The incidence of HPV-associated squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx now surpasses that of cervical cancer. Concerns exist regarding occupational exposure to HPV by health care providers (HCP) who perform smoke-generating procedures on HPV-infected tissues, and the potential for them to develop head and neck pathology.

In March of 2020, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology made the recommendation that clinicians who are routinely exposed to HPV should protect themselves against the sequela of occupationally acquired HPV by receiving the HPV vaccine.² They advocate for the “complete provider team” including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, operative technicians, and residents and fellows to be considered for protective vaccination.

Similar to disease patterns in the genital tract, different strains of HPV have differing propensity to cause benign, premalignant, and malignant disease states. HPV 6 and 11 are more commonly associated with warty disease in the nares, pharynx, and tonsillar tissues. HPV 16, 18, 31, and 33 (most commonly 16) are considered high risk for carcinoma formation, particularly of the tonsils and base of the tongue.

The procedures most implicated in occupational HPV exposure include ablative procedures for anogenital warts, laser ablation of vaginal and vulvar dysplasia, and electrosurgical excisional procedures for cervical dysplasia. Smoke plumes from HPV-associated procedures are known to contain HPV for both laser and electrocautery sources.³ A study of 134 patients undergoing surgical procedures for laser ablation of HPV-infected tissues detected concordant strains of HPV in approximately 30% of smoke plumes and approximately 1.5% of surgeons’ nares.⁴ Not all procedures appear to carry the same risk. Electrocoagulation procedures appear to yield fewer postprocedural positive mucosal swabs for HPV, compared with those taken after CO₂ laser.⁵

Animal studies have shown that papilloma virus procured from smoke plume has the capacity to generate disease. When 10 calves were inoculated with bovine papillary virus obtained from smoke plumes from laser ablation of bovine papillomavirus lesions, all calves manifested BPV fibropapilloma lesions at the sites of inoculation.⁶

There appears to be an increased incidence of HPV-associated head and neck disease among surgeons who perform procedures on HPV tissues, and there have been multiple case reports that have cited examples of HPV-associated benign and malignant disease among HCPs with frequent occupational exposure to HPV anogenital ablative and excisional procedures.⁷ While these observations are not proof of causation, they are cause for concern.

While the ASCCP guidelines advocate for HPV vaccination as a strategy for prevention of occupationally related HPV-associated disease, there are other strategies in place to minimize risk. The CDC guidelines for environmental infection control in health care facilities include the following recommendations:

• In settings where surgical lasers are used, wear appropriate personnel protective equipment (PPE), including N95 or N100 respirators to minimize exposure to laser plumes.
• Use central wall suction units with in-line filters to evacuate minimal laser plumes.
• Use a mechanical smoke evaluation system with a high efficiency filter to manage the generation of large amounts of laser plume, when ablating tissue infected with HPV.
• Use local exhaust ventilation (LEV).⁸

When closely adhered to, these methods appear to provide high-level protection. Data suggest that, when HCPs can access appropriate protective equipment, risks for HPV exposure are low. However, this is more feasible for larger hospital facilities, and may be more limited in outpatient settings. This has led to the consideration of background protection in the form of HPV vaccination for at-risk HCPs. This is analogous to mandates for HCPs to receive hepatitis B vaccination despite the concomitant practice of universal precautions in health care settings. Preventative strategies are typically most efficacious when performed in concert.

After nearly 2 decades of widespread use, we have confidence in the safety of the HPV vaccination. Its benefit through age 45 has been established, leading to the 2018 FDA approval for the 9-valent HPV vaccine, Guardisil-9, for this expanded age group. It would seem logical that systematic administration of the HPV vaccine for at-risk HCPs would be both feasible and safe. There are well-established systems for administering vaccines for HCPs in all health care systems. Perhaps health system administrators should consider routinely offering HPV vaccination for at-risk employees as part of their occupational health care responsibilities. One important caveat being the cost and efficacy of HPV vaccination in this group has not been not established.

In the meantime, it is critical that gynecology providers be aware of their risk for occupational exposure to HPV when using laser and electrocautery techniques on HPV-infected tissues and the potential for them developing head and neck pathology. They should strictly adhere to preventative measures such as use of fit-tested N-95 respirators, mechanical smoke evacuators with high-efficiency filters and work in environments with adequate room ventilation. We all should individually evaluate what role HPV vaccination may play for us in augmenting our own safety.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Van Dyne EA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Aug 24;67(33):918-24.

2. ASCCP. ASCCP recommends HPV vaccination for providers.

3. Fox-Lewis A et al. Occup Environ Med. 2020 Dec;77(12):809-17.

4. Zhou Q et al. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:3643-54

5. Bergbrant I et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 1994 Sep;74(5):393-5.

6. Garden J et al. Arch Dermatol. 2002 Oct;138(10):1303-7.

7. Harrison R, Huh W. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:663-5.

8. CDC. 1996. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 96-128.

Gynecologists have experience managing human papillomavirus–associated diseases of the lower genital tract. However, HPV also causes warty disease, dysplasia, and carcinoma of the head and neck. Risk factors for head and neck cancer include smoking and smokeless tobacco use, alcohol consumption, periodontal disease, radiation exposure, and HPV. The incidence of HPV-associated head and neck cancer is rising, particularly among men, at a rate of 2.7% per year.¹ The incidence of HPV-associated squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx now surpasses that of cervical cancer. Concerns exist regarding occupational exposure to HPV by health care providers (HCP) who perform smoke-generating procedures on HPV-infected tissues, and the potential for them to develop head and neck pathology.

In March of 2020, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology made the recommendation that clinicians who are routinely exposed to HPV should protect themselves against the sequela of occupationally acquired HPV by receiving the HPV vaccine.² They advocate for the “complete provider team” including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, operative technicians, and residents and fellows to be considered for protective vaccination.

Similar to disease patterns in the genital tract, different strains of HPV have differing propensity to cause benign, premalignant, and malignant disease states. HPV 6 and 11 are more commonly associated with warty disease in the nares, pharynx, and tonsillar tissues. HPV 16, 18, 31, and 33 (most commonly 16) are considered high risk for carcinoma formation, particularly of the tonsils and base of the tongue.

The procedures most implicated in occupational HPV exposure include ablative procedures for anogenital warts, laser ablation of vaginal and vulvar dysplasia, and electrosurgical excisional procedures for cervical dysplasia. Smoke plumes from HPV-associated procedures are known to contain HPV for both laser and electrocautery sources.³ A study of 134 patients undergoing surgical procedures for laser ablation of HPV-infected tissues detected concordant strains of HPV in approximately 30% of smoke plumes and approximately 1.5% of surgeons’ nares.⁴ Not all procedures appear to carry the same risk. Electrocoagulation procedures appear to yield fewer postprocedural positive mucosal swabs for HPV, compared with those taken after CO₂ laser.⁵

Animal studies have shown that papilloma virus procured from smoke plume has the capacity to generate disease. When 10 calves were inoculated with bovine papillary virus obtained from smoke plumes from laser ablation of bovine papillomavirus lesions, all calves manifested BPV fibropapilloma lesions at the sites of inoculation.⁶

There appears to be an increased incidence of HPV-associated head and neck disease among surgeons who perform procedures on HPV tissues, and there have been multiple case reports that have cited examples of HPV-associated benign and malignant disease among HCPs with frequent occupational exposure to HPV anogenital ablative and excisional procedures.⁷ While these observations are not proof of causation, they are cause for concern.

While the ASCCP guidelines advocate for HPV vaccination as a strategy for prevention of occupationally related HPV-associated disease, there are other strategies in place to minimize risk. The CDC guidelines for environmental infection control in health care facilities include the following recommendations:

• In settings where surgical lasers are used, wear appropriate personnel protective equipment (PPE), including N95 or N100 respirators to minimize exposure to laser plumes.
• Use central wall suction units with in-line filters to evacuate minimal laser plumes.
• Use a mechanical smoke evaluation system with a high efficiency filter to manage the generation of large amounts of laser plume, when ablating tissue infected with HPV.
• Use local exhaust ventilation (LEV).⁸

When closely adhered to, these methods appear to provide high-level protection. Data suggest that, when HCPs can access appropriate protective equipment, risks for HPV exposure are low. However, this is more feasible for larger hospital facilities, and may be more limited in outpatient settings. This has led to the consideration of background protection in the form of HPV vaccination for at-risk HCPs. This is analogous to mandates for HCPs to receive hepatitis B vaccination despite the concomitant practice of universal precautions in health care settings. Preventative strategies are typically most efficacious when performed in concert.

After nearly 2 decades of widespread use, we have confidence in the safety of the HPV vaccination. Its benefit through age 45 has been established, leading to the 2018 FDA approval for the 9-valent HPV vaccine, Guardisil-9, for this expanded age group. It would seem logical that systematic administration of the HPV vaccine for at-risk HCPs would be both feasible and safe. There are well-established systems for administering vaccines for HCPs in all health care systems. Perhaps health system administrators should consider routinely offering HPV vaccination for at-risk employees as part of their occupational health care responsibilities. One important caveat being the cost and efficacy of HPV vaccination in this group has not been not established.

In the meantime, it is critical that gynecology providers be aware of their risk for occupational exposure to HPV when using laser and electrocautery techniques on HPV-infected tissues and the potential for them developing head and neck pathology. They should strictly adhere to preventative measures such as use of fit-tested N-95 respirators, mechanical smoke evacuators with high-efficiency filters and work in environments with adequate room ventilation. We all should individually evaluate what role HPV vaccination may play for us in augmenting our own safety.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Van Dyne EA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Aug 24;67(33):918-24.

2. ASCCP. ASCCP recommends HPV vaccination for providers.

3. Fox-Lewis A et al. Occup Environ Med. 2020 Dec;77(12):809-17.

4. Zhou Q et al. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:3643-54

5. Bergbrant I et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 1994 Sep;74(5):393-5.

6. Garden J et al. Arch Dermatol. 2002 Oct;138(10):1303-7.

7. Harrison R, Huh W. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:663-5.

8. CDC. 1996. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 96-128.

Gynecologists have experience managing human papillomavirus–associated diseases of the lower genital tract. However, HPV also causes warty disease, dysplasia, and carcinoma of the head and neck. Risk factors for head and neck cancer include smoking and smokeless tobacco use, alcohol consumption, periodontal disease, radiation exposure, and HPV. The incidence of HPV-associated head and neck cancer is rising, particularly among men, at a rate of 2.7% per year.¹ The incidence of HPV-associated squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx now surpasses that of cervical cancer. Concerns exist regarding occupational exposure to HPV by health care providers (HCP) who perform smoke-generating procedures on HPV-infected tissues, and the potential for them to develop head and neck pathology.

In March of 2020, the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology made the recommendation that clinicians who are routinely exposed to HPV should protect themselves against the sequela of occupationally acquired HPV by receiving the HPV vaccine.² They advocate for the “complete provider team” including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, operative technicians, and residents and fellows to be considered for protective vaccination.

Similar to disease patterns in the genital tract, different strains of HPV have differing propensity to cause benign, premalignant, and malignant disease states. HPV 6 and 11 are more commonly associated with warty disease in the nares, pharynx, and tonsillar tissues. HPV 16, 18, 31, and 33 (most commonly 16) are considered high risk for carcinoma formation, particularly of the tonsils and base of the tongue.

