In the clinical experience of R. Rox Anderson, MD, currently available treatment options for benign tumors caused by neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) are not acceptable.

“Simply removing the tumors with surgery is not the answer,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who is the director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We need a way to inhibit the cutaneous neurofibromatosis early in life and prevent disfigurement that occurs when kids become adults.

“Kids with NF-1 are born looking normal,” he said. “They have café au lait macules and Lisch nodules in their eye, but they’re normal-looking kids. By early adulthood, many will grow hundreds of tumors that are disfiguring.”

In patients with NF-1, surgical excision works for cutaneous tumors but is expensive and not widely available, and is usually not covered by health insurance. “Plus, you have these adults who have already been through a lot of trauma, with the disfigurement in their lives, who have to be put under general anesthesia to remove a large number of tumors,” Dr. Anderson said at the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Cryotherapy is a minimally invasive way to treat cutaneous neurofibroma tumors, “but this destroys the overlying skin, so you get unwanted destruction,” he said. “I like the idea of selecting heating, but we don’t know yet by what method.”

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues just launched a comparative clinical trial that will test four different approaches to treating tumors in adults with cutaneous NF: deoxycholate injection, an insulated radiofrequency needle, a 980-nm diode laser, and a 860-nm Alexandrite laser. They plan to perform one or more treatment methods per patient in a single treatment session, then follow up at least 6 months later. Baseline and untreated cutaneous NF lesions will serve as controls. The researchers plan to conduct three-dimensional imaging, clinical assessments, and evaluate pain and other subjective measures.

Use of deoxycholate in a pilot trial was well tolerated and induced tumor regression in adults with cutaneous NF, he said.

Dr. Anderson noted that other researchers are studying the potential role of topical or local mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for these tumors. “Systemic MEK inhibitors are effective for plexiform neuromas, but cause significant cutaneous side effects,” he said. A “soft” MEK inhibitor, NFX-179 is rapidly metabolized such that high drug levels are achieved in skin without systemic drug levels. However, Dr. Anderson said that it remains unclear if this approach will prevent cutaneous NF tumors from forming, arrest their growth, or induce their regression.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genodermatosis, associated with the development of neurofibromas derived from nerves, soft tissue, and skin. Cutaneous NFs often develop in later childhood onward and may be deforming, associated with pruritus, pain, and significant effect on quality of life. Dr. Anderson is a world leader in laser treatment, having developed the theories behind laser development for medical usage, as well as the laser technology used for vascular birthmarks and hair removal, laser and cooling techniques targeting fat, and “fractionating” laser energy, which has revolutionized scar management. We look forward to his group’s insights into better management of NF1 lesions!

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

In the clinical experience of R. Rox Anderson, MD, currently available treatment options for benign tumors caused by neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) are not acceptable.

“Simply removing the tumors with surgery is not the answer,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who is the director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We need a way to inhibit the cutaneous neurofibromatosis early in life and prevent disfigurement that occurs when kids become adults.

“Kids with NF-1 are born looking normal,” he said. “They have café au lait macules and Lisch nodules in their eye, but they’re normal-looking kids. By early adulthood, many will grow hundreds of tumors that are disfiguring.”

In patients with NF-1, surgical excision works for cutaneous tumors but is expensive and not widely available, and is usually not covered by health insurance. “Plus, you have these adults who have already been through a lot of trauma, with the disfigurement in their lives, who have to be put under general anesthesia to remove a large number of tumors,” Dr. Anderson said at the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Cryotherapy is a minimally invasive way to treat cutaneous neurofibroma tumors, “but this destroys the overlying skin, so you get unwanted destruction,” he said. “I like the idea of selecting heating, but we don’t know yet by what method.”

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues just launched a comparative clinical trial that will test four different approaches to treating tumors in adults with cutaneous NF: deoxycholate injection, an insulated radiofrequency needle, a 980-nm diode laser, and a 860-nm Alexandrite laser. They plan to perform one or more treatment methods per patient in a single treatment session, then follow up at least 6 months later. Baseline and untreated cutaneous NF lesions will serve as controls. The researchers plan to conduct three-dimensional imaging, clinical assessments, and evaluate pain and other subjective measures.

Use of deoxycholate in a pilot trial was well tolerated and induced tumor regression in adults with cutaneous NF, he said.

Dr. Anderson noted that other researchers are studying the potential role of topical or local mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for these tumors. “Systemic MEK inhibitors are effective for plexiform neuromas, but cause significant cutaneous side effects,” he said. A “soft” MEK inhibitor, NFX-179 is rapidly metabolized such that high drug levels are achieved in skin without systemic drug levels. However, Dr. Anderson said that it remains unclear if this approach will prevent cutaneous NF tumors from forming, arrest their growth, or induce their regression.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genodermatosis, associated with the development of neurofibromas derived from nerves, soft tissue, and skin. Cutaneous NFs often develop in later childhood onward and may be deforming, associated with pruritus, pain, and significant effect on quality of life. Dr. Anderson is a world leader in laser treatment, having developed the theories behind laser development for medical usage, as well as the laser technology used for vascular birthmarks and hair removal, laser and cooling techniques targeting fat, and “fractionating” laser energy, which has revolutionized scar management. We look forward to his group’s insights into better management of NF1 lesions!

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

In the clinical experience of R. Rox Anderson, MD, currently available treatment options for benign tumors caused by neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) are not acceptable.

“Simply removing the tumors with surgery is not the answer,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who is the director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We need a way to inhibit the cutaneous neurofibromatosis early in life and prevent disfigurement that occurs when kids become adults.

“Kids with NF-1 are born looking normal,” he said. “They have café au lait macules and Lisch nodules in their eye, but they’re normal-looking kids. By early adulthood, many will grow hundreds of tumors that are disfiguring.”

In patients with NF-1, surgical excision works for cutaneous tumors but is expensive and not widely available, and is usually not covered by health insurance. “Plus, you have these adults who have already been through a lot of trauma, with the disfigurement in their lives, who have to be put under general anesthesia to remove a large number of tumors,” Dr. Anderson said at the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Cryotherapy is a minimally invasive way to treat cutaneous neurofibroma tumors, “but this destroys the overlying skin, so you get unwanted destruction,” he said. “I like the idea of selecting heating, but we don’t know yet by what method.”

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues just launched a comparative clinical trial that will test four different approaches to treating tumors in adults with cutaneous NF: deoxycholate injection, an insulated radiofrequency needle, a 980-nm diode laser, and a 860-nm Alexandrite laser. They plan to perform one or more treatment methods per patient in a single treatment session, then follow up at least 6 months later. Baseline and untreated cutaneous NF lesions will serve as controls. The researchers plan to conduct three-dimensional imaging, clinical assessments, and evaluate pain and other subjective measures.

Use of deoxycholate in a pilot trial was well tolerated and induced tumor regression in adults with cutaneous NF, he said.

Dr. Anderson noted that other researchers are studying the potential role of topical or local mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for these tumors. “Systemic MEK inhibitors are effective for plexiform neuromas, but cause significant cutaneous side effects,” he said. A “soft” MEK inhibitor, NFX-179 is rapidly metabolized such that high drug levels are achieved in skin without systemic drug levels. However, Dr. Anderson said that it remains unclear if this approach will prevent cutaneous NF tumors from forming, arrest their growth, or induce their regression.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genodermatosis, associated with the development of neurofibromas derived from nerves, soft tissue, and skin. Cutaneous NFs often develop in later childhood onward and may be deforming, associated with pruritus, pain, and significant effect on quality of life. Dr. Anderson is a world leader in laser treatment, having developed the theories behind laser development for medical usage, as well as the laser technology used for vascular birthmarks and hair removal, laser and cooling techniques targeting fat, and “fractionating” laser energy, which has revolutionized scar management. We look forward to his group’s insights into better management of NF1 lesions!

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.

Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.

In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.

Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.

Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.

“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.

“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”

The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.

Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.

“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.

Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.

She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.

“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.

In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.

However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.

“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.

It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.

“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”

Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.

The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.

Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.

“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”

Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.

Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.

Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.

In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.

Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.

Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.

“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.

“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”

The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.

Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.

“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.

Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.

She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.

“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.

In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.

However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.

“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.

It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.

“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”

Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.

The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.

Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.

“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”

Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.

Most children with simple febrile seizures (SFSs) can be safely managed without lumbar puncture or other diagnostic tests without risking delayed diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, new data gathered from a 15-year span suggest.

Vidya R. Raghavan, MD, with the division of emergency medicine at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, also in Boston, published their findings in Pediatrics.

In 2011, researchers published the American Academy of Pediatrics simple febrile seizure guideline, which recommends limiting lumbar puncture to non–low-risk patients. The guidelines also specified that neuroimaging and hematologic testing are not routinely recommended.

Dr. Raghavan and coauthors studied evaluation and management trends of the patients before and after the guidelines. They identified 142,121 children diagnosed with SFS who presented to 1 of 49 pediatric tertiary EDs and met other study criteria. Changes in management of SFS had started years before the guideline and positive effects continued after the guideline publication.

Researchers found a significant 95% decline in rates of lumbar puncture between 2005 and 2019 from 11.6% (95% confidence interval, 10.8%-12.4%) of children in 2005 to 0.6% (95% CI, 0.5%-0.8%; P < .001) in 2019. The most significant declines were among infants 6 months to 1 year.

“We found similar declines in rates of diagnostic laboratory and radiologic testing, intravenous antibiotic administration, hospitalization, and costs,” the authors wrote.

“Importantly,” they wrote, “the decrease in testing was not associated with a concurrent increase in delayed diagnoses of bacterial meningitis.”

The number of hospital admissions and total costs also dropped significantly over the 15-year span of the study. After adjusting for inflation, the authors wrote, costs dropped from an average $1,523 in 2005 to $605 (P < .001) in 2019.

Among first-time presentations for SFSs, 19.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-20.2%) resulted in admission in 2005. That rate dropped to 5.2% (95% CI, 4.8%-5.6%) in 2019 (P < .001), although the authors noted that trend largely plateaued after the guideline was published.

“Our findings are consistent with smaller studies published before 2011 in which researchers found declining rates of LP [lumbar puncture] in children presenting to the ED with their first SFS,” the authors wrote.

Mercedes Blackstone, MD, an emergency physician at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said in an interview that the paper offers reassurance for changed practice over the last decade.

She said there was substantial relief in pediatrics when the 2011 guidelines recognized formally that protocols were outdated, especially as bacterial meningitis had become increasingly rare with widespread use of pneumococcal and Haemophilus influenzae vaccines. Practitioners had already started to limit the spinal taps on their own.

“We were not really complying with the prior recommendation to do a spinal tap in all those children because it often felt like doing a pretty invasive procedure with a very low yield in what was often a very well child in front of you,” she said.

In 2007, the authors noted, a few years before the guidelines, rates of bacterial meningitis had decreased to 7 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 23 months and 0.56 per 100,000 in children aged between 2 and 10 years.

However, Dr. Blackstone said, there was still a worry among some practitioners that there could be missed cases of bacterial meningitis.

“It’s very helpful to see that in all those years, the guidelines have been very validated and there were really no missed cases,” said Dr. Blackstone, author of CHOP’s febrile seizures clinical pathway.

It was good to see the number of CT scans drop as well, she said. Dr. Raghavan’s team found they decreased from 10.6% to 1.6%; P < .001, over the study period.

“Earlier work had shown that there was still a fair amount of head CTs happening and that’s radiation to the young brain,” Dr. Blackstone noted. “This is great news.”

Dr. Blackstone said it was great to see so many children from so many children’s hospitals included in the study.

The paper confirmed that “we’ve reduced a lot of unnecessary testing, saved a lot of cost, and had no increased risk to the patients,” she said.

Dr. Blackstone pointed out that the authors include a limitation that many children are seen in nonpediatric centers in community adult ED and she said those settings tend to have more testing.

“Hopefully, these guidelines have penetrated into the whole community,” she said. “With this paper they should feel reassured that they can spare children some of these tests and procedures.”

Dr. Raghavan and Dr. Blackstone declared no relevant financial relationships.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

A Paleolithic elimination diet (Wahls diet) or a low-saturated fat diet (Swank diet) are associated with improved cognition, among other clinical outcomes, in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), new research suggests.

In a randomized study of patients with RRMS, the group that followed a Wahls diet and the group that followed a Swank diet both showed significant, unique improvement in measures of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and quality of life.

“Several dietary intervention studies have demonstrated favorable results on MS-related fatigue and quality of life. However, these results are among the first to show favorable reductions in cognitive dysfunction,” said co-investigator Tyler Titcomb, PhD, department of internal medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The results were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Similar diets

The CMSC findings came from a secondary analysis of a randomized trial published online in July in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental, Translational, and Clinical (MSJ-ETC).

The primary analysis of the single-blind, parallel group, randomized trial showed the Wahls and Swank diets were linked to significant improvement in outcomes on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and other measures among participants with RRMS. There were no significant differences between the two dietary regimens.

The Swank diet restricts saturated fat to a maximum of 15 g per day while providing 20 g to 50 g (4 to 10 teaspoons) of unsaturated fat per day, with four servings each of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The Wahls diet recommends six to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day, in addition to 6 to 12 ounces of meat per day, according to gender. Grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy, with the exception of clarified butter or ghee, are not permitted on this diet. Both diets eschew processed foods.