The procedures most implicated in occupational HPV exposure include ablative procedures for anogenital warts, laser ablation of vaginal and vulvar dysplasia, and electrosurgical excisional procedures for cervical dysplasia. Smoke plumes from HPV-associated procedures are known to contain HPV for both laser and electrocautery sources.³ A study of 134 patients undergoing surgical procedures for laser ablation of HPV-infected tissues detected concordant strains of HPV in approximately 30% of smoke plumes and approximately 1.5% of surgeons’ nares.⁴ Not all procedures appear to carry the same risk. Electrocoagulation procedures appear to yield fewer postprocedural positive mucosal swabs for HPV, compared with those taken after CO₂ laser.⁵

Animal studies have shown that papilloma virus procured from smoke plume has the capacity to generate disease. When 10 calves were inoculated with bovine papillary virus obtained from smoke plumes from laser ablation of bovine papillomavirus lesions, all calves manifested BPV fibropapilloma lesions at the sites of inoculation.⁶

There appears to be an increased incidence of HPV-associated head and neck disease among surgeons who perform procedures on HPV tissues, and there have been multiple case reports that have cited examples of HPV-associated benign and malignant disease among HCPs with frequent occupational exposure to HPV anogenital ablative and excisional procedures.⁷ While these observations are not proof of causation, they are cause for concern.

While the ASCCP guidelines advocate for HPV vaccination as a strategy for prevention of occupationally related HPV-associated disease, there are other strategies in place to minimize risk. The CDC guidelines for environmental infection control in health care facilities include the following recommendations:

• In settings where surgical lasers are used, wear appropriate personnel protective equipment (PPE), including N95 or N100 respirators to minimize exposure to laser plumes.
• Use central wall suction units with in-line filters to evacuate minimal laser plumes.
• Use a mechanical smoke evaluation system with a high efficiency filter to manage the generation of large amounts of laser plume, when ablating tissue infected with HPV.
• Use local exhaust ventilation (LEV).⁸

When closely adhered to, these methods appear to provide high-level protection. Data suggest that, when HCPs can access appropriate protective equipment, risks for HPV exposure are low. However, this is more feasible for larger hospital facilities, and may be more limited in outpatient settings. This has led to the consideration of background protection in the form of HPV vaccination for at-risk HCPs. This is analogous to mandates for HCPs to receive hepatitis B vaccination despite the concomitant practice of universal precautions in health care settings. Preventative strategies are typically most efficacious when performed in concert.

After nearly 2 decades of widespread use, we have confidence in the safety of the HPV vaccination. Its benefit through age 45 has been established, leading to the 2018 FDA approval for the 9-valent HPV vaccine, Guardisil-9, for this expanded age group. It would seem logical that systematic administration of the HPV vaccine for at-risk HCPs would be both feasible and safe. There are well-established systems for administering vaccines for HCPs in all health care systems. Perhaps health system administrators should consider routinely offering HPV vaccination for at-risk employees as part of their occupational health care responsibilities. One important caveat being the cost and efficacy of HPV vaccination in this group has not been not established.

In the meantime, it is critical that gynecology providers be aware of their risk for occupational exposure to HPV when using laser and electrocautery techniques on HPV-infected tissues and the potential for them developing head and neck pathology. They should strictly adhere to preventative measures such as use of fit-tested N-95 respirators, mechanical smoke evacuators with high-efficiency filters and work in environments with adequate room ventilation. We all should individually evaluate what role HPV vaccination may play for us in augmenting our own safety.
 

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

References

1. Van Dyne EA et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018 Aug 24;67(33):918-24.

2. ASCCP. ASCCP recommends HPV vaccination for providers.

3. Fox-Lewis A et al. Occup Environ Med. 2020 Dec;77(12):809-17.

4. Zhou Q et al. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:3643-54

5. Bergbrant I et al. Acta Derm Venereol. 1994 Sep;74(5):393-5.

6. Garden J et al. Arch Dermatol. 2002 Oct;138(10):1303-7.

7. Harrison R, Huh W. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136:663-5.

8. CDC. 1996. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication Number 96-128.

Pfizer announced on Nov. 22 that its COVID-19 vaccine provided long-term protection against the virus in a late-stage clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15.

A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.

“As the global health community works to increase the number of vaccinated people around the world, these additional data provide further confidence in our vaccine safety and effectiveness profile in adolescents,” Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said in a statement.

The clinical trial researchers found no serious safety concerns while following patients for 6 months. The adverse events were consistent with other clinical safety data for the vaccine, the company said.

Pfizer will incorporate the data into its submissions for full regulatory approval of the vaccine for ages 12-15 in the United States and worldwide.

The company will request clearance for a 30-mcg dose of the vaccines for ages 12 and older. The shot received FDA emergency use authorization for ages 12-15 in May and full approval for ages 16 and older in August.

The study included 2,228 clinical trial participants who were monitored between November 2020 and September 2021. There were 30 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group that didn’t receive the vaccine and 0 COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated group.

The efficacy was consistently high across gender, race, ethnicity, and health conditions, the company said.

“This is especially important as we see rates of COVID-19 climbing in this age group in some regions, while vaccine uptake has slowed,” Mr. Bourla said. “We look forward to sharing these data with the FDA and other regulators.”

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

Pfizer announced on Nov. 22 that its COVID-19 vaccine provided long-term protection against the virus in a late-stage clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15.

A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.

“As the global health community works to increase the number of vaccinated people around the world, these additional data provide further confidence in our vaccine safety and effectiveness profile in adolescents,” Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said in a statement.

The clinical trial researchers found no serious safety concerns while following patients for 6 months. The adverse events were consistent with other clinical safety data for the vaccine, the company said.

Pfizer will incorporate the data into its submissions for full regulatory approval of the vaccine for ages 12-15 in the United States and worldwide.

The company will request clearance for a 30-mcg dose of the vaccines for ages 12 and older. The shot received FDA emergency use authorization for ages 12-15 in May and full approval for ages 16 and older in August.

The study included 2,228 clinical trial participants who were monitored between November 2020 and September 2021. There were 30 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group that didn’t receive the vaccine and 0 COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated group.

The efficacy was consistently high across gender, race, ethnicity, and health conditions, the company said.

“This is especially important as we see rates of COVID-19 climbing in this age group in some regions, while vaccine uptake has slowed,” Mr. Bourla said. “We look forward to sharing these data with the FDA and other regulators.”

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

Pfizer announced on Nov. 22 that its COVID-19 vaccine provided long-term protection against the virus in a late-stage clinical trial among adolescents ages 12-15.

A two-dose series was 100% effective against COVID-19, which was measured between 7 days and 4 months after the second dose.

“As the global health community works to increase the number of vaccinated people around the world, these additional data provide further confidence in our vaccine safety and effectiveness profile in adolescents,” Albert Bourla, PhD, chairman and CEO of Pfizer, said in a statement.

The clinical trial researchers found no serious safety concerns while following patients for 6 months. The adverse events were consistent with other clinical safety data for the vaccine, the company said.

Pfizer will incorporate the data into its submissions for full regulatory approval of the vaccine for ages 12-15 in the United States and worldwide.

The company will request clearance for a 30-mcg dose of the vaccines for ages 12 and older. The shot received FDA emergency use authorization for ages 12-15 in May and full approval for ages 16 and older in August.

The study included 2,228 clinical trial participants who were monitored between November 2020 and September 2021. There were 30 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 in the placebo group that didn’t receive the vaccine and 0 COVID-19 cases among the vaccinated group.

The efficacy was consistently high across gender, race, ethnicity, and health conditions, the company said.

“This is especially important as we see rates of COVID-19 climbing in this age group in some regions, while vaccine uptake has slowed,” Mr. Bourla said. “We look forward to sharing these data with the FDA and other regulators.”

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

Although the estimated annual number of measles deaths decreased 94% from 2000 to 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on both measles vaccination and surveillance, according to a recent report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The number of World Health Organization member states that achieved more than 90% coverage with the first dose of the measles vaccine (MCV1) declined 37% from 2019 to 2020. In 2020, 23 million infants did not receive MCV1 through routine immunization services, and another 93 million were affected by the postponement of mass immunizations or supplementary immunization activities because of the pandemic. Also, endemic transmission was reestablished in nine countries that had previously eliminated measles.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of COVID-19 is its effect on surveillance.

“The entire COVID pandemic really put a lot of strain on the surveillance systems, not only for measles but for all vaccine-preventable disease, because there’s a lot of overlap in the staff who work for surveillance,” said Katrina Kretsinger, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who contributed to the MMWR report.

Because of the stress on the systems, a lot fewer specimens were tested, she said in an interview. And it’s not just measles that is at risk. This has had an impact on the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which lost staff.

In addition, many vaccination campaigns “were postponed and curtailed throughout 2020,” Dr. Kretsinger said. The strengthening of surveillance systems – and immunization systems, more broadly – needs to be a priority.

“It’s not clear that the children who were missed during that year were subsequently caught up,” she explained. Having a “cohort of children who have missed measles vaccine creates the reservoir of susceptibility that will provide the nidus for the next big outbreak.”

Measles is the indicator disease. That could mean a resurgence of other vaccine-preventable diseases as well.

This report “was written by some of the world’s experts in measles, and it raises concerns about potential resurgence of measles,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine, epidemiology, global health, and pediatrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “Measles is sort of a canary in the coal mine. If you look at vaccine-preventable diseases, measles is probably the most contagious, so the herd-immunity threshold is highest. Usually on the order of 92%-94% immunity is needed to stop transmission.”

“Measles is the indicator disease,” he said in an interview. “That could mean a resurgence of other vaccine-preventable diseases as well.” Outbreaks don’t just affect the countries where infections are occurring, they “also affect our own domestic health security.”

“Some sort of periodic intensified routine immunization” would be helpful, said Dr. Kretsinger, who recommends “going through and selectively doing some sort of intensified efforts to catch children up early for the entire range of vaccines that they may have missed.”

“Some of these capture campaigns in areas that are thought to have the major problem would be very, very important,” agreed Dr. Orenstein. “A school entry check is one way of trying to look at kids, let’s say at 4-6 years of age, in schools around the world,” offering doses if they’re unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated. “Another is to try to improve surveillance and try to understand if the cases are vaccine failure or failure to vaccinate.”

“Where the health systems are the most fragile is where those gaps will be the last to be filled, if they are at all, and where we have the basic concerns,” Dr. Kretsinger explained.

“Years ago, WHO recognized that vaccine hesitancy is a top global health threat,” said Dr. Orenstein. “People may not see these diseases so they don’t mean much to them. Since vaccines, we’re victims of our own success.” There’s also a lot of incorrect information circulating.

“We need to realize – and it’s been shown with COVID – that a decision not to vaccinate is not just a decision for your own child. It’s a community decision,” he pointed out. “It’s not my freedom to drive drunk, because not only do I put myself at risk, but others can’t control the car. We have speed limits and other examples where we restrict personal choice because it can adversely affect individuals.”