To further evaluate the diets’ effects on perceived fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, the researchers returned to the trial, which enrolled 95 adults with stable RRMS at the University of Iowa Prevention Intervention Center between August 2016 and May 2019.

After a 12-week run-in period with support and education from registered dietitians, participants were randomly assigned to either the Swank or Wahls diets in a 24-week intervention that did not include dietitian support.

Inclusion criteria included having moderate to severe fatigue, as shown by an FSS score of at least 4.0, while not having severe mental impairment, an eating disorder, or liver or kidney disease. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics between the groups.

Of the patients, 77 completed the 12-week run-in (38 in the Swank diet group and 39 in the Wahls group). A total of 72 participants completed the 24-week follow-up (37 and 35, respectively).
 

Reduction in fatigue, cognitive dysfunction

After the researchers controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, baseline distance 6-minute walk test, body mass index, serum vitamin D, and years with MS, results at 12 and 24 weeks showed significant improvements from baseline in the key outcomes of fatigue and cognitive function, as measured by the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Function (FSMC).

Scores were −5.7 and −9.0, respectively, for the Swank diet group and −9.3 and −14.9 for the Wahls group (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons).

In addition, there was a significant reduction in both groups on the total Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) at 12 and 24 weeks (Swank, −7.4 and −6.3, respectively; Wahls, −6.8 and −10.8; P ≤ .001 for all).

There were similar improvements for both diets in an analysis of the mental and physical scores on FSMC and on the subscales on PDQ of attention, retrospective memory, prospective memory, and planning.

As observed in the primary analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in absolute mean scores on FSMC, PDQ, or their subscales at any timepoint.

“Both diets led to significant reductions in fatigue and cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Titcomb said.

Of note, the primary analysis further showed statistically and clinically significant increases in the 6-minute walk test at 24-weeks of 6% in the Wahls group (P = .007). After removal of nonadherent participants, the improvement was still significant at 24 weeks in the Wahls group (P = .02), as well as in the Swank group (P = .001).

Dr. Titcomb noted that the majority of study participants were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, there were no interactions between any specific DMTs and dietary benefits.
 

Potential mechanisms

Although the similar outcomes between the diets point to a common mechanism, there are also various other possibilities, said Dr. Titcomb. These include modulation of the microbiome, inflammation, immune system, or micronutrient optimization, he said.

Previous research has shown reduced mass and diversity in the gut microbiota among patients with MS compared with those without MS, potentially promoting inflammation. Other research has shown improvements in those factors with dietary modification.

While there is no evidence of gut microbiota changes with the Wahls and Swank diets, each is rich in fiber and plant-derived phytochemicals, which are known to be associated with improvements in gut microbiota and neuroinflammation, the investigators noted.

Dr. Titcomb reported that research into the diets is continuing as they evaluate longer-term and other effects. “This trial was a short-term parallel arm trial that did not include MRI or a control group,” he said, adding that the investigators will soon start recruiting for a follow-up study that will include a control group, long-term follow-up, and MRIs.

That upcoming study “has the potential to answer several of the unknown questions regarding the effect of diet on MS,” Dr. Titcomb said.
 

Notable research with limitations

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Spain, MD, MSPH, associate professor of neurology at the Oregon Health & Science University, and associate director of clinical care at VA MS Center of Excellence West in Portland, said there were several notable findings.

This includes that most people with MS “were able to adhere to the protocols for significant lengths of time, even without the support of dietitians for the final 12 weeks of the study,” said Spain, who was not involved with the research.

A significant limitation was the lack of a control group. Without that, “it’s hard to know for sure if the improvements in fatigue and cognition were from the diets or were simply from the social support of participating in a research study,” she said

Nevertheless, trials reporting on dietary effects in MS such as the current study are important, Dr. Spain noted. They demonstrate “that it is feasible and safe to conduct dietary studies and suggest which key MS symptoms may benefit and should be evaluated in future studies.”

“Critically, diet studies address one of the most frequent concerns of people with MS, promoting self-management and empowerment,” Dr. Spain concluded.

General guidelines for common dietary elements with evidence of improving fatigue, cognition, and mood are available on the National MS Society’s website.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Titcomb and Dr. Spain have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Terry L. Wahls, MD, who developed the Wahls diet, was a senior author of the study.

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

A Paleolithic elimination diet (Wahls diet) or a low-saturated fat diet (Swank diet) are associated with improved cognition, among other clinical outcomes, in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), new research suggests.

In a randomized study of patients with RRMS, the group that followed a Wahls diet and the group that followed a Swank diet both showed significant, unique improvement in measures of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and quality of life.

“Several dietary intervention studies have demonstrated favorable results on MS-related fatigue and quality of life. However, these results are among the first to show favorable reductions in cognitive dysfunction,” said co-investigator Tyler Titcomb, PhD, department of internal medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The results were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Similar diets

The CMSC findings came from a secondary analysis of a randomized trial published online in July in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental, Translational, and Clinical (MSJ-ETC).

The primary analysis of the single-blind, parallel group, randomized trial showed the Wahls and Swank diets were linked to significant improvement in outcomes on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and other measures among participants with RRMS. There were no significant differences between the two dietary regimens.

The Swank diet restricts saturated fat to a maximum of 15 g per day while providing 20 g to 50 g (4 to 10 teaspoons) of unsaturated fat per day, with four servings each of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The Wahls diet recommends six to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day, in addition to 6 to 12 ounces of meat per day, according to gender. Grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy, with the exception of clarified butter or ghee, are not permitted on this diet. Both diets eschew processed foods.

To further evaluate the diets’ effects on perceived fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, the researchers returned to the trial, which enrolled 95 adults with stable RRMS at the University of Iowa Prevention Intervention Center between August 2016 and May 2019.

After a 12-week run-in period with support and education from registered dietitians, participants were randomly assigned to either the Swank or Wahls diets in a 24-week intervention that did not include dietitian support.

Inclusion criteria included having moderate to severe fatigue, as shown by an FSS score of at least 4.0, while not having severe mental impairment, an eating disorder, or liver or kidney disease. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics between the groups.

Of the patients, 77 completed the 12-week run-in (38 in the Swank diet group and 39 in the Wahls group). A total of 72 participants completed the 24-week follow-up (37 and 35, respectively).
 

Reduction in fatigue, cognitive dysfunction

After the researchers controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, baseline distance 6-minute walk test, body mass index, serum vitamin D, and years with MS, results at 12 and 24 weeks showed significant improvements from baseline in the key outcomes of fatigue and cognitive function, as measured by the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Function (FSMC).

Scores were −5.7 and −9.0, respectively, for the Swank diet group and −9.3 and −14.9 for the Wahls group (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons).

In addition, there was a significant reduction in both groups on the total Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) at 12 and 24 weeks (Swank, −7.4 and −6.3, respectively; Wahls, −6.8 and −10.8; P ≤ .001 for all).

There were similar improvements for both diets in an analysis of the mental and physical scores on FSMC and on the subscales on PDQ of attention, retrospective memory, prospective memory, and planning.

As observed in the primary analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in absolute mean scores on FSMC, PDQ, or their subscales at any timepoint.

“Both diets led to significant reductions in fatigue and cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Titcomb said.

Of note, the primary analysis further showed statistically and clinically significant increases in the 6-minute walk test at 24-weeks of 6% in the Wahls group (P = .007). After removal of nonadherent participants, the improvement was still significant at 24 weeks in the Wahls group (P = .02), as well as in the Swank group (P = .001).

Dr. Titcomb noted that the majority of study participants were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, there were no interactions between any specific DMTs and dietary benefits.
 

Potential mechanisms

Although the similar outcomes between the diets point to a common mechanism, there are also various other possibilities, said Dr. Titcomb. These include modulation of the microbiome, inflammation, immune system, or micronutrient optimization, he said.

Previous research has shown reduced mass and diversity in the gut microbiota among patients with MS compared with those without MS, potentially promoting inflammation. Other research has shown improvements in those factors with dietary modification.

While there is no evidence of gut microbiota changes with the Wahls and Swank diets, each is rich in fiber and plant-derived phytochemicals, which are known to be associated with improvements in gut microbiota and neuroinflammation, the investigators noted.

Dr. Titcomb reported that research into the diets is continuing as they evaluate longer-term and other effects. “This trial was a short-term parallel arm trial that did not include MRI or a control group,” he said, adding that the investigators will soon start recruiting for a follow-up study that will include a control group, long-term follow-up, and MRIs.

That upcoming study “has the potential to answer several of the unknown questions regarding the effect of diet on MS,” Dr. Titcomb said.
 

Notable research with limitations

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Spain, MD, MSPH, associate professor of neurology at the Oregon Health & Science University, and associate director of clinical care at VA MS Center of Excellence West in Portland, said there were several notable findings.

This includes that most people with MS “were able to adhere to the protocols for significant lengths of time, even without the support of dietitians for the final 12 weeks of the study,” said Spain, who was not involved with the research.

A significant limitation was the lack of a control group. Without that, “it’s hard to know for sure if the improvements in fatigue and cognition were from the diets or were simply from the social support of participating in a research study,” she said

Nevertheless, trials reporting on dietary effects in MS such as the current study are important, Dr. Spain noted. They demonstrate “that it is feasible and safe to conduct dietary studies and suggest which key MS symptoms may benefit and should be evaluated in future studies.”

“Critically, diet studies address one of the most frequent concerns of people with MS, promoting self-management and empowerment,” Dr. Spain concluded.

General guidelines for common dietary elements with evidence of improving fatigue, cognition, and mood are available on the National MS Society’s website.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Titcomb and Dr. Spain have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Terry L. Wahls, MD, who developed the Wahls diet, was a senior author of the study.

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

A Paleolithic elimination diet (Wahls diet) or a low-saturated fat diet (Swank diet) are associated with improved cognition, among other clinical outcomes, in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), new research suggests.

In a randomized study of patients with RRMS, the group that followed a Wahls diet and the group that followed a Swank diet both showed significant, unique improvement in measures of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and quality of life.

“Several dietary intervention studies have demonstrated favorable results on MS-related fatigue and quality of life. However, these results are among the first to show favorable reductions in cognitive dysfunction,” said co-investigator Tyler Titcomb, PhD, department of internal medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

The results were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).
 

Similar diets

The CMSC findings came from a secondary analysis of a randomized trial published online in July in the Multiple Sclerosis Journal Experimental, Translational, and Clinical (MSJ-ETC).

The primary analysis of the single-blind, parallel group, randomized trial showed the Wahls and Swank diets were linked to significant improvement in outcomes on the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS), the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), and other measures among participants with RRMS. There were no significant differences between the two dietary regimens.

The Swank diet restricts saturated fat to a maximum of 15 g per day while providing 20 g to 50 g (4 to 10 teaspoons) of unsaturated fat per day, with four servings each of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.

The Wahls diet recommends six to nine servings of fruits and vegetables per day, in addition to 6 to 12 ounces of meat per day, according to gender. Grains, legumes, eggs, and dairy, with the exception of clarified butter or ghee, are not permitted on this diet. Both diets eschew processed foods.

To further evaluate the diets’ effects on perceived fatigue and cognitive dysfunction, the researchers returned to the trial, which enrolled 95 adults with stable RRMS at the University of Iowa Prevention Intervention Center between August 2016 and May 2019.

After a 12-week run-in period with support and education from registered dietitians, participants were randomly assigned to either the Swank or Wahls diets in a 24-week intervention that did not include dietitian support.

Inclusion criteria included having moderate to severe fatigue, as shown by an FSS score of at least 4.0, while not having severe mental impairment, an eating disorder, or liver or kidney disease. There were no significant differences in baseline demographic or clinical characteristics between the groups.

Of the patients, 77 completed the 12-week run-in (38 in the Swank diet group and 39 in the Wahls group). A total of 72 participants completed the 24-week follow-up (37 and 35, respectively).
 

Reduction in fatigue, cognitive dysfunction

After the researchers controlled for smoking, alcohol consumption, age, sex, baseline distance 6-minute walk test, body mass index, serum vitamin D, and years with MS, results at 12 and 24 weeks showed significant improvements from baseline in the key outcomes of fatigue and cognitive function, as measured by the Fatigue Scale for Motor and Cognitive Function (FSMC).

Scores were −5.7 and −9.0, respectively, for the Swank diet group and −9.3 and −14.9 for the Wahls group (P ≤ .001 for all comparisons).

In addition, there was a significant reduction in both groups on the total Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ) at 12 and 24 weeks (Swank, −7.4 and −6.3, respectively; Wahls, −6.8 and −10.8; P ≤ .001 for all).

There were similar improvements for both diets in an analysis of the mental and physical scores on FSMC and on the subscales on PDQ of attention, retrospective memory, prospective memory, and planning.

As observed in the primary analysis, there were no significant differences between the two groups in absolute mean scores on FSMC, PDQ, or their subscales at any timepoint.

“Both diets led to significant reductions in fatigue and cognitive dysfunction,” Dr. Titcomb said.

Of note, the primary analysis further showed statistically and clinically significant increases in the 6-minute walk test at 24-weeks of 6% in the Wahls group (P = .007). After removal of nonadherent participants, the improvement was still significant at 24 weeks in the Wahls group (P = .02), as well as in the Swank group (P = .001).