“My favorite line is vaccines don’t save lives, vaccinations save lives,” Dr. Orenstein said. “The vaccine dose that remains in the vial is 0% effective, no matter what the clinical trials show. And the issue, I think, is that we need to determine how to convince the hesitant to get confident enough to accept vaccination. For that, there is behavioral research; there’s a whole bunch of things that need to be supported. Just purchasing the vaccine doesn’t get it into the bodies.”

Dr. Kretsinger and Dr. Orenstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships .

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

Although the estimated annual number of measles deaths decreased 94% from 2000 to 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on both measles vaccination and surveillance, according to a recent report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The number of World Health Organization member states that achieved more than 90% coverage with the first dose of the measles vaccine (MCV1) declined 37% from 2019 to 2020. In 2020, 23 million infants did not receive MCV1 through routine immunization services, and another 93 million were affected by the postponement of mass immunizations or supplementary immunization activities because of the pandemic. Also, endemic transmission was reestablished in nine countries that had previously eliminated measles.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of COVID-19 is its effect on surveillance.

“The entire COVID pandemic really put a lot of strain on the surveillance systems, not only for measles but for all vaccine-preventable disease, because there’s a lot of overlap in the staff who work for surveillance,” said Katrina Kretsinger, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who contributed to the MMWR report.

Because of the stress on the systems, a lot fewer specimens were tested, she said in an interview. And it’s not just measles that is at risk. This has had an impact on the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which lost staff.

In addition, many vaccination campaigns “were postponed and curtailed throughout 2020,” Dr. Kretsinger said. The strengthening of surveillance systems – and immunization systems, more broadly – needs to be a priority.

“It’s not clear that the children who were missed during that year were subsequently caught up,” she explained. Having a “cohort of children who have missed measles vaccine creates the reservoir of susceptibility that will provide the nidus for the next big outbreak.”

Measles is the indicator disease. That could mean a resurgence of other vaccine-preventable diseases as well.

This report “was written by some of the world’s experts in measles, and it raises concerns about potential resurgence of measles,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine, epidemiology, global health, and pediatrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “Measles is sort of a canary in the coal mine. If you look at vaccine-preventable diseases, measles is probably the most contagious, so the herd-immunity threshold is highest. Usually on the order of 92%-94% immunity is needed to stop transmission.”

“Measles is the indicator disease,” he said in an interview. “That could mean a resurgence of other vaccine-preventable diseases as well.” Outbreaks don’t just affect the countries where infections are occurring, they “also affect our own domestic health security.”

“Some sort of periodic intensified routine immunization” would be helpful, said Dr. Kretsinger, who recommends “going through and selectively doing some sort of intensified efforts to catch children up early for the entire range of vaccines that they may have missed.”

“Some of these capture campaigns in areas that are thought to have the major problem would be very, very important,” agreed Dr. Orenstein. “A school entry check is one way of trying to look at kids, let’s say at 4-6 years of age, in schools around the world,” offering doses if they’re unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated. “Another is to try to improve surveillance and try to understand if the cases are vaccine failure or failure to vaccinate.”

“Where the health systems are the most fragile is where those gaps will be the last to be filled, if they are at all, and where we have the basic concerns,” Dr. Kretsinger explained.

“Years ago, WHO recognized that vaccine hesitancy is a top global health threat,” said Dr. Orenstein. “People may not see these diseases so they don’t mean much to them. Since vaccines, we’re victims of our own success.” There’s also a lot of incorrect information circulating.

“We need to realize – and it’s been shown with COVID – that a decision not to vaccinate is not just a decision for your own child. It’s a community decision,” he pointed out. “It’s not my freedom to drive drunk, because not only do I put myself at risk, but others can’t control the car. We have speed limits and other examples where we restrict personal choice because it can adversely affect individuals.”

“My favorite line is vaccines don’t save lives, vaccinations save lives,” Dr. Orenstein said. “The vaccine dose that remains in the vial is 0% effective, no matter what the clinical trials show. And the issue, I think, is that we need to determine how to convince the hesitant to get confident enough to accept vaccination. For that, there is behavioral research; there’s a whole bunch of things that need to be supported. Just purchasing the vaccine doesn’t get it into the bodies.”

Dr. Kretsinger and Dr. Orenstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships .

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

Although the estimated annual number of measles deaths decreased 94% from 2000 to 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic took a toll on both measles vaccination and surveillance, according to a recent report in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The number of World Health Organization member states that achieved more than 90% coverage with the first dose of the measles vaccine (MCV1) declined 37% from 2019 to 2020. In 2020, 23 million infants did not receive MCV1 through routine immunization services, and another 93 million were affected by the postponement of mass immunizations or supplementary immunization activities because of the pandemic. Also, endemic transmission was reestablished in nine countries that had previously eliminated measles.

But perhaps the most overlooked aspect of COVID-19 is its effect on surveillance.

“The entire COVID pandemic really put a lot of strain on the surveillance systems, not only for measles but for all vaccine-preventable disease, because there’s a lot of overlap in the staff who work for surveillance,” said Katrina Kretsinger, MD, a medical epidemiologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who contributed to the MMWR report.

Because of the stress on the systems, a lot fewer specimens were tested, she said in an interview. And it’s not just measles that is at risk. This has had an impact on the Global Polio Eradication Initiative, which lost staff.

In addition, many vaccination campaigns “were postponed and curtailed throughout 2020,” Dr. Kretsinger said. The strengthening of surveillance systems – and immunization systems, more broadly – needs to be a priority.

“It’s not clear that the children who were missed during that year were subsequently caught up,” she explained. Having a “cohort of children who have missed measles vaccine creates the reservoir of susceptibility that will provide the nidus for the next big outbreak.”

Measles is the indicator disease. That could mean a resurgence of other vaccine-preventable diseases as well.

This report “was written by some of the world’s experts in measles, and it raises concerns about potential resurgence of measles,” said Walter Orenstein, MD, professor of medicine, epidemiology, global health, and pediatrics at Emory University, Atlanta. “Measles is sort of a canary in the coal mine. If you look at vaccine-preventable diseases, measles is probably the most contagious, so the herd-immunity threshold is highest. Usually on the order of 92%-94% immunity is needed to stop transmission.”

“Measles is the indicator disease,” he said in an interview. “That could mean a resurgence of other vaccine-preventable diseases as well.” Outbreaks don’t just affect the countries where infections are occurring, they “also affect our own domestic health security.”

“Some sort of periodic intensified routine immunization” would be helpful, said Dr. Kretsinger, who recommends “going through and selectively doing some sort of intensified efforts to catch children up early for the entire range of vaccines that they may have missed.”

“Some of these capture campaigns in areas that are thought to have the major problem would be very, very important,” agreed Dr. Orenstein. “A school entry check is one way of trying to look at kids, let’s say at 4-6 years of age, in schools around the world,” offering doses if they’re unvaccinated or inadequately vaccinated. “Another is to try to improve surveillance and try to understand if the cases are vaccine failure or failure to vaccinate.”

“Where the health systems are the most fragile is where those gaps will be the last to be filled, if they are at all, and where we have the basic concerns,” Dr. Kretsinger explained.

“Years ago, WHO recognized that vaccine hesitancy is a top global health threat,” said Dr. Orenstein. “People may not see these diseases so they don’t mean much to them. Since vaccines, we’re victims of our own success.” There’s also a lot of incorrect information circulating.

“We need to realize – and it’s been shown with COVID – that a decision not to vaccinate is not just a decision for your own child. It’s a community decision,” he pointed out. “It’s not my freedom to drive drunk, because not only do I put myself at risk, but others can’t control the car. We have speed limits and other examples where we restrict personal choice because it can adversely affect individuals.”

“My favorite line is vaccines don’t save lives, vaccinations save lives,” Dr. Orenstein said. “The vaccine dose that remains in the vial is 0% effective, no matter what the clinical trials show. And the issue, I think, is that we need to determine how to convince the hesitant to get confident enough to accept vaccination. For that, there is behavioral research; there’s a whole bunch of things that need to be supported. Just purchasing the vaccine doesn’t get it into the bodies.”

Dr. Kretsinger and Dr. Orenstein disclosed no relevant financial relationships .

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

A number of clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

Uterine precancer (endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia). A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking adults with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (also called complex atypical hyperplasia or atypical hyperplasia) who are scheduled for hysterectomy within 3 months. Researchers are using the window of opportunity before an already-scheduled hysterectomy to see whether adding metformin to megestrol acetate, a treatment standard for nonsurgical patients, increases the effectiveness of megestrol in slowing this type of neoplasia. Participants will receive twice-daily oral medication for 4 weeks then undergo hysterectomy. The trial aims to enroll 50 participants. It began recruiting on Sept. 21 at its Northwestern University site in Evanston, Ill.; sites in California, Colorado, and North Carolina are also planned. The primary outcome is the change in endometrial cell proliferation. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) will not be measured. .

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, who is not involved in this trial, was approached for comment. “This is an interesting study concept, and patients with endometrial atypical hyperplasia may certainly wish to consider participation,” Dr. Markman said. He noted the “limited sample size” of the study.

Advanced, recurrent or refractory ovarian, fallopian, and endometrial cancers overexpressing folate receptor (FR)–alpha. Patients with these types of cancers are eligible for a phase 1/2 study of a new-concept targeted therapy called ELU-001. The molecular structure of ELU001 – called a C’Dot drug conjugate – consists of a drug “payload” riding with an FR-alpha–targeting molecule. For the first 28 days of the study, patients will receive escalating intravenous doses of ELU001 to determine the highest tolerated dose of the drug. All participants will then receive the selected dose for up to 12 months until lesions disappear (complete response) or there is a 30% decrease in the sum of the tumors’ longest diameter (partial response). This “basket” study – a trial involving a “basket” of different cancers with one genetic target – is hosted by New Experimental Therapeutics of San Antonio, which started recruitment for 166 patients on Sept. 13. Neither OS nor QoL will be tracked. .

Dr. Markman commented: “There is considerable interest in examining antineoplastic agents directed to tumor antigens overexpressed in ovarian cancer.”

Locally recurrent, unresectable, or metastatic cervical or endometrial cancer positive for PD-L1. Adults with these types of cancers are invited to join another basket trial, this time testing MK-7684A, a new coformulation of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the investigational drug vibostolimab. Most participants will receive intravenous infusions of either MK-7684A, MK-7684A plus chemotherapy, or pembrolizumab alone every 3 weeks for up to 3 years. One group will be given MK-7684A every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel weekly. People with endometrial cancer will also take a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The primary outcomes are response rate and progression-free survival; OS and QoL are secondary outcomes. The study opened on Sept. 16 and hopes to recruit 480 participants in eight countries with several different cancers, including cervical and endometrial cancers. U.S. patients can join at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif. .

Persistent or recurrent rare epithelial tumors of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum. Adults with these cancers are sought for a phase 2 trial comparing four targeted-therapy regimens. Participants will receive either ipatasertib plus paclitaxel (Taxol); cobimetinib (Cotellic); trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla); or atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) for up to 5 years until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Ipatasertib and cobimetinib are oral medications; all the others are administered intravenously on schedules that vary from once every 3 weeks (atezolizumab, trastuzumab) to weekly infusions 3 weeks out of 4 (paclitaxel). The study opened on Oct. 7 and hopes to enroll 200 participants at sites in Arizona, California, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and worldwide. OS will be tracked, QoL will not. 

Dr. Markman commented: “This is an interesting early study of the potential efficacy of a novel AKT inhibitor [ipatasertib] in rare gynecologic cancers.”

Platinum-resistant or refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Adult women whose high-grade serous ovarian cancer is platinum resistant or refractory and who do not have germline BRCA mutations are sought for a phase 3 study comparing alpelisib (Piqray) plus olaparib (Lynparza) to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. Alpelisib is approved for breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant; olaparib is approved for advanced ovarian cancer in platinum-responsive patients and/or those with BRCA- or HRD-positive tumors, so this study could lead to labeling changes for these drugs. Participants will either take daily oral doses of alpelisib plus olaparib or receive intravenous chemo on the appropriate schedules for approximately 2 years. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome measure; OS and QoL are secondary outcomes. The trial opened on July 2 and hopes to recruit 358 individuals in Singapore, Australia, Europe, and the United States (Arizona, Illinois, and Texas). .

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

Dr. Markman is not involved with any of these trials. He is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Genentech, AstraZeneca Celgene, Clovis, Amgen.

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

A number of clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

Uterine precancer (endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia). A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking adults with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (also called complex atypical hyperplasia or atypical hyperplasia) who are scheduled for hysterectomy within 3 months. Researchers are using the window of opportunity before an already-scheduled hysterectomy to see whether adding metformin to megestrol acetate, a treatment standard for nonsurgical patients, increases the effectiveness of megestrol in slowing this type of neoplasia. Participants will receive twice-daily oral medication for 4 weeks then undergo hysterectomy. The trial aims to enroll 50 participants. It began recruiting on Sept. 21 at its Northwestern University site in Evanston, Ill.; sites in California, Colorado, and North Carolina are also planned. The primary outcome is the change in endometrial cell proliferation. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) will not be measured. .

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, who is not involved in this trial, was approached for comment. “This is an interesting study concept, and patients with endometrial atypical hyperplasia may certainly wish to consider participation,” Dr. Markman said. He noted the “limited sample size” of the study.

Advanced, recurrent or refractory ovarian, fallopian, and endometrial cancers overexpressing folate receptor (FR)–alpha. Patients with these types of cancers are eligible for a phase 1/2 study of a new-concept targeted therapy called ELU-001. The molecular structure of ELU001 – called a C’Dot drug conjugate – consists of a drug “payload” riding with an FR-alpha–targeting molecule. For the first 28 days of the study, patients will receive escalating intravenous doses of ELU001 to determine the highest tolerated dose of the drug. All participants will then receive the selected dose for up to 12 months until lesions disappear (complete response) or there is a 30% decrease in the sum of the tumors’ longest diameter (partial response). This “basket” study – a trial involving a “basket” of different cancers with one genetic target – is hosted by New Experimental Therapeutics of San Antonio, which started recruitment for 166 patients on Sept. 13. Neither OS nor QoL will be tracked. .

Dr. Markman commented: “There is considerable interest in examining antineoplastic agents directed to tumor antigens overexpressed in ovarian cancer.”

Locally recurrent, unresectable, or metastatic cervical or endometrial cancer positive for PD-L1. Adults with these types of cancers are invited to join another basket trial, this time testing MK-7684A, a new coformulation of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the investigational drug vibostolimab. Most participants will receive intravenous infusions of either MK-7684A, MK-7684A plus chemotherapy, or pembrolizumab alone every 3 weeks for up to 3 years. One group will be given MK-7684A every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel weekly. People with endometrial cancer will also take a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The primary outcomes are response rate and progression-free survival; OS and QoL are secondary outcomes. The study opened on Sept. 16 and hopes to recruit 480 participants in eight countries with several different cancers, including cervical and endometrial cancers. U.S. patients can join at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif. .

Persistent or recurrent rare epithelial tumors of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum. Adults with these cancers are sought for a phase 2 trial comparing four targeted-therapy regimens. Participants will receive either ipatasertib plus paclitaxel (Taxol); cobimetinib (Cotellic); trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla); or atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) for up to 5 years until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Ipatasertib and cobimetinib are oral medications; all the others are administered intravenously on schedules that vary from once every 3 weeks (atezolizumab, trastuzumab) to weekly infusions 3 weeks out of 4 (paclitaxel). The study opened on Oct. 7 and hopes to enroll 200 participants at sites in Arizona, California, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and worldwide. OS will be tracked, QoL will not. 

Dr. Markman commented: “This is an interesting early study of the potential efficacy of a novel AKT inhibitor [ipatasertib] in rare gynecologic cancers.”

Platinum-resistant or refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Adult women whose high-grade serous ovarian cancer is platinum resistant or refractory and who do not have germline BRCA mutations are sought for a phase 3 study comparing alpelisib (Piqray) plus olaparib (Lynparza) to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. Alpelisib is approved for breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant; olaparib is approved for advanced ovarian cancer in platinum-responsive patients and/or those with BRCA- or HRD-positive tumors, so this study could lead to labeling changes for these drugs. Participants will either take daily oral doses of alpelisib plus olaparib or receive intravenous chemo on the appropriate schedules for approximately 2 years. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome measure; OS and QoL are secondary outcomes. The trial opened on July 2 and hopes to recruit 358 individuals in Singapore, Australia, Europe, and the United States (Arizona, Illinois, and Texas). .

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

Dr. Markman is not involved with any of these trials. He is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Genentech, AstraZeneca Celgene, Clovis, Amgen.

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

A number of clinical trials in gynecologic cancers have opened in recent months. Maybe one of your patients could benefit from being enrolled.

Uterine precancer (endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia). A phase 2 study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute is seeking adults with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia (also called complex atypical hyperplasia or atypical hyperplasia) who are scheduled for hysterectomy within 3 months. Researchers are using the window of opportunity before an already-scheduled hysterectomy to see whether adding metformin to megestrol acetate, a treatment standard for nonsurgical patients, increases the effectiveness of megestrol in slowing this type of neoplasia. Participants will receive twice-daily oral medication for 4 weeks then undergo hysterectomy. The trial aims to enroll 50 participants. It began recruiting on Sept. 21 at its Northwestern University site in Evanston, Ill.; sites in California, Colorado, and North Carolina are also planned. The primary outcome is the change in endometrial cell proliferation. Overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) will not be measured. .

Maurie Markman, MD, president of medicine and science at Cancer Treatment Centers of America, who is not involved in this trial, was approached for comment. “This is an interesting study concept, and patients with endometrial atypical hyperplasia may certainly wish to consider participation,” Dr. Markman said. He noted the “limited sample size” of the study.

Advanced, recurrent or refractory ovarian, fallopian, and endometrial cancers overexpressing folate receptor (FR)–alpha. Patients with these types of cancers are eligible for a phase 1/2 study of a new-concept targeted therapy called ELU-001. The molecular structure of ELU001 – called a C’Dot drug conjugate – consists of a drug “payload” riding with an FR-alpha–targeting molecule. For the first 28 days of the study, patients will receive escalating intravenous doses of ELU001 to determine the highest tolerated dose of the drug. All participants will then receive the selected dose for up to 12 months until lesions disappear (complete response) or there is a 30% decrease in the sum of the tumors’ longest diameter (partial response). This “basket” study – a trial involving a “basket” of different cancers with one genetic target – is hosted by New Experimental Therapeutics of San Antonio, which started recruitment for 166 patients on Sept. 13. Neither OS nor QoL will be tracked. .

Dr. Markman commented: “There is considerable interest in examining antineoplastic agents directed to tumor antigens overexpressed in ovarian cancer.”

Locally recurrent, unresectable, or metastatic cervical or endometrial cancer positive for PD-L1. Adults with these types of cancers are invited to join another basket trial, this time testing MK-7684A, a new coformulation of pembrolizumab (Keytruda) and the investigational drug vibostolimab. Most participants will receive intravenous infusions of either MK-7684A, MK-7684A plus chemotherapy, or pembrolizumab alone every 3 weeks for up to 3 years. One group will be given MK-7684A every 3 weeks plus paclitaxel weekly. People with endometrial cancer will also take a daily capsule of lenvatinib (Lenvima). The primary outcomes are response rate and progression-free survival; OS and QoL are secondary outcomes. The study opened on Sept. 16 and hopes to recruit 480 participants in eight countries with several different cancers, including cervical and endometrial cancers. U.S. patients can join at the City of Hope National Medical Center, Duarte, Calif. .

Persistent or recurrent rare epithelial tumors of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum. Adults with these cancers are sought for a phase 2 trial comparing four targeted-therapy regimens. Participants will receive either ipatasertib plus paclitaxel (Taxol); cobimetinib (Cotellic); trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla); or atezolizumab (Tecentriq) plus bevacizumab (Avastin) for up to 5 years until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Ipatasertib and cobimetinib are oral medications; all the others are administered intravenously on schedules that vary from once every 3 weeks (atezolizumab, trastuzumab) to weekly infusions 3 weeks out of 4 (paclitaxel). The study opened on Oct. 7 and hopes to enroll 200 participants at sites in Arizona, California, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, Virginia, and worldwide. OS will be tracked, QoL will not. 

Dr. Markman commented: “This is an interesting early study of the potential efficacy of a novel AKT inhibitor [ipatasertib] in rare gynecologic cancers.”

Platinum-resistant or refractory high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Adult women whose high-grade serous ovarian cancer is platinum resistant or refractory and who do not have germline BRCA mutations are sought for a phase 3 study comparing alpelisib (Piqray) plus olaparib (Lynparza) to investigator’s choice of chemotherapy. Alpelisib is approved for breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant; olaparib is approved for advanced ovarian cancer in platinum-responsive patients and/or those with BRCA- or HRD-positive tumors, so this study could lead to labeling changes for these drugs. Participants will either take daily oral doses of alpelisib plus olaparib or receive intravenous chemo on the appropriate schedules for approximately 2 years. Progression-free survival is the primary outcome measure; OS and QoL are secondary outcomes. The trial opened on July 2 and hopes to recruit 358 individuals in Singapore, Australia, Europe, and the United States (Arizona, Illinois, and Texas). .

All trial information is from the National Institutes of Health U.S. National Library of Medicine (online at clinicaltrials.gov).

Dr. Markman is not involved with any of these trials. He is a regular contributor to Medscape Oncology. He has received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from Genentech, AstraZeneca Celgene, Clovis, Amgen.

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

A new tool designed by psychiatrists to help guide nutritional counseling in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) has been released.

Lisovskaya/ThinkStock

The worksheet and clinician guide were developed using results from a recent scoping review on the relationship between diet and mental health in patients with SSD, and a feedback process involving a focus group with psychiatrists and individuals who had lived experience with psychosis.

“Mental health clinicians already have the training to help our patients make behavioral changes,” lead author Laura LaChance, MD, lecturer, department of psychiatry, and a psychiatrist at St. Mary’s Hospital Centre, McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“We work every day with patients to help them to reduce their substance use, improve their sleep, take medications, etc., and nutrition should be added to the radar [since] eating well for mental health is part of self-care and can be included in mental health treatment plans,” she said.

The paper was published online Nov. 10 in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Nutrition frequently ignored

Dr. LaChance noted that “nutrition is largely absent from mental health training programs and often ignored in clinical practice.”