Dr. Titcomb noted that the majority of study participants were taking disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, there were no interactions between any specific DMTs and dietary benefits.
 

Potential mechanisms

Although the similar outcomes between the diets point to a common mechanism, there are also various other possibilities, said Dr. Titcomb. These include modulation of the microbiome, inflammation, immune system, or micronutrient optimization, he said.

Previous research has shown reduced mass and diversity in the gut microbiota among patients with MS compared with those without MS, potentially promoting inflammation. Other research has shown improvements in those factors with dietary modification.

While there is no evidence of gut microbiota changes with the Wahls and Swank diets, each is rich in fiber and plant-derived phytochemicals, which are known to be associated with improvements in gut microbiota and neuroinflammation, the investigators noted.

Dr. Titcomb reported that research into the diets is continuing as they evaluate longer-term and other effects. “This trial was a short-term parallel arm trial that did not include MRI or a control group,” he said, adding that the investigators will soon start recruiting for a follow-up study that will include a control group, long-term follow-up, and MRIs.

That upcoming study “has the potential to answer several of the unknown questions regarding the effect of diet on MS,” Dr. Titcomb said.
 

Notable research with limitations

Commenting on the study, Rebecca Spain, MD, MSPH, associate professor of neurology at the Oregon Health & Science University, and associate director of clinical care at VA MS Center of Excellence West in Portland, said there were several notable findings.

This includes that most people with MS “were able to adhere to the protocols for significant lengths of time, even without the support of dietitians for the final 12 weeks of the study,” said Spain, who was not involved with the research.

A significant limitation was the lack of a control group. Without that, “it’s hard to know for sure if the improvements in fatigue and cognition were from the diets or were simply from the social support of participating in a research study,” she said

Nevertheless, trials reporting on dietary effects in MS such as the current study are important, Dr. Spain noted. They demonstrate “that it is feasible and safe to conduct dietary studies and suggest which key MS symptoms may benefit and should be evaluated in future studies.”

“Critically, diet studies address one of the most frequent concerns of people with MS, promoting self-management and empowerment,” Dr. Spain concluded.

General guidelines for common dietary elements with evidence of improving fatigue, cognition, and mood are available on the National MS Society’s website.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Titcomb and Dr. Spain have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Terry L. Wahls, MD, who developed the Wahls diet, was a senior author of the study.

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

In the study by Aggarwal et al., the investigators evaluated whether molecular subtypes as identified from biopsies of metastatic tumors in patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) could result in improved prediction of response to therapies. In this retrospective study of 4 distinct cohorts, 45% of tumors were classified as luminal and 55% were classified as basal. Luminal tumors exhibited increased expression of androgen receptor pathway genes, and patients with luminal tumors had better survival after treatment with ASI compared with those with basal tumors. Genomic analyses of mCRPC metastases are challenging due to processing issues that can arise if bone decalcification needs to be done; therefore, this study provides an important next step to aid in the design appropriate clinical trials to investigate whether such genomic subtyping results in improved patient outcomes.

            In the study by Saad et al, the investigators evaluated whether the addition of the androgen receptor inhibitor apalutamide added to abiraterone would result in a higher radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) compared with abiraterone alone in patients with mCRPC. The combination resulted in an improvement in rPFS (24 versus 16.6 months); however, there was no improvement in overall survival. These results are similar to the Alliance A0321201 study, where enzalutamide was added to abiraterone, and no overall survival was observed. Further study is needed to determine if this combination strategy can work.

            Supportive care aside from ASIs or chemotherapy directed against prostate cancer is also of critical importance to patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Previous studies have demonstrated that BMAs, such as denosumab or zoledronic acid, result in the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with mCRPC. However, this same benefit has not been demonstrated in metastatic castrate sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); therefore, BMAs are not recommended in this population unless they are at high risk for osteoporotic fracture. Mitchell et al. evaluated a retrospective cohort identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to determine the number of patients with likely mCSPC treated with a BMA (defined as prescribed a BMA within 180 or 90 days after initial diagnosis of metastatic disease). A significant number of patients with likely mCSPC were prescribed BMAs within 180 days of diagnosis (23.6% of the cohort) and within 90 days (18.4% of the cohort). It is likely that most of these patients inappropriately received BMAs and were potentially subject to unnecessary costs and toxicity. Further study of strategies to reduce inappropriate BMA use could lead to less toxicity and lower costs.

In the study by Aggarwal et al., the investigators evaluated whether molecular subtypes as identified from biopsies of metastatic tumors in patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) could result in improved prediction of response to therapies. In this retrospective study of 4 distinct cohorts, 45% of tumors were classified as luminal and 55% were classified as basal. Luminal tumors exhibited increased expression of androgen receptor pathway genes, and patients with luminal tumors had better survival after treatment with ASI compared with those with basal tumors. Genomic analyses of mCRPC metastases are challenging due to processing issues that can arise if bone decalcification needs to be done; therefore, this study provides an important next step to aid in the design appropriate clinical trials to investigate whether such genomic subtyping results in improved patient outcomes.

            In the study by Saad et al, the investigators evaluated whether the addition of the androgen receptor inhibitor apalutamide added to abiraterone would result in a higher radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) compared with abiraterone alone in patients with mCRPC. The combination resulted in an improvement in rPFS (24 versus 16.6 months); however, there was no improvement in overall survival. These results are similar to the Alliance A0321201 study, where enzalutamide was added to abiraterone, and no overall survival was observed. Further study is needed to determine if this combination strategy can work.

            Supportive care aside from ASIs or chemotherapy directed against prostate cancer is also of critical importance to patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Previous studies have demonstrated that BMAs, such as denosumab or zoledronic acid, result in the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with mCRPC. However, this same benefit has not been demonstrated in metastatic castrate sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); therefore, BMAs are not recommended in this population unless they are at high risk for osteoporotic fracture. Mitchell et al. evaluated a retrospective cohort identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to determine the number of patients with likely mCSPC treated with a BMA (defined as prescribed a BMA within 180 or 90 days after initial diagnosis of metastatic disease). A significant number of patients with likely mCSPC were prescribed BMAs within 180 days of diagnosis (23.6% of the cohort) and within 90 days (18.4% of the cohort). It is likely that most of these patients inappropriately received BMAs and were potentially subject to unnecessary costs and toxicity. Further study of strategies to reduce inappropriate BMA use could lead to less toxicity and lower costs.

In the study by Aggarwal et al., the investigators evaluated whether molecular subtypes as identified from biopsies of metastatic tumors in patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) could result in improved prediction of response to therapies. In this retrospective study of 4 distinct cohorts, 45% of tumors were classified as luminal and 55% were classified as basal. Luminal tumors exhibited increased expression of androgen receptor pathway genes, and patients with luminal tumors had better survival after treatment with ASI compared with those with basal tumors. Genomic analyses of mCRPC metastases are challenging due to processing issues that can arise if bone decalcification needs to be done; therefore, this study provides an important next step to aid in the design appropriate clinical trials to investigate whether such genomic subtyping results in improved patient outcomes.

            In the study by Saad et al, the investigators evaluated whether the addition of the androgen receptor inhibitor apalutamide added to abiraterone would result in a higher radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) compared with abiraterone alone in patients with mCRPC. The combination resulted in an improvement in rPFS (24 versus 16.6 months); however, there was no improvement in overall survival. These results are similar to the Alliance A0321201 study, where enzalutamide was added to abiraterone, and no overall survival was observed. Further study is needed to determine if this combination strategy can work.

            Supportive care aside from ASIs or chemotherapy directed against prostate cancer is also of critical importance to patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Previous studies have demonstrated that BMAs, such as denosumab or zoledronic acid, result in the prevention of skeletal-related events (SREs) in patients with mCRPC. However, this same benefit has not been demonstrated in metastatic castrate sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC); therefore, BMAs are not recommended in this population unless they are at high risk for osteoporotic fracture. Mitchell et al. evaluated a retrospective cohort identified from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to determine the number of patients with likely mCSPC treated with a BMA (defined as prescribed a BMA within 180 or 90 days after initial diagnosis of metastatic disease). A significant number of patients with likely mCSPC were prescribed BMAs within 180 days of diagnosis (23.6% of the cohort) and within 90 days (18.4% of the cohort). It is likely that most of these patients inappropriately received BMAs and were potentially subject to unnecessary costs and toxicity. Further study of strategies to reduce inappropriate BMA use could lead to less toxicity and lower costs.

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Most U.S. medical professionals who treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) appear to have adjusted drug regimens during the pandemic’s early months to lower the risk of COVID-19 infection. But they actually didn’t need to make changes then – or now. These are the messages of a pair of new studies that examine the impact of the pandemic on the treatment of MS.

One report finds that 80% of specialists surveyed in the summer of 2020 said the pandemic may have changed how they prescribe disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). However, the other report finds no evidence that choice of DMT affects risk of COVID-19 infection. Both studies were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

For the survey, researchers led by neurologist Elizabeth H. Morrison-Banks, MD, of the University of California, Riverside, sent questions to 188 clinicians who serve on regional National Multiple Sclerosis Society Healthcare Provider Councils. A total of 86 people responded: 45 physicians, 18 rehabilitation therapists, 7 psychologists, 8 advanced practice clinicians, 4 social workers, 2 nurses, a pharmacist, and a researcher.

The results, which were published earlier in 2021 in Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, revealed that the survey participants were prescribing certain DMTs more often: beta-interferons (prescribed more by 28.6% of prescribers), natalizumab (23.8%), and glatiramer acetate (21.4%). Those prescribed less included alemtuzumab (64.2% prescribed it less), cladribine (52.4%), and B cell–depleting agents including ocrelizumab and rituximab (50%). Some specialists suspended drugs entirely (21.4% for alemtuzumab, 16.7% for B cell–depleting agents) or extending dosing intervals (38.1% for natalizumab, 11.9% for fingolimod and siponimod).

“We suspect that some of the lower-efficacy therapies were prescribed more often because these therapies were much less immunosuppressive, and because they did not require in-person visits that would increase risk of viral exposure from infusion center staff, or from other infusion patients,” Dr. Morrison-Banks said in an interview. “We also suspect that some of our survey respondents may have increased the dosing intervals for higher-efficacy therapies such as B cell–modulating agents – or even avoided these therapies altogether – because they were concerned that immunosuppressive agents might trigger severe complications from COVID-19.”

As she noted, “in retrospect, at least some of the concerns expressed in our survey may not have been entirely warranted, but then again, we all knew even less then about COVID-19.”

Indeed, researchers led by neurologist Tyler E. Smith, MD, of New York University Langone Multiple Sclerosis Care Center are reporting that they couldn’t find any link between the following DMTs and higher rates of COVID-19 at the New York City center: rituximab, ocrelizumab, fumerate (dimethyl fumarate, monomethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate), sphingosine-1-phosphate modulators (fingolimod, siponimod), and natalizumab.

The researchers tracked 1,439 patients with MS who were taking the DMTs from March 2020 to March 2021. Of those, 16.0% were infected with COVID-19 (75% lab confirmed), 6.5% were hospitalized, and 0.9% died.

“We did not find an association between the choice of disease-modifying therapy and developing COVID-19 infection, nor having increased disease severity,” Dr. Smith said in an interview. “We are still analyzing data and hope to publish an updated analysis, but at this point, we don’t have conclusive evidence that DMTs, including anti-CD20 agents, need to be changed to lower the risk of COVID-19.”

Instead, he said, “at this point, we feel our energies should be spent on educating our patients on importance of vaccines and boosters. I don’t think it is necessary to switch DMTs because of COVID-19 concerns. However, this should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.”

No funding is reported for the survey study, and the authors reported various disclosures. The DMT study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers, and the authors reported various disclosures.
 

Clinicians should use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain (angina), advises a joint clinical practice guideline released by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

While evaluation of chest pain has been covered in previous guidelines, this is the first comprehensive guideline from the AHA and ACC focused exclusively on the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

“As our imaging technologies have evolved, we needed a contemporary approach to which patients need further testing, and which do not, in addition to what testing is effective,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, and chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“Our hope is that we have provided an evidence-based approach to evaluating patients that will assist all of us who manage, diagnose, and treat patients who experience chest pain,” said Dr. Gulati, who is also president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

The guideline was simultaneously published online Oct. 28, 2021, in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Atypical’ is out, ‘noncardiac’ is in

Each year, chest pain sends more than 6.5 million adults to the ED and more than 4 million to outpatient clinics in the United States.

Yet, among all patients who come to the ED, only 5% will have acute coronary syndrome (ACS). More than half will ultimately have a noncardiac reason for their chest pain, including respiratory, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, or other causes.

The guideline says evaluating the severity and the cause of chest pain is essential and advises using standard risk assessments to determine if a patient is at low, intermediate, or high risk for having a cardiac event.

“I hope clinicians take from our guidelines the understanding that low-risk patients often do not need additional testing. And if we communicate this effectively with our patients – incorporating shared decision-making into our practice – we can reduce ‘overtesting’ in low-risk patients,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.

The guideline notes that women are unique when presenting with ACS symptoms. While chest pain is the dominant and most common symptom for both men and women, women may be more likely to also have symptoms such as nausea and shortness of breath.

The guideline also encourages using the term “noncardiac” if heart disease is not suspected in a patient with angina and says the term “atypical” is a “misleading” descriptor of chest pain and should not be used.

“Words matter, and we need to move away from describing chest pain as ‘atypical’ because it has resulted in confusion when these words are used,” Dr. Gulati stressed.

“Rather than meaning a different way of presenting, it has taken on a meaning to imply it is not cardiac. It is more useful to talk about the probability of the pain being cardiac vs noncardiac,” Dr. Gulati explained.
 

No one best test for everyone

There is also a focus on evaluation of patients with chest pain who present to the ED. The initial goals of ED physicians should be to identify if there are life-threatening causes and to determine if there is a need for hospital admission or testing, the guideline states.

Thorough screening in the ED may help determine who is at high risk versus intermediate or low risk for a cardiac event. An individual deemed to be at low risk may be referred for additional evaluation in an outpatient setting rather than being admitted to the hospital, the authors wrote.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponins are the “preferred standard” for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury, they added.

“While there is no one ‘best test’ for every patient, the guideline emphasizes the tests that may be most appropriate, depending on the individual situation, and which ones won’t provide additional information; therefore, these tests should not be done just for the sake of doing them,” Dr. Gulati said in a news release.

“Appropriate testing is also dependent upon the technology and screening devices that are available at the hospital or healthcare center where the patient is receiving care. All imaging modalities highlighted in the guideline have an important role in the assessment of chest pain to help determine the underlying cause, with the goal of preventing a serious cardiac event,” Dr. Gulati added.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA and ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Five other partnering organizations participated in and approved the guideline: the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The writing group included representatives from each of the partnering organizations and experts in the field (cardiac intensivists, cardiac interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, emergency physicians, and epidemiologists), as well as a lay/patient representative.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Clinicians should use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain (angina), advises a joint clinical practice guideline released by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

While evaluation of chest pain has been covered in previous guidelines, this is the first comprehensive guideline from the AHA and ACC focused exclusively on the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

“As our imaging technologies have evolved, we needed a contemporary approach to which patients need further testing, and which do not, in addition to what testing is effective,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, and chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“Our hope is that we have provided an evidence-based approach to evaluating patients that will assist all of us who manage, diagnose, and treat patients who experience chest pain,” said Dr. Gulati, who is also president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

The guideline was simultaneously published online Oct. 28, 2021, in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Atypical’ is out, ‘noncardiac’ is in

Each year, chest pain sends more than 6.5 million adults to the ED and more than 4 million to outpatient clinics in the United States.

Yet, among all patients who come to the ED, only 5% will have acute coronary syndrome (ACS). More than half will ultimately have a noncardiac reason for their chest pain, including respiratory, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, or other causes.

The guideline says evaluating the severity and the cause of chest pain is essential and advises using standard risk assessments to determine if a patient is at low, intermediate, or high risk for having a cardiac event.

“I hope clinicians take from our guidelines the understanding that low-risk patients often do not need additional testing. And if we communicate this effectively with our patients – incorporating shared decision-making into our practice – we can reduce ‘overtesting’ in low-risk patients,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.

The guideline notes that women are unique when presenting with ACS symptoms. While chest pain is the dominant and most common symptom for both men and women, women may be more likely to also have symptoms such as nausea and shortness of breath.

The guideline also encourages using the term “noncardiac” if heart disease is not suspected in a patient with angina and says the term “atypical” is a “misleading” descriptor of chest pain and should not be used.

“Words matter, and we need to move away from describing chest pain as ‘atypical’ because it has resulted in confusion when these words are used,” Dr. Gulati stressed.

“Rather than meaning a different way of presenting, it has taken on a meaning to imply it is not cardiac. It is more useful to talk about the probability of the pain being cardiac vs noncardiac,” Dr. Gulati explained.
 

No one best test for everyone

There is also a focus on evaluation of patients with chest pain who present to the ED. The initial goals of ED physicians should be to identify if there are life-threatening causes and to determine if there is a need for hospital admission or testing, the guideline states.

Thorough screening in the ED may help determine who is at high risk versus intermediate or low risk for a cardiac event. An individual deemed to be at low risk may be referred for additional evaluation in an outpatient setting rather than being admitted to the hospital, the authors wrote.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponins are the “preferred standard” for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury, they added.

“While there is no one ‘best test’ for every patient, the guideline emphasizes the tests that may be most appropriate, depending on the individual situation, and which ones won’t provide additional information; therefore, these tests should not be done just for the sake of doing them,” Dr. Gulati said in a news release.

“Appropriate testing is also dependent upon the technology and screening devices that are available at the hospital or healthcare center where the patient is receiving care. All imaging modalities highlighted in the guideline have an important role in the assessment of chest pain to help determine the underlying cause, with the goal of preventing a serious cardiac event,” Dr. Gulati added.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA and ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Five other partnering organizations participated in and approved the guideline: the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The writing group included representatives from each of the partnering organizations and experts in the field (cardiac intensivists, cardiac interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, emergency physicians, and epidemiologists), as well as a lay/patient representative.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

Clinicians should use standardized risk assessments, clinical pathways, and tools to evaluate and communicate with patients who present with chest pain (angina), advises a joint clinical practice guideline released by American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.

Rawpixel/iStock/Getty Images

While evaluation of chest pain has been covered in previous guidelines, this is the first comprehensive guideline from the AHA and ACC focused exclusively on the evaluation and diagnosis of chest pain.

“As our imaging technologies have evolved, we needed a contemporary approach to which patients need further testing, and which do not, in addition to what testing is effective,” Martha Gulati, MD, University of Arizona, Phoenix, and chair of the guideline writing group, said in an interview.

“Our hope is that we have provided an evidence-based approach to evaluating patients that will assist all of us who manage, diagnose, and treat patients who experience chest pain,” said Dr. Gulati, who is also president-elect of the American Society for Preventive Cardiology.

The guideline was simultaneously published online Oct. 28, 2021, in Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
 

‘Atypical’ is out, ‘noncardiac’ is in

Each year, chest pain sends more than 6.5 million adults to the ED and more than 4 million to outpatient clinics in the United States.

Yet, among all patients who come to the ED, only 5% will have acute coronary syndrome (ACS). More than half will ultimately have a noncardiac reason for their chest pain, including respiratory, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, psychological, or other causes.

The guideline says evaluating the severity and the cause of chest pain is essential and advises using standard risk assessments to determine if a patient is at low, intermediate, or high risk for having a cardiac event.

“I hope clinicians take from our guidelines the understanding that low-risk patients often do not need additional testing. And if we communicate this effectively with our patients – incorporating shared decision-making into our practice – we can reduce ‘overtesting’ in low-risk patients,” Dr. Gulati said in an interview.

The guideline notes that women are unique when presenting with ACS symptoms. While chest pain is the dominant and most common symptom for both men and women, women may be more likely to also have symptoms such as nausea and shortness of breath.

The guideline also encourages using the term “noncardiac” if heart disease is not suspected in a patient with angina and says the term “atypical” is a “misleading” descriptor of chest pain and should not be used.

“Words matter, and we need to move away from describing chest pain as ‘atypical’ because it has resulted in confusion when these words are used,” Dr. Gulati stressed.

“Rather than meaning a different way of presenting, it has taken on a meaning to imply it is not cardiac. It is more useful to talk about the probability of the pain being cardiac vs noncardiac,” Dr. Gulati explained.
 

No one best test for everyone

There is also a focus on evaluation of patients with chest pain who present to the ED. The initial goals of ED physicians should be to identify if there are life-threatening causes and to determine if there is a need for hospital admission or testing, the guideline states.

Thorough screening in the ED may help determine who is at high risk versus intermediate or low risk for a cardiac event. An individual deemed to be at low risk may be referred for additional evaluation in an outpatient setting rather than being admitted to the hospital, the authors wrote.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponins are the “preferred standard” for establishing a biomarker diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, allowing for more accurate detection and exclusion of myocardial injury, they added.

“While there is no one ‘best test’ for every patient, the guideline emphasizes the tests that may be most appropriate, depending on the individual situation, and which ones won’t provide additional information; therefore, these tests should not be done just for the sake of doing them,” Dr. Gulati said in a news release.

“Appropriate testing is also dependent upon the technology and screening devices that are available at the hospital or healthcare center where the patient is receiving care. All imaging modalities highlighted in the guideline have an important role in the assessment of chest pain to help determine the underlying cause, with the goal of preventing a serious cardiac event,” Dr. Gulati added.

The guideline was prepared on behalf of and approved by the AHA and ACC Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Five other partnering organizations participated in and approved the guideline: the American Society of Echocardiography, the American College of Chest Physicians, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance.

The writing group included representatives from each of the partnering organizations and experts in the field (cardiac intensivists, cardiac interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, emergency physicians, and epidemiologists), as well as a lay/patient representative.

The research had no commercial funding.

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

FIRST OF 2 PARTS

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is marked by an ongoing pattern of mood instability, cognitive distortions, problems with self-image, and impulsive behavior, often resulting in problems in relationships. BPD is associated with serious impairment in psychosocial functioning.¹ Patients with BPD tend to use more mental health services than patients with other personality disorders or those with major depressive disorder (MDD).² However, there has been little consensus on the best treatment(s) for this serious and debilitating disorder, and some clinicians view BPD as difficult to treat.

Current treatments for BPD include psychological and pharmacological interventions. Neuromodulation techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, may also positively affect BPD symptomatology. In recent years, there have been some promising findings in the treatment of BPD. In this 2-part article, we focus on current (within the last 5 years) findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BPD treatments. Here in Part 1, we focus on 6 studies that evaluated biological interventions (Table,^3-8). In Part 2, we will focus on RCTs that investigated psychological interventions.

1. Lisoni J, Miotto P, Barlati S, et al. Change in core symptoms of borderline personality disorder by tDCS: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113261. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113261

Impulsivity has been described as the core feature of BPD that best explains its behavioral, cognitive, and clinical manifestations. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the role of the prefrontal cortex in modulating impulsivity. Dysfunction of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been implicated in BPD. DLPFC transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive neurostimulation technique that can be used to alter cortical brain activity. Lisoni et al³ examined whether a bilateral right anodal/left cathodal tDCS montage could modulate the psychopathology of BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In a double-blind, sham-controlled trial, adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for BPD were randomized to 3 weeks (15 sessions) of right anodal/left cathodal DLPFC tCDS (n = 15) or sham tDCS (n = 15). This study included patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders, including substance use disorders. Discontinuation or alteration of existing medications was not allowed.
• The presence, severity, and change over time of BPD core symptoms was assessed at baseline and after 3 weeks using several clinical scales, self-questionnaires, and neuropsychological tests, including the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BP-AQ), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Irritability-Depression Anxiety Scale (IDA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and Iowa Gambling Task.

Outcomes

• Participants in the active tDCS group experienced significant reductions in impulsivity, aggression, and craving as measured by the BIS-11, BP-AQ, and VAS.
• Compared to the sham group, the active tDCS group had greater reductions in HAM-D and BDI scores.
• HAM-A and IDA scores were improved in both groups, although the active tDCS group showed greater reductions in IDA scores compared with the sham group.
• As measured by DERS, active tDCS did not improve affective dysregulation more than sham tDCS.

Conclusions/limitations

• Bilateral tDCS targeting the right DLPFC with anodal stimulation is a safe, well-tolerated technique that may modulate core dimensions of BPD, including impulsivity, aggression, and craving.
• Excitatory anodal stimulation of the right DLFPC coupled with inhibitory cathodal stimulation on the left DLPFC may be an effective montage for targeting impulsivity in patients with BPD.
• Study limitations include a small sample size, use of targeted questionnaires only, inclusion of patients with BPD who also had certain comorbid psychiatric disorders, lack of analysis of the contributions of medications, lack of functional neuroimaging, and lack of a follow-up phase.

2. Molavi P, Aziziaram S, Basharpoor S, et al. Repeated transcranial direct current stimulation of dorsolateral-prefrontal cortex improves executive functions, cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation, and control over emotional processing in borderline personality disorder: a randomized, sham-controlled, parallel-group study. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.007

Emotional dysregulation is considered a core feature of BPD psychopathology and is closely associated with executive dysfunction and cognitive control. Manifestations of executive dysfunction include aggressiveness, impulsive decision-making, disinhibition, and self-destructive behaviors. Neuroimaging of patients with BPD has shown enhanced activity in the insula, posterior cingulate cortex, and amygdala, with reduced activity in the medial PFC, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, and DLPFC. Molavi et al⁴ postulated that increasing DLPFC activation with left anodal tDCS would result in improved executive functioning and emotion dysregulation in patients with BPD.

Study design

• In this single-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study, adults who met DSM-5 criteria for BPD were randomized to receive 10 consecutive daily sessions of left anodal/right cathodal DLPFC tDCS (n = 16) or sham tDCS (n = 16).
• The effect of tDCS on executive dysfunction, emotion dysregulation, and emotional processing was measured using the Executive Skills Questionnaire for Adults (ESQ), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), and Emotional Processing Scale (EPS). Measurements occurred at baseline and after 10 sessions of active or sham tDCS.