The investigators “wanted to create a tool to help incorporate basic nutritional counseling into the care of individuals with severe mental illness.” They wanted the tool “to be simple enough to understand for patients and simple enough to use for mental health care professionals who don’t have any official nutrition training.”

The team developed a worksheet that includes dietary recommendations, the majority of which are supported by the scoping review and consistent with Canada’s Food Guide. The review “identified all of the published literature related to the relationship between diet and psychiatric symptoms of SSD,” synthesizing the results of 822 prior articles.

It promotes the addition of nutritious food rather than the restriction of calories or individual foods and does not contradict generally accepted recommendations for weight management. It is suitable for all patients including those with low or normal body mass index and provides psychoeducation about the importance of quality nutrition as a determinant of mental health.
 

Positive tone

The worksheet was informed by social cognitive theory, which “highlights the important role of goal setting and behavior contracting, reinforcement, self-control, social norms, attitudes, and self-efficacy.”

It provides “basic education about important nutrition principles” as well as “very simple recommendations to increase knowledge about healthy eating” and “actionable tips for individuals to incorporate.” The researchers used a “positive” tone and included motivational interviewing questions.

“Delivery of the intervention by the patient’s mental health care provider is by design, in an attempt to address the widely held misbelief that nutrition intervention is of limited importance to mental health care and begin to change norms,” Dr. LaChance said.

The worksheet addresses monetary barriers to healthy eating; offers practical tips to “increase perceived control and self-efficacy”; is written in simple, accessible, nontechnical language; and includes foods from a range of cultural backgrounds.

To ensure that the worksheet and clinical guide met the needs of the target population, the researchers conducted a focus group with five psychiatrists and individual phone interviews with people who live with psychosis (n = 6).

Participants with psychosis were evenly divided between male and female and six age groups were represented: younger than 20 years; 21-30 years; 31-40 years; 41-50 years; 51-50 years; and older than 60 years. Of these participants, half scored in the “limited literacy” range, based on a nutritional literacy assessment tool (the Newest Vital Sign [NVS]).

A revised version of the worksheet, taking participants’ feedback into account, was mailed to all participants, who then provided further feedback on the revised version.


 

‘Unspoken area’

The clinician guide contains not only an overview and a suggested agenda to steer discussion, but also a sample visual representation of the recommended relative proportions of different food categories in an ideal meal as well as sample meals, a budgeting discussion, and a list of goals.

A closing statement encourages the clinician to “keep the messaging positive, celebrate small victories, and provide encouragement.”

Specific dietary recommendations include choosing complex carbohydrates and healthy fats, reducing highly processed foods and sugar, adding vegetables and fruits to meals and snacks, and eating protein-rich foods throughout the day.

A “noteworthy theme” that emerged in discussions with psychiatrists as well as participants with SSD was “the lack of nutrition training in medical education and psychiatric residency and the general absence of nutritional counseling in this field of medicine.”

One participant described nutrition as “definitely an unspoken area” in schizophrenia – especially in institutional settings, where “you are overloaded with sugars, not healthy grain, not complex grain. You get white bread sandwiches, shitty juice.”
 

Powerful tool

Commenting on the paper for this news organization, Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and a nutrition educator at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said she appreciates that this paper “is seeking methods to expand treatment options for those with SSD and improve provider understanding/knowledge of therapeutic foods.”

She called the pilot evaluation “notably small,” but added that it “provides results to suggest that scaling this worksheet/guide may hold promise to better provide nutritional counseling to those with psychiatric illness.”

Dr. Naidoo, also a chef and the author of “This Is Your Brain on Food,” who was not involved in the study said, “I’ve seen the power of food as medicine in my own hospital practice and do believe that food is one of the most powerful tools we have in supporting mental fitness and emotional well-being.”

The project was funded by the Canadian CAM Research Fund. Dr. LaChance and Dr. Naidoo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool designed by psychiatrists to help guide nutritional counseling in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) has been released.

Lisovskaya/ThinkStock

The worksheet and clinician guide were developed using results from a recent scoping review on the relationship between diet and mental health in patients with SSD, and a feedback process involving a focus group with psychiatrists and individuals who had lived experience with psychosis.

“Mental health clinicians already have the training to help our patients make behavioral changes,” lead author Laura LaChance, MD, lecturer, department of psychiatry, and a psychiatrist at St. Mary’s Hospital Centre, McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“We work every day with patients to help them to reduce their substance use, improve their sleep, take medications, etc., and nutrition should be added to the radar [since] eating well for mental health is part of self-care and can be included in mental health treatment plans,” she said.

The paper was published online Nov. 10 in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Nutrition frequently ignored

Dr. LaChance noted that “nutrition is largely absent from mental health training programs and often ignored in clinical practice.”

The investigators “wanted to create a tool to help incorporate basic nutritional counseling into the care of individuals with severe mental illness.” They wanted the tool “to be simple enough to understand for patients and simple enough to use for mental health care professionals who don’t have any official nutrition training.”

The team developed a worksheet that includes dietary recommendations, the majority of which are supported by the scoping review and consistent with Canada’s Food Guide. The review “identified all of the published literature related to the relationship between diet and psychiatric symptoms of SSD,” synthesizing the results of 822 prior articles.

It promotes the addition of nutritious food rather than the restriction of calories or individual foods and does not contradict generally accepted recommendations for weight management. It is suitable for all patients including those with low or normal body mass index and provides psychoeducation about the importance of quality nutrition as a determinant of mental health.
 

Positive tone

The worksheet was informed by social cognitive theory, which “highlights the important role of goal setting and behavior contracting, reinforcement, self-control, social norms, attitudes, and self-efficacy.”

It provides “basic education about important nutrition principles” as well as “very simple recommendations to increase knowledge about healthy eating” and “actionable tips for individuals to incorporate.” The researchers used a “positive” tone and included motivational interviewing questions.

“Delivery of the intervention by the patient’s mental health care provider is by design, in an attempt to address the widely held misbelief that nutrition intervention is of limited importance to mental health care and begin to change norms,” Dr. LaChance said.

The worksheet addresses monetary barriers to healthy eating; offers practical tips to “increase perceived control and self-efficacy”; is written in simple, accessible, nontechnical language; and includes foods from a range of cultural backgrounds.

To ensure that the worksheet and clinical guide met the needs of the target population, the researchers conducted a focus group with five psychiatrists and individual phone interviews with people who live with psychosis (n = 6).

Participants with psychosis were evenly divided between male and female and six age groups were represented: younger than 20 years; 21-30 years; 31-40 years; 41-50 years; 51-50 years; and older than 60 years. Of these participants, half scored in the “limited literacy” range, based on a nutritional literacy assessment tool (the Newest Vital Sign [NVS]).

A revised version of the worksheet, taking participants’ feedback into account, was mailed to all participants, who then provided further feedback on the revised version.


 

‘Unspoken area’

The clinician guide contains not only an overview and a suggested agenda to steer discussion, but also a sample visual representation of the recommended relative proportions of different food categories in an ideal meal as well as sample meals, a budgeting discussion, and a list of goals.

A closing statement encourages the clinician to “keep the messaging positive, celebrate small victories, and provide encouragement.”

Specific dietary recommendations include choosing complex carbohydrates and healthy fats, reducing highly processed foods and sugar, adding vegetables and fruits to meals and snacks, and eating protein-rich foods throughout the day.

A “noteworthy theme” that emerged in discussions with psychiatrists as well as participants with SSD was “the lack of nutrition training in medical education and psychiatric residency and the general absence of nutritional counseling in this field of medicine.”

One participant described nutrition as “definitely an unspoken area” in schizophrenia – especially in institutional settings, where “you are overloaded with sugars, not healthy grain, not complex grain. You get white bread sandwiches, shitty juice.”
 

Powerful tool

Commenting on the paper for this news organization, Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and a nutrition educator at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said she appreciates that this paper “is seeking methods to expand treatment options for those with SSD and improve provider understanding/knowledge of therapeutic foods.”

She called the pilot evaluation “notably small,” but added that it “provides results to suggest that scaling this worksheet/guide may hold promise to better provide nutritional counseling to those with psychiatric illness.”

Dr. Naidoo, also a chef and the author of “This Is Your Brain on Food,” who was not involved in the study said, “I’ve seen the power of food as medicine in my own hospital practice and do believe that food is one of the most powerful tools we have in supporting mental fitness and emotional well-being.”

The project was funded by the Canadian CAM Research Fund. Dr. LaChance and Dr. Naidoo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new tool designed by psychiatrists to help guide nutritional counseling in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSD) has been released.

Lisovskaya/ThinkStock

The worksheet and clinician guide were developed using results from a recent scoping review on the relationship between diet and mental health in patients with SSD, and a feedback process involving a focus group with psychiatrists and individuals who had lived experience with psychosis.

“Mental health clinicians already have the training to help our patients make behavioral changes,” lead author Laura LaChance, MD, lecturer, department of psychiatry, and a psychiatrist at St. Mary’s Hospital Centre, McGill University, Montreal, said in an interview.

“We work every day with patients to help them to reduce their substance use, improve their sleep, take medications, etc., and nutrition should be added to the radar [since] eating well for mental health is part of self-care and can be included in mental health treatment plans,” she said.

The paper was published online Nov. 10 in BMC Psychiatry.
 

Nutrition frequently ignored

Dr. LaChance noted that “nutrition is largely absent from mental health training programs and often ignored in clinical practice.”

The investigators “wanted to create a tool to help incorporate basic nutritional counseling into the care of individuals with severe mental illness.” They wanted the tool “to be simple enough to understand for patients and simple enough to use for mental health care professionals who don’t have any official nutrition training.”

The team developed a worksheet that includes dietary recommendations, the majority of which are supported by the scoping review and consistent with Canada’s Food Guide. The review “identified all of the published literature related to the relationship between diet and psychiatric symptoms of SSD,” synthesizing the results of 822 prior articles.

It promotes the addition of nutritious food rather than the restriction of calories or individual foods and does not contradict generally accepted recommendations for weight management. It is suitable for all patients including those with low or normal body mass index and provides psychoeducation about the importance of quality nutrition as a determinant of mental health.
 

Positive tone

The worksheet was informed by social cognitive theory, which “highlights the important role of goal setting and behavior contracting, reinforcement, self-control, social norms, attitudes, and self-efficacy.”

It provides “basic education about important nutrition principles” as well as “very simple recommendations to increase knowledge about healthy eating” and “actionable tips for individuals to incorporate.” The researchers used a “positive” tone and included motivational interviewing questions.

“Delivery of the intervention by the patient’s mental health care provider is by design, in an attempt to address the widely held misbelief that nutrition intervention is of limited importance to mental health care and begin to change norms,” Dr. LaChance said.

The worksheet addresses monetary barriers to healthy eating; offers practical tips to “increase perceived control and self-efficacy”; is written in simple, accessible, nontechnical language; and includes foods from a range of cultural backgrounds.

To ensure that the worksheet and clinical guide met the needs of the target population, the researchers conducted a focus group with five psychiatrists and individual phone interviews with people who live with psychosis (n = 6).

Participants with psychosis were evenly divided between male and female and six age groups were represented: younger than 20 years; 21-30 years; 31-40 years; 41-50 years; 51-50 years; and older than 60 years. Of these participants, half scored in the “limited literacy” range, based on a nutritional literacy assessment tool (the Newest Vital Sign [NVS]).