Outcomes

• Participants who received active tDCS experienced significant improvements in ESQ overall score and most of the executive function domains measured by the ESQ.
• Those in the active tDCS group also experienced significant improvement in emotion regulation as measured by the cognitive reappraisal subscale (but not the expressive suppression subscale) of the ERQ after the intervention.
• Overall emotional processing as measured by the EPS was significantly improved in the active tDCS group following the intervention.

Conclusions/limitations

• Repeated bilateral left anodal/right cathodal tDCS stimulation of the DLPFC significantly improved executive functioning and aspects of emotion regulation and emotional processing in patients with BPD. This improvement was presumed to be the result of increased activity of left DLPFC.
• Study limitations include a single-blind design, lack of follow-up to assess durability and stability of response over time, reliance on self-report measures, lack of functional neuroimaging, and limited focality of tDCS.

3. Crawford MJ, Sanatinia R, Barrett B, et al; LABILE study team. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine in borderline personality disorder: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(8):756-764. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17091006

One of the hallmark symptoms of BPD is mood dysregulation. Current treatment guidelines recommend the use of mood stabilizers for BPD despite limited quality evidence of effectiveness and a lack of FDA-approved medications with this indication. In this RCT, Crawford et al⁵ examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In this 2-arm, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 276 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD were randomized to receive lamotrigine (up to 400 mg/d) or placebo for 52 weeks.
• The primary outcome was the score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, treatment adverse effects, and adverse events. These were assessed using the BDI; Acts of Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory; Social Functioning Questionnaire; Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test; and the EQ-5D-3L.

Outcomes

• Mean ZAN-BPD score decreased at 12 weeks in both groups, after which time the score remained stable.
• There was no difference in ZAN-BPD scores at 52 weeks between treatment arms. No difference was found in any secondary outcome measures.
• Difference in costs between groups was not significant.

Conclusions/limitations

• There was no evidence that lamotrigine led to clinical improvements in BPD symptomatology, social functioning, health-related quality of life, or substance use.
• Lamotrigine is neither clinically effective nor a cost-effective use of resources in the treatment of BPD.
• Limitations include a low level of adherence.

4. Domes G, Ower N, von Dawans B, et al. Effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on empathy and approach motivation in women with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9(1):328. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0658-4

A core feature of BPD is impairment in empathy; adequate empathy is required for intact social functioning. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide that helps regulate complex social cognition and behavior. Prior research has found that oxytocin administration enhances emotion regulation and empathy. Women with BPD have been observed to have lower levels of oxytocin. Domes et al⁶ conducted an RCT to see if oxytocin could have a beneficial effect on social approach and social cognition in women with BPD.

Study design

• In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-subject trial, 61 women who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and 68 matched healthy controls were randomized to receive intranasal oxytocin, 24 IU, or placebo 45 minutes before completing an empathy task.
• An extended version of the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess empathy and approach motivation.

Outcomes

• For cognitive empathy, patients with BPD exhibited significantly lower overall performance compared to controls. There was no effect of oxytocin on this performance in either group.
• Patients with BPD had significantly lower affective empathy compared with controls. After oxytocin administration, patients with BPD had significantly higher affective empathy than those with BPD who received placebo, reaching the level of healthy controls who received placebo.
• For positive stimuli, patients with BPD showed lower affective empathy than controls. Oxytocin treatment increased affective empathy in both groups.
• For negative stimuli, oxytocin increased affective empathy more in patients with BPD than in controls.
• Patients with BPD demonstrated less approach motivation than controls. Oxytocin increased approach motivation more in patients with BPD than in controls. For approach motivation toward positive stimuli, oxytocin had a significant effect on patients with BPD.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations...

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients with BPD showed reduced cognitive and affective empathy and less approach behavior motivation than healthy controls.
• Patients with BPD who received oxytocin attained a level of affective empathy and approach motivation similar to that of healthy controls who received placebo. For positive stimuli, both groups exhibited comparable improvements from oxytocin. For negative stimuli, patients with BPD patients showed significant improvement with oxytocin, whereas healthy controls received no such benefit.
• Limitations include the use of self-report scales, lack of a control group, and inclusion of patients using psychotherapeutic medications. The study lacks generalizability because only women were included; the effect of exogenous oxytocin on men may differ.

5. Bozzatello P, Rocca P, Uscinska M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of asenapine compared with olanzapine in borderline personality disorder: an open-label randomized controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2017;31(9):809-819. doi: 10.1007/s40263-017-0458-4

The last decade has seen a noticeable shift in clinical practice from the use of antidepressants to mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the treatment of BPD. Studies have demonstrated therapeutic effects of antipsychotic drugs across a wide range of BPD symptoms. Among SGAs, olanzapine is the most extensively studied across case reports, open-label studies, and RCTs of patients with BPD. In an RCT, Bozzatello et al⁷ compared the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine to olanzapine.

Study design

• In this open-label RCT, adults who met DSM-5 criteria for BPD were assigned to receive asenapine (n = 25) or olanzapine (n = 26) for 12 weeks.
• Study measurements included the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Severity item, HAM-D, HAM-A, Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI), BIS-11, Modified Overt Aggression Scale, and Dosage Record Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale.

Outcomes

• Asenapine and olanzapine had similar effects on BPD-related psychopathology, anxiety, and social and occupational functioning.
• Neither medication significantly decreased depressive or aggressive symptoms.
• Asenapine was superior to olanzapine in reducing the affective instability score of the BPDSI.
• Akathisia and restlessness/anxiety were more common with asenapine, and somnolence and fatigue were more common with olanzapine.

Conclusions/limitations

• The overall efficacy of asenapine was not different from olanzapine, and both medications were well-tolerated.
• Neither medication led to an improvement in depression or aggression, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine in reducing the severity of affective instability.
• Limitations include an open-label design, lack of placebo group, small sample size, high drop-out rate, exclusion of participants with co-occurring MDD and substance abuse/dependence, lack of data on prior pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies, and lack of power to detect a difference on the dissociation/paranoid ideation item of BPDSI.

6. Kulkarni J, Thomas N, Hudaib AR, et al. Effect of the glutamate NMDA receptor antagonist memantine as adjunctive treatment in borderline personality disorder: an exploratory, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(2):179-187. doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0506-8

It has been hypothesized that glutamate dysregulation and excitotoxicity are crucial to the development of the cognitive disturbances that underlie BPD. As such, glutamate modulators such as memantine hold promise for the treatment of BPD. In this RCT, Kulkarni et al⁸ examined the efficacy and tolerability of memantine compared with treatment as usual in patients with BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults diagnosed with BPD according to the Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients were randomized to receive memantine (n = 17) or placebo (n = 16) in addition to treatment as usual. Treatment as usual included the use of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics as well as psychotherapy and other psychosocial interventions.
• Patients were initiated on placebo or memantine, 10 mg/d. Memantine was increased to 20 mg/d after 7 days.
• ZAN-BPD score was the primary outcome and was measured at baseline and 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. An adverse effects questionnaire was administered every 2 weeks to assess tolerability.

Outcomes

• During the first 2 weeks of treatment, there were no significant improvements in ZAN-BPD score in the memantine group compared with the placebo group.
• Beginning with Week 2, compared with the placebo group, the memantine group experienced a significant reduction in total symptoms as measured by ZAN-BPD.
• There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions/limitations

• Memantine appears to be a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with BPD and merits further study.
• Limitations include a small sample size, and an inability to reach plateau of ZAN-BPD total score in either group. Also, there is considerable individual variability in memantine steady-state plasma concentrations, but plasma levels were not measured in this study.

Bottom Line

Findings from small randomized controlled trials suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation, oxytocin, asenapine, olanzapine, and memantine may have beneficial effects on some core symptoms of borderline personality disorder. These findings need to be replicated in larger studies.

FIRST OF 2 PARTS

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is marked by an ongoing pattern of mood instability, cognitive distortions, problems with self-image, and impulsive behavior, often resulting in problems in relationships. BPD is associated with serious impairment in psychosocial functioning.¹ Patients with BPD tend to use more mental health services than patients with other personality disorders or those with major depressive disorder (MDD).² However, there has been little consensus on the best treatment(s) for this serious and debilitating disorder, and some clinicians view BPD as difficult to treat.

Current treatments for BPD include psychological and pharmacological interventions. Neuromodulation techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, may also positively affect BPD symptomatology. In recent years, there have been some promising findings in the treatment of BPD. In this 2-part article, we focus on current (within the last 5 years) findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BPD treatments. Here in Part 1, we focus on 6 studies that evaluated biological interventions (Table,^3-8). In Part 2, we will focus on RCTs that investigated psychological interventions.

1. Lisoni J, Miotto P, Barlati S, et al. Change in core symptoms of borderline personality disorder by tDCS: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113261. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113261

Impulsivity has been described as the core feature of BPD that best explains its behavioral, cognitive, and clinical manifestations. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the role of the prefrontal cortex in modulating impulsivity. Dysfunction of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been implicated in BPD. DLPFC transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive neurostimulation technique that can be used to alter cortical brain activity. Lisoni et al³ examined whether a bilateral right anodal/left cathodal tDCS montage could modulate the psychopathology of BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In a double-blind, sham-controlled trial, adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for BPD were randomized to 3 weeks (15 sessions) of right anodal/left cathodal DLPFC tCDS (n = 15) or sham tDCS (n = 15). This study included patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders, including substance use disorders. Discontinuation or alteration of existing medications was not allowed.
• The presence, severity, and change over time of BPD core symptoms was assessed at baseline and after 3 weeks using several clinical scales, self-questionnaires, and neuropsychological tests, including the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BP-AQ), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Irritability-Depression Anxiety Scale (IDA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and Iowa Gambling Task.

Outcomes

• Participants in the active tDCS group experienced significant reductions in impulsivity, aggression, and craving as measured by the BIS-11, BP-AQ, and VAS.
• Compared to the sham group, the active tDCS group had greater reductions in HAM-D and BDI scores.
• HAM-A and IDA scores were improved in both groups, although the active tDCS group showed greater reductions in IDA scores compared with the sham group.
• As measured by DERS, active tDCS did not improve affective dysregulation more than sham tDCS.

Conclusions/limitations

• Bilateral tDCS targeting the right DLPFC with anodal stimulation is a safe, well-tolerated technique that may modulate core dimensions of BPD, including impulsivity, aggression, and craving.
• Excitatory anodal stimulation of the right DLFPC coupled with inhibitory cathodal stimulation on the left DLPFC may be an effective montage for targeting impulsivity in patients with BPD.
• Study limitations include a small sample size, use of targeted questionnaires only, inclusion of patients with BPD who also had certain comorbid psychiatric disorders, lack of analysis of the contributions of medications, lack of functional neuroimaging, and lack of a follow-up phase.

2. Molavi P, Aziziaram S, Basharpoor S, et al. Repeated transcranial direct current stimulation of dorsolateral-prefrontal cortex improves executive functions, cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation, and control over emotional processing in borderline personality disorder: a randomized, sham-controlled, parallel-group study. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.007

Emotional dysregulation is considered a core feature of BPD psychopathology and is closely associated with executive dysfunction and cognitive control. Manifestations of executive dysfunction include aggressiveness, impulsive decision-making, disinhibition, and self-destructive behaviors. Neuroimaging of patients with BPD has shown enhanced activity in the insula, posterior cingulate cortex, and amygdala, with reduced activity in the medial PFC, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, and DLPFC. Molavi et al⁴ postulated that increasing DLPFC activation with left anodal tDCS would result in improved executive functioning and emotion dysregulation in patients with BPD.

Study design

• In this single-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study, adults who met DSM-5 criteria for BPD were randomized to receive 10 consecutive daily sessions of left anodal/right cathodal DLPFC tDCS (n = 16) or sham tDCS (n = 16).
• The effect of tDCS on executive dysfunction, emotion dysregulation, and emotional processing was measured using the Executive Skills Questionnaire for Adults (ESQ), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), and Emotional Processing Scale (EPS). Measurements occurred at baseline and after 10 sessions of active or sham tDCS.

Outcomes

• Participants who received active tDCS experienced significant improvements in ESQ overall score and most of the executive function domains measured by the ESQ.
• Those in the active tDCS group also experienced significant improvement in emotion regulation as measured by the cognitive reappraisal subscale (but not the expressive suppression subscale) of the ERQ after the intervention.
• Overall emotional processing as measured by the EPS was significantly improved in the active tDCS group following the intervention.

Conclusions/limitations

• Repeated bilateral left anodal/right cathodal tDCS stimulation of the DLPFC significantly improved executive functioning and aspects of emotion regulation and emotional processing in patients with BPD. This improvement was presumed to be the result of increased activity of left DLPFC.
• Study limitations include a single-blind design, lack of follow-up to assess durability and stability of response over time, reliance on self-report measures, lack of functional neuroimaging, and limited focality of tDCS.

3. Crawford MJ, Sanatinia R, Barrett B, et al; LABILE study team. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine in borderline personality disorder: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(8):756-764. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17091006

One of the hallmark symptoms of BPD is mood dysregulation. Current treatment guidelines recommend the use of mood stabilizers for BPD despite limited quality evidence of effectiveness and a lack of FDA-approved medications with this indication. In this RCT, Crawford et al⁵ examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In this 2-arm, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 276 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD were randomized to receive lamotrigine (up to 400 mg/d) or placebo for 52 weeks.
• The primary outcome was the score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, treatment adverse effects, and adverse events. These were assessed using the BDI; Acts of Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory; Social Functioning Questionnaire; Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test; and the EQ-5D-3L.

Outcomes

• Mean ZAN-BPD score decreased at 12 weeks in both groups, after which time the score remained stable.
• There was no difference in ZAN-BPD scores at 52 weeks between treatment arms. No difference was found in any secondary outcome measures.
• Difference in costs between groups was not significant.

Conclusions/limitations

• There was no evidence that lamotrigine led to clinical improvements in BPD symptomatology, social functioning, health-related quality of life, or substance use.
• Lamotrigine is neither clinically effective nor a cost-effective use of resources in the treatment of BPD.
• Limitations include a low level of adherence.

4. Domes G, Ower N, von Dawans B, et al. Effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on empathy and approach motivation in women with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9(1):328. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0658-4

A core feature of BPD is impairment in empathy; adequate empathy is required for intact social functioning. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide that helps regulate complex social cognition and behavior. Prior research has found that oxytocin administration enhances emotion regulation and empathy. Women with BPD have been observed to have lower levels of oxytocin. Domes et al⁶ conducted an RCT to see if oxytocin could have a beneficial effect on social approach and social cognition in women with BPD.

Study design

• In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-subject trial, 61 women who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and 68 matched healthy controls were randomized to receive intranasal oxytocin, 24 IU, or placebo 45 minutes before completing an empathy task.
• An extended version of the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess empathy and approach motivation.

Outcomes

• For cognitive empathy, patients with BPD exhibited significantly lower overall performance compared to controls. There was no effect of oxytocin on this performance in either group.
• Patients with BPD had significantly lower affective empathy compared with controls. After oxytocin administration, patients with BPD had significantly higher affective empathy than those with BPD who received placebo, reaching the level of healthy controls who received placebo.
• For positive stimuli, patients with BPD showed lower affective empathy than controls. Oxytocin treatment increased affective empathy in both groups.
• For negative stimuli, oxytocin increased affective empathy more in patients with BPD than in controls.
• Patients with BPD demonstrated less approach motivation than controls. Oxytocin increased approach motivation more in patients with BPD than in controls. For approach motivation toward positive stimuli, oxytocin had a significant effect on patients with BPD.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations...

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients with BPD showed reduced cognitive and affective empathy and less approach behavior motivation than healthy controls.
• Patients with BPD who received oxytocin attained a level of affective empathy and approach motivation similar to that of healthy controls who received placebo. For positive stimuli, both groups exhibited comparable improvements from oxytocin. For negative stimuli, patients with BPD patients showed significant improvement with oxytocin, whereas healthy controls received no such benefit.
• Limitations include the use of self-report scales, lack of a control group, and inclusion of patients using psychotherapeutic medications. The study lacks generalizability because only women were included; the effect of exogenous oxytocin on men may differ.

5. Bozzatello P, Rocca P, Uscinska M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of asenapine compared with olanzapine in borderline personality disorder: an open-label randomized controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2017;31(9):809-819. doi: 10.1007/s40263-017-0458-4

The last decade has seen a noticeable shift in clinical practice from the use of antidepressants to mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the treatment of BPD. Studies have demonstrated therapeutic effects of antipsychotic drugs across a wide range of BPD symptoms. Among SGAs, olanzapine is the most extensively studied across case reports, open-label studies, and RCTs of patients with BPD. In an RCT, Bozzatello et al⁷ compared the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine to olanzapine.

Study design

• In this open-label RCT, adults who met DSM-5 criteria for BPD were assigned to receive asenapine (n = 25) or olanzapine (n = 26) for 12 weeks.
• Study measurements included the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Severity item, HAM-D, HAM-A, Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI), BIS-11, Modified Overt Aggression Scale, and Dosage Record Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale.

Outcomes

• Asenapine and olanzapine had similar effects on BPD-related psychopathology, anxiety, and social and occupational functioning.
• Neither medication significantly decreased depressive or aggressive symptoms.
• Asenapine was superior to olanzapine in reducing the affective instability score of the BPDSI.
• Akathisia and restlessness/anxiety were more common with asenapine, and somnolence and fatigue were more common with olanzapine.

Conclusions/limitations

• The overall efficacy of asenapine was not different from olanzapine, and both medications were well-tolerated.
• Neither medication led to an improvement in depression or aggression, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine in reducing the severity of affective instability.
• Limitations include an open-label design, lack of placebo group, small sample size, high drop-out rate, exclusion of participants with co-occurring MDD and substance abuse/dependence, lack of data on prior pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies, and lack of power to detect a difference on the dissociation/paranoid ideation item of BPDSI.

6. Kulkarni J, Thomas N, Hudaib AR, et al. Effect of the glutamate NMDA receptor antagonist memantine as adjunctive treatment in borderline personality disorder: an exploratory, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(2):179-187. doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0506-8

It has been hypothesized that glutamate dysregulation and excitotoxicity are crucial to the development of the cognitive disturbances that underlie BPD. As such, glutamate modulators such as memantine hold promise for the treatment of BPD. In this RCT, Kulkarni et al⁸ examined the efficacy and tolerability of memantine compared with treatment as usual in patients with BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults diagnosed with BPD according to the Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients were randomized to receive memantine (n = 17) or placebo (n = 16) in addition to treatment as usual. Treatment as usual included the use of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics as well as psychotherapy and other psychosocial interventions.
• Patients were initiated on placebo or memantine, 10 mg/d. Memantine was increased to 20 mg/d after 7 days.
• ZAN-BPD score was the primary outcome and was measured at baseline and 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. An adverse effects questionnaire was administered every 2 weeks to assess tolerability.

Outcomes

• During the first 2 weeks of treatment, there were no significant improvements in ZAN-BPD score in the memantine group compared with the placebo group.
• Beginning with Week 2, compared with the placebo group, the memantine group experienced a significant reduction in total symptoms as measured by ZAN-BPD.
• There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions/limitations

• Memantine appears to be a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with BPD and merits further study.
• Limitations include a small sample size, and an inability to reach plateau of ZAN-BPD total score in either group. Also, there is considerable individual variability in memantine steady-state plasma concentrations, but plasma levels were not measured in this study.

Bottom Line

Findings from small randomized controlled trials suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation, oxytocin, asenapine, olanzapine, and memantine may have beneficial effects on some core symptoms of borderline personality disorder. These findings need to be replicated in larger studies.

FIRST OF 2 PARTS

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is marked by an ongoing pattern of mood instability, cognitive distortions, problems with self-image, and impulsive behavior, often resulting in problems in relationships. BPD is associated with serious impairment in psychosocial functioning.¹ Patients with BPD tend to use more mental health services than patients with other personality disorders or those with major depressive disorder (MDD).² However, there has been little consensus on the best treatment(s) for this serious and debilitating disorder, and some clinicians view BPD as difficult to treat.

Current treatments for BPD include psychological and pharmacological interventions. Neuromodulation techniques, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, may also positively affect BPD symptomatology. In recent years, there have been some promising findings in the treatment of BPD. In this 2-part article, we focus on current (within the last 5 years) findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of BPD treatments. Here in Part 1, we focus on 6 studies that evaluated biological interventions (Table,^3-8). In Part 2, we will focus on RCTs that investigated psychological interventions.

1. Lisoni J, Miotto P, Barlati S, et al. Change in core symptoms of borderline personality disorder by tDCS: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2020;291:113261. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113261

Impulsivity has been described as the core feature of BPD that best explains its behavioral, cognitive, and clinical manifestations. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated the role of the prefrontal cortex in modulating impulsivity. Dysfunction of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been implicated in BPD. DLPFC transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a well-tolerated, noninvasive neurostimulation technique that can be used to alter cortical brain activity. Lisoni et al³ examined whether a bilateral right anodal/left cathodal tDCS montage could modulate the psychopathology of BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In a double-blind, sham-controlled trial, adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for BPD were randomized to 3 weeks (15 sessions) of right anodal/left cathodal DLPFC tCDS (n = 15) or sham tDCS (n = 15). This study included patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders, including substance use disorders. Discontinuation or alteration of existing medications was not allowed.
• The presence, severity, and change over time of BPD core symptoms was assessed at baseline and after 3 weeks using several clinical scales, self-questionnaires, and neuropsychological tests, including the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 (BIS-11), Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BP-AQ), Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Irritability-Depression Anxiety Scale (IDA), Visual Analog Scales (VAS), and Iowa Gambling Task.

Outcomes

• Participants in the active tDCS group experienced significant reductions in impulsivity, aggression, and craving as measured by the BIS-11, BP-AQ, and VAS.
• Compared to the sham group, the active tDCS group had greater reductions in HAM-D and BDI scores.
• HAM-A and IDA scores were improved in both groups, although the active tDCS group showed greater reductions in IDA scores compared with the sham group.
• As measured by DERS, active tDCS did not improve affective dysregulation more than sham tDCS.

Conclusions/limitations

• Bilateral tDCS targeting the right DLPFC with anodal stimulation is a safe, well-tolerated technique that may modulate core dimensions of BPD, including impulsivity, aggression, and craving.
• Excitatory anodal stimulation of the right DLFPC coupled with inhibitory cathodal stimulation on the left DLPFC may be an effective montage for targeting impulsivity in patients with BPD.
• Study limitations include a small sample size, use of targeted questionnaires only, inclusion of patients with BPD who also had certain comorbid psychiatric disorders, lack of analysis of the contributions of medications, lack of functional neuroimaging, and lack of a follow-up phase.

2. Molavi P, Aziziaram S, Basharpoor S, et al. Repeated transcranial direct current stimulation of dorsolateral-prefrontal cortex improves executive functions, cognitive reappraisal emotion regulation, and control over emotional processing in borderline personality disorder: a randomized, sham-controlled, parallel-group study. J Affect Disord. 2020;274:93-102. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.05.007

Emotional dysregulation is considered a core feature of BPD psychopathology and is closely associated with executive dysfunction and cognitive control. Manifestations of executive dysfunction include aggressiveness, impulsive decision-making, disinhibition, and self-destructive behaviors. Neuroimaging of patients with BPD has shown enhanced activity in the insula, posterior cingulate cortex, and amygdala, with reduced activity in the medial PFC, subgenual anterior cingulate cortex, and DLPFC. Molavi et al⁴ postulated that increasing DLPFC activation with left anodal tDCS would result in improved executive functioning and emotion dysregulation in patients with BPD.

Study design

• In this single-blind, sham-controlled, parallel-group study, adults who met DSM-5 criteria for BPD were randomized to receive 10 consecutive daily sessions of left anodal/right cathodal DLPFC tDCS (n = 16) or sham tDCS (n = 16).
• The effect of tDCS on executive dysfunction, emotion dysregulation, and emotional processing was measured using the Executive Skills Questionnaire for Adults (ESQ), Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ), and Emotional Processing Scale (EPS). Measurements occurred at baseline and after 10 sessions of active or sham tDCS.

Outcomes

• Participants who received active tDCS experienced significant improvements in ESQ overall score and most of the executive function domains measured by the ESQ.
• Those in the active tDCS group also experienced significant improvement in emotion regulation as measured by the cognitive reappraisal subscale (but not the expressive suppression subscale) of the ERQ after the intervention.
• Overall emotional processing as measured by the EPS was significantly improved in the active tDCS group following the intervention.

Conclusions/limitations

• Repeated bilateral left anodal/right cathodal tDCS stimulation of the DLPFC significantly improved executive functioning and aspects of emotion regulation and emotional processing in patients with BPD. This improvement was presumed to be the result of increased activity of left DLPFC.
• Study limitations include a single-blind design, lack of follow-up to assess durability and stability of response over time, reliance on self-report measures, lack of functional neuroimaging, and limited focality of tDCS.

3. Crawford MJ, Sanatinia R, Barrett B, et al; LABILE study team. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine in borderline personality disorder: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Psychiatry. 2018;175(8):756-764. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.17091006

One of the hallmark symptoms of BPD is mood dysregulation. Current treatment guidelines recommend the use of mood stabilizers for BPD despite limited quality evidence of effectiveness and a lack of FDA-approved medications with this indication. In this RCT, Crawford et al⁵ examined whether lamotrigine is a clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for people with BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In this 2-arm, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 276 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD were randomized to receive lamotrigine (up to 400 mg/d) or placebo for 52 weeks.
• The primary outcome was the score on the Zanarini Rating Scale for Borderline Personality Disorder (ZAN-BPD) at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included depressive symptoms, deliberate self-harm, social functioning, health-related quality of life, resource use and costs, treatment adverse effects, and adverse events. These were assessed using the BDI; Acts of Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory; Social Functioning Questionnaire; Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test; and the EQ-5D-3L.

Outcomes

• Mean ZAN-BPD score decreased at 12 weeks in both groups, after which time the score remained stable.
• There was no difference in ZAN-BPD scores at 52 weeks between treatment arms. No difference was found in any secondary outcome measures.
• Difference in costs between groups was not significant.

Conclusions/limitations

• There was no evidence that lamotrigine led to clinical improvements in BPD symptomatology, social functioning, health-related quality of life, or substance use.
• Lamotrigine is neither clinically effective nor a cost-effective use of resources in the treatment of BPD.
• Limitations include a low level of adherence.