A revised version of the worksheet, taking participants’ feedback into account, was mailed to all participants, who then provided further feedback on the revised version.


 

‘Unspoken area’

The clinician guide contains not only an overview and a suggested agenda to steer discussion, but also a sample visual representation of the recommended relative proportions of different food categories in an ideal meal as well as sample meals, a budgeting discussion, and a list of goals.

A closing statement encourages the clinician to “keep the messaging positive, celebrate small victories, and provide encouragement.”

Specific dietary recommendations include choosing complex carbohydrates and healthy fats, reducing highly processed foods and sugar, adding vegetables and fruits to meals and snacks, and eating protein-rich foods throughout the day.

A “noteworthy theme” that emerged in discussions with psychiatrists as well as participants with SSD was “the lack of nutrition training in medical education and psychiatric residency and the general absence of nutritional counseling in this field of medicine.”

One participant described nutrition as “definitely an unspoken area” in schizophrenia – especially in institutional settings, where “you are overloaded with sugars, not healthy grain, not complex grain. You get white bread sandwiches, shitty juice.”
 

Powerful tool

Commenting on the paper for this news organization, Uma Naidoo, MD, director of nutritional and lifestyle psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, and a nutrition educator at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, said she appreciates that this paper “is seeking methods to expand treatment options for those with SSD and improve provider understanding/knowledge of therapeutic foods.”

She called the pilot evaluation “notably small,” but added that it “provides results to suggest that scaling this worksheet/guide may hold promise to better provide nutritional counseling to those with psychiatric illness.”

Dr. Naidoo, also a chef and the author of “This Is Your Brain on Food,” who was not involved in the study said, “I’ve seen the power of food as medicine in my own hospital practice and do believe that food is one of the most powerful tools we have in supporting mental fitness and emotional well-being.”

The project was funded by the Canadian CAM Research Fund. Dr. LaChance and Dr. Naidoo have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing late-onset epilepsy even in patients who have not had a previous stroke, new research suggests.

After excluding individuals with normal blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, investigators found hypertension was linked to an almost 2.5-fold higher risk of epilepsy.

“Our findings further expand upon our knowledge of the negative effects hypertension has on brain health and, regarding epilepsy, that effect may be starting even in midlife,” said co–lead author Maria Stefanidou, MD, MSc, of Boston University.

“Practicing clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose hypertension, discuss with patients all potential long-term brain health outcomes, and need for treatment. Furthermore, in those presenting with new-onset epilepsy later in life, screening for potentially undiagnosed hypertension should be included in the initial workup,” she said.

The study was published online Nov. 17, 2021, in Epilepsia.
 

Unknown etiology

“New-onset epilepsy risk increases with increasing age over the age of 65 and can affect 15-20 per 1,000 older individuals. Although the most common causes for seizures in this age group are prior history of stroke and presence of dementia, for about 30%-40% of patients, the etiology of seizures remains unknown,” Dr. Stefanidou said.

“We wanted to study if modifiable vascular risk factors that are known to contribute both to vascular brain aging and to neurodegeneration may directly predict the development of epilepsy, even in the absence of clinical stroke or dementia,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from participants in the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Health Study (FHS). The original FHS was an ongoing longitudinal community-based study that first began in 1948. Offspring of the original cohort and their spouses (n = 5,124) were enrolled in the Offspring Cohort in 1971, with surveillance of these second-generation participants based on exam visits occurring every 4 years.

The study included participants who had attended exam 5 (1991-1995), were age 45 years or older, had available vascular risk factor (VRF) data, and available follow-up data on epilepsy status (n = 2,986; mean age, 58 years; 48% male).

The investigators conducted two statistical analyses. In the primary model, they adjusted for age and gender, while in a secondary model they also adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke. They also conducted an analysis that excluded participants treated with antihypertensive medication and had normal blood pressure.
 

Plausible mechanisms

During a mean follow-up of 19.2 years, 55 incident epilepsy cases were identified. The mean age of these patients was 73.8 years.

In the primary model, hypertension was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.45; P = .017).

Interestingly, the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile – a calculation based on an array of factors, including age/sex, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and cigarette smoking – was not associated with incident epilepsy, and there was no other significant associated between any of the other VRFs when looked at independently.

When the researchers adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke, they continued to find an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.37; P = .022). An analysis that adjusted for competing risk of death obtained similar findings (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.81; P = .042).

The model that excluded patients receiving antihypertensive treatment, whose blood pressure readings were normal (n = 2,162; 50 incident epilepsy cases) showed an even stronger association (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.36-4.35; P = .003).

“Our results are based on an epidemiological, observational study, therefore our findings point to an association between hypertension and new-onset epilepsy later in life,” said Dr. Stefanidou.

She noted that because it was an observational study, “a cause-effect relationship cannot be established based on these results, but there is growing evidence from our, as well as other, similar cohorts that hypertension, a modifiable vascular risk factor, may indeed be an independent predictor of late-onset epilepsy.”

There are “plausible mechanisms” that support both a direct, and indirect, role of hypertension – for example, through accumulation of small vessel disease in the brain – but further research will be necessary to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in the process,” she added.
 

‘Welcome addition’

In a joint comment, Hedley C.A. Emsley, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience, Lancaster (England) University, and Jasmine Wall, MBBChir, academic clinical fellow in neurology, Lancaster University, described the study as a “welcome addition to this field,” noting that the Framingham Heart Study “lends itself well to an embedded observational study of this nature of late-onset epilepsy.”

Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall, who were not involved in the research, said that the “apparent magnitude of increased late-onset epilepsy risk association with hypertension in the Stefanidou et al study is quite striking,” even allowing for the “relatively small sample size,” since their analysis and findings appear to “withstand exclusion of individuals who became normotensive on antihypertensive treatment.”

They noted that in recent years there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of hypertension in late-onset epilepsy epileptogenesis with subclinical cerebrovascular diseases, including “otherwise occult cerebral small vessel disease believed to be a frequent cause.”

The mechanisms “remain unclear,” but they could potentially include diffuse cerebral microangiopathy, structural and physiological changes, and/or blood-brain barrier dysfunction and leakage, they suggested.

“Although there is no current consensus over an age threshold that defines ‘late onset,’ we would argue that age thresholds used in such studies of late-onset epilepsy should be lower, to avoid missing younger adults at risk through vascular mechanisms,” Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall added.

The study authors suggest that “potential pathophysiologic mechanisms can further be explored in future experimental studies and clinical trials.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy/Seizures. Dr. Stefanidou disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing late-onset epilepsy even in patients who have not had a previous stroke, new research suggests.

After excluding individuals with normal blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, investigators found hypertension was linked to an almost 2.5-fold higher risk of epilepsy.

“Our findings further expand upon our knowledge of the negative effects hypertension has on brain health and, regarding epilepsy, that effect may be starting even in midlife,” said co–lead author Maria Stefanidou, MD, MSc, of Boston University.

“Practicing clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose hypertension, discuss with patients all potential long-term brain health outcomes, and need for treatment. Furthermore, in those presenting with new-onset epilepsy later in life, screening for potentially undiagnosed hypertension should be included in the initial workup,” she said.

The study was published online Nov. 17, 2021, in Epilepsia.
 

Unknown etiology

“New-onset epilepsy risk increases with increasing age over the age of 65 and can affect 15-20 per 1,000 older individuals. Although the most common causes for seizures in this age group are prior history of stroke and presence of dementia, for about 30%-40% of patients, the etiology of seizures remains unknown,” Dr. Stefanidou said.

“We wanted to study if modifiable vascular risk factors that are known to contribute both to vascular brain aging and to neurodegeneration may directly predict the development of epilepsy, even in the absence of clinical stroke or dementia,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from participants in the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Health Study (FHS). The original FHS was an ongoing longitudinal community-based study that first began in 1948. Offspring of the original cohort and their spouses (n = 5,124) were enrolled in the Offspring Cohort in 1971, with surveillance of these second-generation participants based on exam visits occurring every 4 years.

The study included participants who had attended exam 5 (1991-1995), were age 45 years or older, had available vascular risk factor (VRF) data, and available follow-up data on epilepsy status (n = 2,986; mean age, 58 years; 48% male).

The investigators conducted two statistical analyses. In the primary model, they adjusted for age and gender, while in a secondary model they also adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke. They also conducted an analysis that excluded participants treated with antihypertensive medication and had normal blood pressure.
 

Plausible mechanisms

During a mean follow-up of 19.2 years, 55 incident epilepsy cases were identified. The mean age of these patients was 73.8 years.

In the primary model, hypertension was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.45; P = .017).

Interestingly, the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile – a calculation based on an array of factors, including age/sex, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and cigarette smoking – was not associated with incident epilepsy, and there was no other significant associated between any of the other VRFs when looked at independently.

When the researchers adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke, they continued to find an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.37; P = .022). An analysis that adjusted for competing risk of death obtained similar findings (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.81; P = .042).

The model that excluded patients receiving antihypertensive treatment, whose blood pressure readings were normal (n = 2,162; 50 incident epilepsy cases) showed an even stronger association (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.36-4.35; P = .003).

“Our results are based on an epidemiological, observational study, therefore our findings point to an association between hypertension and new-onset epilepsy later in life,” said Dr. Stefanidou.

She noted that because it was an observational study, “a cause-effect relationship cannot be established based on these results, but there is growing evidence from our, as well as other, similar cohorts that hypertension, a modifiable vascular risk factor, may indeed be an independent predictor of late-onset epilepsy.”

There are “plausible mechanisms” that support both a direct, and indirect, role of hypertension – for example, through accumulation of small vessel disease in the brain – but further research will be necessary to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in the process,” she added.
 

‘Welcome addition’

In a joint comment, Hedley C.A. Emsley, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience, Lancaster (England) University, and Jasmine Wall, MBBChir, academic clinical fellow in neurology, Lancaster University, described the study as a “welcome addition to this field,” noting that the Framingham Heart Study “lends itself well to an embedded observational study of this nature of late-onset epilepsy.”

Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall, who were not involved in the research, said that the “apparent magnitude of increased late-onset epilepsy risk association with hypertension in the Stefanidou et al study is quite striking,” even allowing for the “relatively small sample size,” since their analysis and findings appear to “withstand exclusion of individuals who became normotensive on antihypertensive treatment.”

They noted that in recent years there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of hypertension in late-onset epilepsy epileptogenesis with subclinical cerebrovascular diseases, including “otherwise occult cerebral small vessel disease believed to be a frequent cause.”

The mechanisms “remain unclear,” but they could potentially include diffuse cerebral microangiopathy, structural and physiological changes, and/or blood-brain barrier dysfunction and leakage, they suggested.

“Although there is no current consensus over an age threshold that defines ‘late onset,’ we would argue that age thresholds used in such studies of late-onset epilepsy should be lower, to avoid missing younger adults at risk through vascular mechanisms,” Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall added.

The study authors suggest that “potential pathophysiologic mechanisms can further be explored in future experimental studies and clinical trials.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy/Seizures. Dr. Stefanidou disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hypertension is associated with more than a twofold increased risk of developing late-onset epilepsy even in patients who have not had a previous stroke, new research suggests.