4. Domes G, Ower N, von Dawans B, et al. Effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on empathy and approach motivation in women with borderline personality disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9(1):328. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0658-4

A core feature of BPD is impairment in empathy; adequate empathy is required for intact social functioning. Oxytocin is a neuropeptide that helps regulate complex social cognition and behavior. Prior research has found that oxytocin administration enhances emotion regulation and empathy. Women with BPD have been observed to have lower levels of oxytocin. Domes et al⁶ conducted an RCT to see if oxytocin could have a beneficial effect on social approach and social cognition in women with BPD.

Study design

• In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, between-subject trial, 61 women who met DSM-IV criteria for BPD and 68 matched healthy controls were randomized to receive intranasal oxytocin, 24 IU, or placebo 45 minutes before completing an empathy task.
• An extended version of the Multifaceted Empathy Test was used to assess empathy and approach motivation.

Outcomes

• For cognitive empathy, patients with BPD exhibited significantly lower overall performance compared to controls. There was no effect of oxytocin on this performance in either group.
• Patients with BPD had significantly lower affective empathy compared with controls. After oxytocin administration, patients with BPD had significantly higher affective empathy than those with BPD who received placebo, reaching the level of healthy controls who received placebo.
• For positive stimuli, patients with BPD showed lower affective empathy than controls. Oxytocin treatment increased affective empathy in both groups.
• For negative stimuli, oxytocin increased affective empathy more in patients with BPD than in controls.
• Patients with BPD demonstrated less approach motivation than controls. Oxytocin increased approach motivation more in patients with BPD than in controls. For approach motivation toward positive stimuli, oxytocin had a significant effect on patients with BPD.

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations...

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients with BPD showed reduced cognitive and affective empathy and less approach behavior motivation than healthy controls.
• Patients with BPD who received oxytocin attained a level of affective empathy and approach motivation similar to that of healthy controls who received placebo. For positive stimuli, both groups exhibited comparable improvements from oxytocin. For negative stimuli, patients with BPD patients showed significant improvement with oxytocin, whereas healthy controls received no such benefit.
• Limitations include the use of self-report scales, lack of a control group, and inclusion of patients using psychotherapeutic medications. The study lacks generalizability because only women were included; the effect of exogenous oxytocin on men may differ.

5. Bozzatello P, Rocca P, Uscinska M, et al. Efficacy and tolerability of asenapine compared with olanzapine in borderline personality disorder: an open-label randomized controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2017;31(9):809-819. doi: 10.1007/s40263-017-0458-4

The last decade has seen a noticeable shift in clinical practice from the use of antidepressants to mood stabilizers and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) in the treatment of BPD. Studies have demonstrated therapeutic effects of antipsychotic drugs across a wide range of BPD symptoms. Among SGAs, olanzapine is the most extensively studied across case reports, open-label studies, and RCTs of patients with BPD. In an RCT, Bozzatello et al⁷ compared the efficacy and tolerability of asenapine to olanzapine.

Study design

• In this open-label RCT, adults who met DSM-5 criteria for BPD were assigned to receive asenapine (n = 25) or olanzapine (n = 26) for 12 weeks.
• Study measurements included the Clinical Global Impression Scale, Severity item, HAM-D, HAM-A, Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale, Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI), BIS-11, Modified Overt Aggression Scale, and Dosage Record Treatment Emergent Symptom Scale.

Outcomes

• Asenapine and olanzapine had similar effects on BPD-related psychopathology, anxiety, and social and occupational functioning.
• Neither medication significantly decreased depressive or aggressive symptoms.
• Asenapine was superior to olanzapine in reducing the affective instability score of the BPDSI.
• Akathisia and restlessness/anxiety were more common with asenapine, and somnolence and fatigue were more common with olanzapine.

Conclusions/limitations

• The overall efficacy of asenapine was not different from olanzapine, and both medications were well-tolerated.
• Neither medication led to an improvement in depression or aggression, but asenapine was superior to olanzapine in reducing the severity of affective instability.
• Limitations include an open-label design, lack of placebo group, small sample size, high drop-out rate, exclusion of participants with co-occurring MDD and substance abuse/dependence, lack of data on prior pharmacotherapies and psychotherapies, and lack of power to detect a difference on the dissociation/paranoid ideation item of BPDSI.

6. Kulkarni J, Thomas N, Hudaib AR, et al. Effect of the glutamate NMDA receptor antagonist memantine as adjunctive treatment in borderline personality disorder: an exploratory, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. CNS Drugs. 2018;32(2):179-187. doi: 10.1007/s40263-018-0506-8

It has been hypothesized that glutamate dysregulation and excitotoxicity are crucial to the development of the cognitive disturbances that underlie BPD. As such, glutamate modulators such as memantine hold promise for the treatment of BPD. In this RCT, Kulkarni et al⁸ examined the efficacy and tolerability of memantine compared with treatment as usual in patients with BPD.

Continue to: Study design...

• In an 8-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults diagnosed with BPD according to the Diagnostic Interview for Borderline Patients were randomized to receive memantine (n = 17) or placebo (n = 16) in addition to treatment as usual. Treatment as usual included the use of antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and antipsychotics as well as psychotherapy and other psychosocial interventions.
• Patients were initiated on placebo or memantine, 10 mg/d. Memantine was increased to 20 mg/d after 7 days.
• ZAN-BPD score was the primary outcome and was measured at baseline and 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks. An adverse effects questionnaire was administered every 2 weeks to assess tolerability.

Outcomes

• During the first 2 weeks of treatment, there were no significant improvements in ZAN-BPD score in the memantine group compared with the placebo group.
• Beginning with Week 2, compared with the placebo group, the memantine group experienced a significant reduction in total symptoms as measured by ZAN-BPD.
• There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events between groups.

Conclusions/limitations

• Memantine appears to be a well-tolerated treatment option for patients with BPD and merits further study.
• Limitations include a small sample size, and an inability to reach plateau of ZAN-BPD total score in either group. Also, there is considerable individual variability in memantine steady-state plasma concentrations, but plasma levels were not measured in this study.

Bottom Line

Findings from small randomized controlled trials suggest that transcranial direct current stimulation, oxytocin, asenapine, olanzapine, and memantine may have beneficial effects on some core symptoms of borderline personality disorder. These findings need to be replicated in larger studies.

For centuries, animals, especially dogs, have assisted humans in a variety of ways in their daily lives. Animals that assist people with disabilities fall into 2 broad categories: disability service animals, and emotional support animals (ESAs). Often there is confusion in how these categories differ because of the animal’s role and the laws related to them.

This article describes the differences between disability service animals and ESAs, and outlines the forensic and ethical concerns you should consider before agreeing to write a letter for a patient outlining their need for a disability service animal or ESA. A letter may protect a patient and their service animal or ESA in situations where laws and regulations typically prohibit animals, such as on a flight or when renting an apartment or house. Note that a description of how to conduct the formal patient evaluation before writing a verification letter is beyond the scope of this article.

The differences between disability service animals and ESAs

Purpose and training. Disability service animals, or service animals, are dogs of any breed (and in some cases miniature horses) that are specially trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability (physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability).^1-3 These tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability.^1,2 On the other hand, ESAs, which can be any species of animal, provide support and minimize the impact of an individual’s emotional or psychological disability based on their presence alone. Unlike disability service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific task or duty.^2,3

There is no legal requirement for service animals to know specific commands, and professional training is not required—individuals can train the animals themselves.¹ Service animals, mainly dogs, can be trained to perform numerous tasks, including⁴:

• attending to an individual’s mobility and activities of daily living
• guiding an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired
• helping to remind an individual to take their medications
• assisting an individual during and/or after a seizure
• alerting individuals with diabetes in advance of low or high blood sugar episodes
• supporting an individual with autism
• assisting an individual with a psychiatric or mental disability
• applying sensory commands such as lying on the person or resting their head on the individual’s lap to help the individual regain behavioral control.

Service dog verification works via an honor system, which can be problematic, especially in the case of psychiatric service dogs, whose handlers may not have a visible disability (Box 1^1,5).
 

Box 1

Legal protections. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities can bring their service animals into buildings or facilities where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees are allowed.² This does not include private clubs, religious organizations, or places of worship that are not open to the public.^6,7 ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not given the same legal accommodations as service animals.^1,3 Although ESAs were initially covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, they are no longer allowed in aircraft cabins after the US Department of Transportation revised this Act’s regulations in December 2020. ESAs are covered under the Fair Housing Act. Box 2^1-3,6-15 further discusses these laws and protections.

Evidence. In 1998, Dogs for Good (formerly Dogs for the Disabled), an organization based in the United Kingdom, conducted a survey that assessed the satisfaction of owners who were provided with trained assistance dogs.¹⁶ The results suggested that service dogs improved their owners’ mobility and helped ease the completion of tasks, thereby helping their owners integrate further on a society level and gain a strong bond with their animal.¹⁶ Another survey compared quality of life scores of individuals who owned a service dog vs individuals who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one.¹⁷ It found that service animals were able to help their owners gain a greater degree of freedom and enhance their ability to participate in everyday outings or tasks that may otherwise have been a struggle, or impossible, if the owner were alone.¹⁷ In addition to boosting confidence, self-esteem, and improving social integration, service dogs have been shown to improve their owners’ quality of life.¹⁷

Due to the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent definitions for ESAs, there is limited high-quality data pertaining to the potential benefits and risks of ESAs.⁹ Currently, ESAs are not an evidence-based treatment for psychiatric disorders. To date, a handful of small studies have focused on ESAs. However, data from actual tests of the clinical risks and benefits of ESAs do not exist.⁹ In practice, ESAs are equivalent to pets. It stands to reason that similar to pets, ESAs could reduce loneliness, improve life satisfaction, and provide a sense of well-being.⁹ A systematic review suggested that pets provide benefits to patients with mental health conditions “through the intensity of connectivity with their owners and the contribution they make to emotional support in times of crises together with their ability to help manage symptoms when they arise.”¹⁸ In response to a congressional mandate, the US Department of Veterans Affairs launched a multi-site study from December 2014 to June 2019 to examine how limitations on activity and quality of life in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder are impacted by the provision of a service dog vs an emotional support dog.¹⁹ As of October 14, 2021, results had not been published.¹⁹

Continue to: What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

If you decide to write a letter advocating for your patient to have a service animal or ESA, the letter should appear on letterhead, be written by a licensed mental health professional, and include the following^2,20:

• statement that the letter is being written at the patient’s request and is being given directly to the patient for use as the patient sees fit
• confirmation of the patient’s DSM-5 mental health diagnosis
• explanation of how the animal helps alleviate symptoms of the patient’s condition, briefly describing any interaction(s) between the animal and patient that you may have observed, and if applicable, a mention of any training the animal may have received from a qualified trainer if applicable
• explanation of the possible negative effects of the patient not having the animal with him or her
• statement that you are not vouching for the animal’s behavior
• verification of your involvement in your patient’s treatment and your assessment of the patient as their licensed mental health professional (including details such as date and type of license you have and the state/other jurisdiction where it was issued).

In a letter for a service animal, also indicate that your patient is psychiatrically disabled to the extent that your patient is not able to perform at least one major life task without the daily assistance of a service animal.²Should you write your patient a letter?

Writing a letter advocating for a patient to have a service animal or ESA may appear innocuous, but doing so may have serious ramifications. Writing a letter certifying a dog as a service animal does not make that animal a service animal; the dog must be specifically trained for a task or tasks directly related to that individual’s disability. There are no current standards for conducting evaluations to determine the need a patient has for a service animal or ESA. How to conduct such evaluations is beyond the scope of this article. There are meager opportunities for formal education and training on how to conduct these evaluations.⁹ Online resources may be incomplete or inaccurate, and this information is often produced by lay animal enthusiasts and organizations, which can lead to a biased depiction of these animals.⁹

If you decide to write a letter for your patient, consider the following forensic and ethical concerns.

Remain objective. As an advocate for your patient, you may find it difficult to remain neutral and objective when asked to determine if your patient has a disability, the severity of the disability, the impact of the disability on your patient’s life, and the need for a service animal or ESA. Ensure that your advocacy for your patient does not impair your objectivity; if that is difficult, consider referring your patient to a third party who can conduct an objective evaluation.