After excluding individuals with normal blood pressure who were taking antihypertensive medication, investigators found hypertension was linked to an almost 2.5-fold higher risk of epilepsy.

“Our findings further expand upon our knowledge of the negative effects hypertension has on brain health and, regarding epilepsy, that effect may be starting even in midlife,” said co–lead author Maria Stefanidou, MD, MSc, of Boston University.

“Practicing clinicians should be vigilant to diagnose hypertension, discuss with patients all potential long-term brain health outcomes, and need for treatment. Furthermore, in those presenting with new-onset epilepsy later in life, screening for potentially undiagnosed hypertension should be included in the initial workup,” she said.

The study was published online Nov. 17, 2021, in Epilepsia.
 

Unknown etiology

“New-onset epilepsy risk increases with increasing age over the age of 65 and can affect 15-20 per 1,000 older individuals. Although the most common causes for seizures in this age group are prior history of stroke and presence of dementia, for about 30%-40% of patients, the etiology of seizures remains unknown,” Dr. Stefanidou said.

“We wanted to study if modifiable vascular risk factors that are known to contribute both to vascular brain aging and to neurodegeneration may directly predict the development of epilepsy, even in the absence of clinical stroke or dementia,” she added.

To investigate, the researchers turned to data from participants in the Offspring Cohort of the Framingham Health Study (FHS). The original FHS was an ongoing longitudinal community-based study that first began in 1948. Offspring of the original cohort and their spouses (n = 5,124) were enrolled in the Offspring Cohort in 1971, with surveillance of these second-generation participants based on exam visits occurring every 4 years.

The study included participants who had attended exam 5 (1991-1995), were age 45 years or older, had available vascular risk factor (VRF) data, and available follow-up data on epilepsy status (n = 2,986; mean age, 58 years; 48% male).

The investigators conducted two statistical analyses. In the primary model, they adjusted for age and gender, while in a secondary model they also adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke. They also conducted an analysis that excluded participants treated with antihypertensive medication and had normal blood pressure.
 

Plausible mechanisms

During a mean follow-up of 19.2 years, 55 incident epilepsy cases were identified. The mean age of these patients was 73.8 years.

In the primary model, hypertension was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-3.45; P = .017).

Interestingly, the Framingham Stroke Risk Profile – a calculation based on an array of factors, including age/sex, systolic blood pressure, antihypertensive therapy, diabetes, history of cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and cigarette smoking – was not associated with incident epilepsy, and there was no other significant associated between any of the other VRFs when looked at independently.

When the researchers adjusted for prevalent and interim stroke, they continued to find an almost twofold higher risk of developing epilepsy (HR 1.93; 95% CI, 1.10-3.37; P = .022). An analysis that adjusted for competing risk of death obtained similar findings (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.03-3.81; P = .042).

The model that excluded patients receiving antihypertensive treatment, whose blood pressure readings were normal (n = 2,162; 50 incident epilepsy cases) showed an even stronger association (HR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.36-4.35; P = .003).

“Our results are based on an epidemiological, observational study, therefore our findings point to an association between hypertension and new-onset epilepsy later in life,” said Dr. Stefanidou.

She noted that because it was an observational study, “a cause-effect relationship cannot be established based on these results, but there is growing evidence from our, as well as other, similar cohorts that hypertension, a modifiable vascular risk factor, may indeed be an independent predictor of late-onset epilepsy.”

There are “plausible mechanisms” that support both a direct, and indirect, role of hypertension – for example, through accumulation of small vessel disease in the brain – but further research will be necessary to elucidate the exact mechanisms involved in the process,” she added.
 

‘Welcome addition’

In a joint comment, Hedley C.A. Emsley, PhD, professor of clinical neuroscience, Lancaster (England) University, and Jasmine Wall, MBBChir, academic clinical fellow in neurology, Lancaster University, described the study as a “welcome addition to this field,” noting that the Framingham Heart Study “lends itself well to an embedded observational study of this nature of late-onset epilepsy.”

Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall, who were not involved in the research, said that the “apparent magnitude of increased late-onset epilepsy risk association with hypertension in the Stefanidou et al study is quite striking,” even allowing for the “relatively small sample size,” since their analysis and findings appear to “withstand exclusion of individuals who became normotensive on antihypertensive treatment.”

They noted that in recent years there has been a growing body of evidence highlighting the importance of hypertension in late-onset epilepsy epileptogenesis with subclinical cerebrovascular diseases, including “otherwise occult cerebral small vessel disease believed to be a frequent cause.”

The mechanisms “remain unclear,” but they could potentially include diffuse cerebral microangiopathy, structural and physiological changes, and/or blood-brain barrier dysfunction and leakage, they suggested.

“Although there is no current consensus over an age threshold that defines ‘late onset,’ we would argue that age thresholds used in such studies of late-onset epilepsy should be lower, to avoid missing younger adults at risk through vascular mechanisms,” Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall added.

The study authors suggest that “potential pathophysiologic mechanisms can further be explored in future experimental studies and clinical trials.”

This study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and Finding a Cure for Epilepsy/Seizures. Dr. Stefanidou disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Emsley and Dr. Wall disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Certain opioids are proving to be effective in treating a variety of itch conditions, according to Brian S. Kim, MD.

“We know that opioids or opiates do cause itch in a significant number of patients,” Dr. Kim, a dermatologist who is codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch & Sensory Disorders at Washington University, St. Louis, said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It’s thought to do this by way of acting as a pruritogen at times and stimulating sensory neurons [that] then activate the itch cascade. But it’s also been well known that endogenous kappa opioids can activate sensory neurons that can then suppress itch and gate out signals from these opiates, but perhaps other pruritogens as well.”

Multiple drugs differentially target kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) pathways, he continued. For example, oral naltrexone is a MOR antagonist, oral nalfurafine and intravenous difelikefalin are KOR agonists, while intranasal butorphanol and oral nalbuphine have a dual mechanism.

Difelikefalin is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for uremic pruritus associated with dialysis, approved in August 2021 for moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis; it is administered intravenously. During the 2021 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Kim and colleagues presented findings from a phase 2 trial of 401 people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and moderate to severe pruritus, who were randomized to receive oral difelikefalin at a dose of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1.0 mg, or placebo over a 12-week treatment period. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score, was not met in any of the difelikefalin dose groups in the overall study population, but patients with a body surface area of less than 10% experienced a significant improvement in itch at week 12 in the combined difelikefalin dose group in (P = .039). A significant reduction in itch with difelikefalin was seen in this group of patients with itch-dominant AD, as early as the second day of treatment.

In another trial, 373 hemodialysis patients with moderate or severe uremic pruritus were randomized in a 1: 1:1 ratio to nalbuphine extended-release tablets 120 mg, 60 mg, or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. The researchers found that nalbuphine 120 mg significantly reduced the itching intensity. Specifically, from a baseline numerical rate scale (NRS) of 6.9, the mean NRS declined by 3.5 and by 2.8 in the nalbuphine 120-mg and the placebo groups, respectively (P = .017).

In a separate, unpublished multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 trial, researchers evaluated the safety and antipruritic efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release tablets dosed twice daily at 90 mg and 180 mg in 62 patients in the United States and Europe. The proportion of patients in the nalbuphine 180-mg arm who met 50% responder criteria at week 10 or last observed visit approached statistical significance (P = .083), and this arm met statistical significance for patients who completed treatment (P = .028).

Dr. Kim disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Cara Therapeutics, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics. He also has conducted contracted research for Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Certain opioids are proving to be effective in treating a variety of itch conditions, according to Brian S. Kim, MD.

“We know that opioids or opiates do cause itch in a significant number of patients,” Dr. Kim, a dermatologist who is codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch & Sensory Disorders at Washington University, St. Louis, said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It’s thought to do this by way of acting as a pruritogen at times and stimulating sensory neurons [that] then activate the itch cascade. But it’s also been well known that endogenous kappa opioids can activate sensory neurons that can then suppress itch and gate out signals from these opiates, but perhaps other pruritogens as well.”

Multiple drugs differentially target kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) pathways, he continued. For example, oral naltrexone is a MOR antagonist, oral nalfurafine and intravenous difelikefalin are KOR agonists, while intranasal butorphanol and oral nalbuphine have a dual mechanism.

Difelikefalin is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for uremic pruritus associated with dialysis, approved in August 2021 for moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis; it is administered intravenously. During the 2021 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Kim and colleagues presented findings from a phase 2 trial of 401 people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and moderate to severe pruritus, who were randomized to receive oral difelikefalin at a dose of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1.0 mg, or placebo over a 12-week treatment period. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score, was not met in any of the difelikefalin dose groups in the overall study population, but patients with a body surface area of less than 10% experienced a significant improvement in itch at week 12 in the combined difelikefalin dose group in (P = .039). A significant reduction in itch with difelikefalin was seen in this group of patients with itch-dominant AD, as early as the second day of treatment.

In another trial, 373 hemodialysis patients with moderate or severe uremic pruritus were randomized in a 1: 1:1 ratio to nalbuphine extended-release tablets 120 mg, 60 mg, or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. The researchers found that nalbuphine 120 mg significantly reduced the itching intensity. Specifically, from a baseline numerical rate scale (NRS) of 6.9, the mean NRS declined by 3.5 and by 2.8 in the nalbuphine 120-mg and the placebo groups, respectively (P = .017).

In a separate, unpublished multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 trial, researchers evaluated the safety and antipruritic efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release tablets dosed twice daily at 90 mg and 180 mg in 62 patients in the United States and Europe. The proportion of patients in the nalbuphine 180-mg arm who met 50% responder criteria at week 10 or last observed visit approached statistical significance (P = .083), and this arm met statistical significance for patients who completed treatment (P = .028).

Dr. Kim disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Cara Therapeutics, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics. He also has conducted contracted research for Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Certain opioids are proving to be effective in treating a variety of itch conditions, according to Brian S. Kim, MD.

“We know that opioids or opiates do cause itch in a significant number of patients,” Dr. Kim, a dermatologist who is codirector of the Center for the Study of Itch & Sensory Disorders at Washington University, St. Louis, said during MedscapeLive’s annual Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar. “It’s thought to do this by way of acting as a pruritogen at times and stimulating sensory neurons [that] then activate the itch cascade. But it’s also been well known that endogenous kappa opioids can activate sensory neurons that can then suppress itch and gate out signals from these opiates, but perhaps other pruritogens as well.”

Multiple drugs differentially target kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) and mu-opioid receptor (MOR) pathways, he continued. For example, oral naltrexone is a MOR antagonist, oral nalfurafine and intravenous difelikefalin are KOR agonists, while intranasal butorphanol and oral nalbuphine have a dual mechanism.

Difelikefalin is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for uremic pruritus associated with dialysis, approved in August 2021 for moderate-to-severe pruritus associated with chronic kidney disease in adults undergoing hemodialysis; it is administered intravenously. During the 2021 annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, Dr. Kim and colleagues presented findings from a phase 2 trial of 401 people with atopic dermatitis (AD) and moderate to severe pruritus, who were randomized to receive oral difelikefalin at a dose of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, or 1.0 mg, or placebo over a 12-week treatment period. The primary endpoint, change from baseline in Itch Numerical Rating Scale score, was not met in any of the difelikefalin dose groups in the overall study population, but patients with a body surface area of less than 10% experienced a significant improvement in itch at week 12 in the combined difelikefalin dose group in (P = .039). A significant reduction in itch with difelikefalin was seen in this group of patients with itch-dominant AD, as early as the second day of treatment.

In another trial, 373 hemodialysis patients with moderate or severe uremic pruritus were randomized in a 1: 1:1 ratio to nalbuphine extended-release tablets 120 mg, 60 mg, or placebo and treated for 8 weeks. The researchers found that nalbuphine 120 mg significantly reduced the itching intensity. Specifically, from a baseline numerical rate scale (NRS) of 6.9, the mean NRS declined by 3.5 and by 2.8 in the nalbuphine 120-mg and the placebo groups, respectively (P = .017).

In a separate, unpublished multicenter, randomized, phase 2/3 trial, researchers evaluated the safety and antipruritic efficacy of nalbuphine extended-release tablets dosed twice daily at 90 mg and 180 mg in 62 patients in the United States and Europe. The proportion of patients in the nalbuphine 180-mg arm who met 50% responder criteria at week 10 or last observed visit approached statistical significance (P = .083), and this arm met statistical significance for patients who completed treatment (P = .028).

Dr. Kim disclosed that he has served as a consultant for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Cara Therapeutics, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Trevi Therapeutics. He also has conducted contracted research for Cara Therapeutics and LEO Pharma.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

Background: Hyponatremia caused by SIADH is common in hospitalized patients, and most evidence for treatment comes from noncontrolled studies. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluid restriction compared with furosemide, with or without NaCl supplementation, for treating SIADH.

Dr. Welter is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and instructor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: Hyponatremia caused by SIADH is common in hospitalized patients, and most evidence for treatment comes from noncontrolled studies. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluid restriction compared with furosemide, with or without NaCl supplementation, for treating SIADH.

Dr. Welter is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and instructor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

Background: Hyponatremia caused by SIADH is common in hospitalized patients, and most evidence for treatment comes from noncontrolled studies. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of fluid restriction compared with furosemide, with or without NaCl supplementation, for treating SIADH.

Dr. Welter is a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and instructor of medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, both in Chicago.

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

COVID-19 cases are rising across 40 states and territories, setting the United States up for a rough fifth surge of the pandemic.

“A significant rise in cases just before Thanksgiving is not what we want to be seeing,” said Stephen Kissler, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher and data modeler at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

Dr. Kissler said he’d rather see increases in daily cases coming 2 weeks after busy travel periods, as that would mean they could come back down as people returned to their routines.

Seeing big increases in cases ahead of the holidays, he said, “is sort of like adding fuel to an already raging fire.”

Last winter, vaccines hadn’t been rolled out as the nation prepared for Thanksgiving. COVID-19 was burning through family gatherings.

But now that two-thirds of Americans over age 5 are fully vaccinated and booster doses are approved for all adults, will a rise in cases translate, once again, into a strain on our still thinly stretched healthcare system?

Experts say the vaccines are keeping people out of the hospital, which will help. And new antiviral pills are coming that seem to be able to cut a COVID-19 infection off at the knees, at least according to early data. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel meets next week to discuss the first application for a pill by Merck.

But experts caution that the coming surge will almost certainly tax hospitals again, especially in areas with lower vaccination rates.

And even states where blood testing shows that significant numbers of people have antibodies after a COVID-19 infection aren’t out of the woods, in part because we still don’t know how long the immunity generated by infection may last.
 

“Erosion of immunity”

“It’s hard to know how much risk is out there,” said Jeffrey Shaman, PhD, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in New York City, who has been modeling the trajectory of the pandemic.

“We’re estimating, unfortunately, and we have for many weeks now, that there is an erosion of immunity,” Dr. Shaman said. “I think it could get bad. How bad? I’m not sure.”

Ali Mokdad, PhD, a professor of health metrics sciences at the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle, agrees.

Because there are so few studies on how long immunity from natural infection lasts, Dr. Mokdad and his colleagues are assuming that waning immunity after infection happens at least as quickly as it does after vaccination.

Their model is predicting that the average number of daily cases will peak at around 100,000, with another 100,000 going undetected, and will stay at that level until the end of January, as some states recover from their surges and others pick up steam.

While the number of daily deaths won’t climb to the heights seen during the summer surge, Dr. Mokdad said their model is predicting that daily deaths will climb again to about 1,200 a day.

“We are almost there right now, and it will be with us for a while,” he said. “We are predicting 881,000 deaths by March 1.”

The United States has currently recorded 773,000 COVID-19 deaths, so Dr. Mokdad is predicting about 120,000 more deaths between now and then.

He said his model shows that more than half of those deaths could be prevented if 95% of Americans wore their masks while in close proximity to strangers.

Currently, only about 36% of Americans are consistently wearing masks, according to surveys. While people are moving around more now, mobility is at prepandemic levels in some states.

“The rise that you are seeing right now is high mobility and low mask wearing in the United States,” Dr. Mokdad said.

The solution, he said, is for all adults to get another dose of vaccine — he doesn’t like calling it a booster.

“Because they’re vaccinated and they have two doses they have a false sense of security that they are protected. We needed to come ahead of it immediately and say you need a third dose, and we were late to do so,” Dr. Mokdad said.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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

A growing trend of off-label, low-dose antipsychotic prescribing to treat disorders such as anxiety and insomnia has been tied to an increased risk of cardiometabolic death, new research shows.

Investigators studied data from large Swedish registries on over 420,000 individuals without previous psychotic, bipolar, or cardiometabolic disorders and found that off-label treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for 6 to 12 months – even at a low dose – was associated with an almost twofold higher risk of cardiometabolic mortality, compared to no treatment. The risk remained elevated after 12 months, but the finding was not deemed significant.

“Clinicians should be made aware that low-dose treatment with these drugs is probably not a harmless choice for insomnia and anxiety, and while they have the benefit of not being addictive and [are] seemingly effective, they might come at a cost of shortening patients’ life span,” study investigator Jonas Berge, MD, PhD, associate professor and resident psychiatrist, Lund University, Sweden, said in an interview.

“Clinicians should take this information into account when prescribing the drugs and also monitor the patients with regular physical examinations and blood tests in the same way as when treating patients with psychosis with higher doses of these drugs,” he said.

The study was published online Nov. 9 in the Journal of Psychiatric Research.
 

A growing trend

Use of low-dose antipsychotics to treat a variety of psychiatric and behavioral disturbances, including anxiety, insomnia, and agitation, has “surged in popularity,” the authors wrote.

Quetiapine and olanzapine “rank as two of the most frequently prescribed second-generation antipsychotics and, next to clozapine, are considered to exhort the highest risk for cardiometabolic sequelae, including components of metabolic syndrome,” they added.

Previous research examining the association between second-generation antipsychotics and placebo has either not focused on cardiometabolic-specific causes or has examined only cohorts with severe mental illness, so those findings “do not necessarily generalize to others treated off-label,” they noted.

“The motivation for the study came from my work as a psychiatrist, in which I’ve noticed that the off-label use of these medications [olanzapine and quetiapine] for anxiety and insomnia seems highly prevalent, and that many patients seem to gain a lot of weight, despite low doses,” Dr. Berge said.

There is “evidence to suggest that clinicians may underappreciate cardiometabolic risks owing to antipsychotic treatment, as routine screening is often incomplete or inconsistent,” the authors noted.

“To do a risk-benefit analysis of these drugs in low doses, the risks involved – as well as the effects, of course – need to be studied,” Dr. Berge stated.

To investigate the question, the researchers turned to three large cross-linked Swedish registers: the National Patient Register, containing demographic and medical data; the Prescribed Drug Register; and the Cause of Death Register.

They identified all individuals aged 18 years and older with at least one psychiatric visit (inpatient or outpatient) between July 1, 2006, and Dec. 31, 2016, to see how many were prescribed low-dose olanzapine or quetiapine (defined as ≤ 5 mg/day of olanzapine or olanzapine equivalent [OE]), which was used as a proxy marker for off-label treatment, since this dose is considered subtherapeutic for severe mental illness.

They calculated two time-dependent variables – cumulative dose and past annual average dose – and then used those to compute three different exposure valuables: those treated with low-dose OE; cumulative exposure (i.e., period treated with an average 5 mg/day); and a continuous variable “corresponding to each year exposed OE 5 mg/day.”

The primary outcome was set as mortality from cardiometabolic-related disorders, while secondary outcomes were disease-specific and all-cause mortality.
 

‘Weak’ association

The final cohort consisted of 428,525 individuals (mean [SD] age, 36.8 [15.4] years, 52.7% female) at baseline, with observation taking place over a mean of 4.8 years [range, 1 day to 10.5 years]) or a total of over 2 million (2,062,241) person-years.

Of the cohort, 4.3% (n = 18,317) had at least two prescriptions for either olanzapine or quetiapine (although subsequently, 86.5% were censored for exceeding the average OE dose of 5 mg/day).

By the end of the study, 3.1% of the cohort had died during the observation time, and of these, 69.5% were from disease-specific causes, while close to one-fifth (19.5%) were from cardiometabolic-specific causes.

On the whole, treatment status (i.e., treated vs. untreated) was not significantly associated with cardiometabolic mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], .86 [95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.15]; P = .307).

Compared to no treatment, treatment with olanzapine or quetiapine for less than 6 months was significantly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR, .56 [.37 – .87]; P = .010). On the other hand, treatment for 6-12 months was significantly associated with an almost twofold increased risk (adjusted HR, 1.89 [1.22-2.92]; P = .004). The increased risk continued beyond 12 months, although the difference no longer remained significant.

“In the subgroup analysis consisting of individuals who had ever been treated with olanzapine/quetiapine, starting at the date of their first prescription, the hazard for cardiometabolic mortality increased significantly by 45% (6%-99%; P = .019) for every year exposed to an average 5 mg/day,” the authors reported.

The authors concluded that the association between low-dose olanzapine/quetiapine treatment and cardiometabolic mortality was present, but “weak.”

The hazard for disease-specific mortality also significantly increased with each year exposed to an average of 5 mg/day of OE (HR, 1.24 [1.03-1.50]; P = .026).

Treatment status similarly was associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.16 [1.03-1.30]; P = .012), although the increased hazard for all-cause mortality with each year of exposure was not considered significant.

“The findings of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that continuous low-dose treatment with these drugs is associated with increased cardiometabolic mortality, but the results are somewhat divergent and not conclusive, so more research is needed,” Dr. Berge said.
 

Seek alternatives

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit, called it a “timely paper” and “an important concept [because] low-doses of these antipsychotics are frequently prescribed across America and there has been less data on the safety [of these antipsychotics at lower doses].”

Dr. McIntyre, chairman and executive director of the Brain and Cognitive Discover Foundation, Toronto, who was not involved with the study, said that this “important report reminds us that there are metabolic safety concerns, even at low doses, where these medications are often used off label.”

He advised clinicians to “seek alternatives, and alternatives that are on-label, for conditions like anxiety and sleep disturbances.”

This work was supported by the South Region Board ALF, Sweden. Dr. Berge and coauthors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McIntyre has received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Eisai, Minerva, Intra-Cellular, and AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre is CEO of AltMed.

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