Understand the risks. If you make written recommendations for special accommodations in a letter and those recommendations are disputed by an agency, that agency could initiate legal action and you may be called to justify your recommendations in a deposition or open court.^9,21 Before writing the letter, ask yourself, “Can I defend my determination that my patient is disabled by a DSM-5 disorder and that this disability requires the presence of an animal in exception to existing policy?”²¹ Be prepared to state in a legal proceeding that the presence of a service animal or ESA is necessary. If you are unwilling to risk exposure to a legal action, then you should likely refrain from writing the letter. It is a crime to fraudulently certify an animal as a service animal in some jurisdictions, and such conduct could result in disciplinary action by your licensing board.²¹

Conduct a systematic examination. When you write a letter for your patient, you are explicitly declaring your patient has a disability or condition. Comprehensive disability determinations are complex and are best conducted by assessing for objective evidence of psychiatric disorders and impairment through the use of standard, systematic examination methods.²² Unstandardized measures (eg, asking patients open-ended questions and then relying on your clinical judgement and interpretation in arriving at conclusions) are not as effective.²² In addition, consider the possibility that your patient may malinger their symptoms in an effort to obtain a letter supporting a service animal or ESA. Assessing for malingering is essential to making a disability determination, especially if a disability claim is based primarily on self-report.²²

Anticipate pushback. Problems can arise when a patient wants a letter that you cannot or will not provide due to your scope of practice. Consider how you would resolve the situation when you do not believe your patient has a disability that requires the presence of a service animal or ESA—or you believe that your patient no longer needs a service animal or ESA—and the patient disagrees.²¹ Disagreeing with your patient’s assessment could result in a conflict of interest that could damage the therapeutic relationship.²¹

Box 2

Bottom Line 

Disability service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) differ in their roles and legal protections. Before writing a letter in support of a patient’s request for a service animal or ESA, take into account the forensic and ethical implications of doing so.

Related Resources

• US Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. ADA requirements. Service animals. Updated February 24, 2020. https://www.ada.gov/service_ animals_2010.htm

• American Veterinary Medical Association. Service, emotional support and therapy animals. https://www. avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-welfare/ service-emotional-support-and-therapy-animals

• US Department of Transportation. US Department of Transportation announces final rule on traveling by air with service animals. https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/us-department-transportation-announces-finalrule-traveling-air-service-animals

For centuries, animals, especially dogs, have assisted humans in a variety of ways in their daily lives. Animals that assist people with disabilities fall into 2 broad categories: disability service animals, and emotional support animals (ESAs). Often there is confusion in how these categories differ because of the animal’s role and the laws related to them.

This article describes the differences between disability service animals and ESAs, and outlines the forensic and ethical concerns you should consider before agreeing to write a letter for a patient outlining their need for a disability service animal or ESA. A letter may protect a patient and their service animal or ESA in situations where laws and regulations typically prohibit animals, such as on a flight or when renting an apartment or house. Note that a description of how to conduct the formal patient evaluation before writing a verification letter is beyond the scope of this article.

The differences between disability service animals and ESAs

Purpose and training. Disability service animals, or service animals, are dogs of any breed (and in some cases miniature horses) that are specially trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability (physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability).^1-3 These tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability.^1,2 On the other hand, ESAs, which can be any species of animal, provide support and minimize the impact of an individual’s emotional or psychological disability based on their presence alone. Unlike disability service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific task or duty.^2,3

There is no legal requirement for service animals to know specific commands, and professional training is not required—individuals can train the animals themselves.¹ Service animals, mainly dogs, can be trained to perform numerous tasks, including⁴:

• attending to an individual’s mobility and activities of daily living
• guiding an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired
• helping to remind an individual to take their medications
• assisting an individual during and/or after a seizure
• alerting individuals with diabetes in advance of low or high blood sugar episodes
• supporting an individual with autism
• assisting an individual with a psychiatric or mental disability
• applying sensory commands such as lying on the person or resting their head on the individual’s lap to help the individual regain behavioral control.

Service dog verification works via an honor system, which can be problematic, especially in the case of psychiatric service dogs, whose handlers may not have a visible disability (Box 1^1,5).
 

Box 1

Legal protections. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities can bring their service animals into buildings or facilities where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees are allowed.² This does not include private clubs, religious organizations, or places of worship that are not open to the public.^6,7 ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not given the same legal accommodations as service animals.^1,3 Although ESAs were initially covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, they are no longer allowed in aircraft cabins after the US Department of Transportation revised this Act’s regulations in December 2020. ESAs are covered under the Fair Housing Act. Box 2^1-3,6-15 further discusses these laws and protections.

Evidence. In 1998, Dogs for Good (formerly Dogs for the Disabled), an organization based in the United Kingdom, conducted a survey that assessed the satisfaction of owners who were provided with trained assistance dogs.¹⁶ The results suggested that service dogs improved their owners’ mobility and helped ease the completion of tasks, thereby helping their owners integrate further on a society level and gain a strong bond with their animal.¹⁶ Another survey compared quality of life scores of individuals who owned a service dog vs individuals who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one.¹⁷ It found that service animals were able to help their owners gain a greater degree of freedom and enhance their ability to participate in everyday outings or tasks that may otherwise have been a struggle, or impossible, if the owner were alone.¹⁷ In addition to boosting confidence, self-esteem, and improving social integration, service dogs have been shown to improve their owners’ quality of life.¹⁷

Due to the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent definitions for ESAs, there is limited high-quality data pertaining to the potential benefits and risks of ESAs.⁹ Currently, ESAs are not an evidence-based treatment for psychiatric disorders. To date, a handful of small studies have focused on ESAs. However, data from actual tests of the clinical risks and benefits of ESAs do not exist.⁹ In practice, ESAs are equivalent to pets. It stands to reason that similar to pets, ESAs could reduce loneliness, improve life satisfaction, and provide a sense of well-being.⁹ A systematic review suggested that pets provide benefits to patients with mental health conditions “through the intensity of connectivity with their owners and the contribution they make to emotional support in times of crises together with their ability to help manage symptoms when they arise.”¹⁸ In response to a congressional mandate, the US Department of Veterans Affairs launched a multi-site study from December 2014 to June 2019 to examine how limitations on activity and quality of life in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder are impacted by the provision of a service dog vs an emotional support dog.¹⁹ As of October 14, 2021, results had not been published.¹⁹

Continue to: What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

If you decide to write a letter advocating for your patient to have a service animal or ESA, the letter should appear on letterhead, be written by a licensed mental health professional, and include the following^2,20:

• statement that the letter is being written at the patient’s request and is being given directly to the patient for use as the patient sees fit
• confirmation of the patient’s DSM-5 mental health diagnosis
• explanation of how the animal helps alleviate symptoms of the patient’s condition, briefly describing any interaction(s) between the animal and patient that you may have observed, and if applicable, a mention of any training the animal may have received from a qualified trainer if applicable
• explanation of the possible negative effects of the patient not having the animal with him or her
• statement that you are not vouching for the animal’s behavior
• verification of your involvement in your patient’s treatment and your assessment of the patient as their licensed mental health professional (including details such as date and type of license you have and the state/other jurisdiction where it was issued).

In a letter for a service animal, also indicate that your patient is psychiatrically disabled to the extent that your patient is not able to perform at least one major life task without the daily assistance of a service animal.²Should you write your patient a letter?

Writing a letter advocating for a patient to have a service animal or ESA may appear innocuous, but doing so may have serious ramifications. Writing a letter certifying a dog as a service animal does not make that animal a service animal; the dog must be specifically trained for a task or tasks directly related to that individual’s disability. There are no current standards for conducting evaluations to determine the need a patient has for a service animal or ESA. How to conduct such evaluations is beyond the scope of this article. There are meager opportunities for formal education and training on how to conduct these evaluations.⁹ Online resources may be incomplete or inaccurate, and this information is often produced by lay animal enthusiasts and organizations, which can lead to a biased depiction of these animals.⁹

If you decide to write a letter for your patient, consider the following forensic and ethical concerns.

Remain objective. As an advocate for your patient, you may find it difficult to remain neutral and objective when asked to determine if your patient has a disability, the severity of the disability, the impact of the disability on your patient’s life, and the need for a service animal or ESA. Ensure that your advocacy for your patient does not impair your objectivity; if that is difficult, consider referring your patient to a third party who can conduct an objective evaluation.

Understand the risks. If you make written recommendations for special accommodations in a letter and those recommendations are disputed by an agency, that agency could initiate legal action and you may be called to justify your recommendations in a deposition or open court.^9,21 Before writing the letter, ask yourself, “Can I defend my determination that my patient is disabled by a DSM-5 disorder and that this disability requires the presence of an animal in exception to existing policy?”²¹ Be prepared to state in a legal proceeding that the presence of a service animal or ESA is necessary. If you are unwilling to risk exposure to a legal action, then you should likely refrain from writing the letter. It is a crime to fraudulently certify an animal as a service animal in some jurisdictions, and such conduct could result in disciplinary action by your licensing board.²¹

Conduct a systematic examination. When you write a letter for your patient, you are explicitly declaring your patient has a disability or condition. Comprehensive disability determinations are complex and are best conducted by assessing for objective evidence of psychiatric disorders and impairment through the use of standard, systematic examination methods.²² Unstandardized measures (eg, asking patients open-ended questions and then relying on your clinical judgement and interpretation in arriving at conclusions) are not as effective.²² In addition, consider the possibility that your patient may malinger their symptoms in an effort to obtain a letter supporting a service animal or ESA. Assessing for malingering is essential to making a disability determination, especially if a disability claim is based primarily on self-report.²²

Anticipate pushback. Problems can arise when a patient wants a letter that you cannot or will not provide due to your scope of practice. Consider how you would resolve the situation when you do not believe your patient has a disability that requires the presence of a service animal or ESA—or you believe that your patient no longer needs a service animal or ESA—and the patient disagrees.²¹ Disagreeing with your patient’s assessment could result in a conflict of interest that could damage the therapeutic relationship.²¹

Box 2

Bottom Line 

Disability service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) differ in their roles and legal protections. Before writing a letter in support of a patient’s request for a service animal or ESA, take into account the forensic and ethical implications of doing so.

Related Resources

• US Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. ADA requirements. Service animals. Updated February 24, 2020. https://www.ada.gov/service_ animals_2010.htm

• American Veterinary Medical Association. Service, emotional support and therapy animals. https://www. avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-welfare/ service-emotional-support-and-therapy-animals

• US Department of Transportation. US Department of Transportation announces final rule on traveling by air with service animals. https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/us-department-transportation-announces-finalrule-traveling-air-service-animals

For centuries, animals, especially dogs, have assisted humans in a variety of ways in their daily lives. Animals that assist people with disabilities fall into 2 broad categories: disability service animals, and emotional support animals (ESAs). Often there is confusion in how these categories differ because of the animal’s role and the laws related to them.

This article describes the differences between disability service animals and ESAs, and outlines the forensic and ethical concerns you should consider before agreeing to write a letter for a patient outlining their need for a disability service animal or ESA. A letter may protect a patient and their service animal or ESA in situations where laws and regulations typically prohibit animals, such as on a flight or when renting an apartment or house. Note that a description of how to conduct the formal patient evaluation before writing a verification letter is beyond the scope of this article.

The differences between disability service animals and ESAs

Purpose and training. Disability service animals, or service animals, are dogs of any breed (and in some cases miniature horses) that are specially trained to perform tasks for an individual with a disability (physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability).^1-3 These tasks must be directly related to the individual’s disability.^1,2 On the other hand, ESAs, which can be any species of animal, provide support and minimize the impact of an individual’s emotional or psychological disability based on their presence alone. Unlike disability service animals, ESAs are not trained to perform a specific task or duty.^2,3

There is no legal requirement for service animals to know specific commands, and professional training is not required—individuals can train the animals themselves.¹ Service animals, mainly dogs, can be trained to perform numerous tasks, including⁴:

• attending to an individual’s mobility and activities of daily living
• guiding an individual who is deaf or hearing impaired
• helping to remind an individual to take their medications
• assisting an individual during and/or after a seizure
• alerting individuals with diabetes in advance of low or high blood sugar episodes
• supporting an individual with autism
• assisting an individual with a psychiatric or mental disability
• applying sensory commands such as lying on the person or resting their head on the individual’s lap to help the individual regain behavioral control.

Service dog verification works via an honor system, which can be problematic, especially in the case of psychiatric service dogs, whose handlers may not have a visible disability (Box 1^1,5).
 

Box 1

Legal protections. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), individuals with disabilities can bring their service animals into buildings or facilities where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees are allowed.² This does not include private clubs, religious organizations, or places of worship that are not open to the public.^6,7 ESAs do not qualify as service animals under the ADA and are not given the same legal accommodations as service animals.^1,3 Although ESAs were initially covered by the Air Carrier Access Act, they are no longer allowed in aircraft cabins after the US Department of Transportation revised this Act’s regulations in December 2020. ESAs are covered under the Fair Housing Act. Box 2^1-3,6-15 further discusses these laws and protections.

Evidence. In 1998, Dogs for Good (formerly Dogs for the Disabled), an organization based in the United Kingdom, conducted a survey that assessed the satisfaction of owners who were provided with trained assistance dogs.¹⁶ The results suggested that service dogs improved their owners’ mobility and helped ease the completion of tasks, thereby helping their owners integrate further on a society level and gain a strong bond with their animal.¹⁶ Another survey compared quality of life scores of individuals who owned a service dog vs individuals who were eligible to receive a dog, but did not yet have one.¹⁷ It found that service animals were able to help their owners gain a greater degree of freedom and enhance their ability to participate in everyday outings or tasks that may otherwise have been a struggle, or impossible, if the owner were alone.¹⁷ In addition to boosting confidence, self-esteem, and improving social integration, service dogs have been shown to improve their owners’ quality of life.¹⁷

Due to the difficulty in reconciling inconsistent definitions for ESAs, there is limited high-quality data pertaining to the potential benefits and risks of ESAs.⁹ Currently, ESAs are not an evidence-based treatment for psychiatric disorders. To date, a handful of small studies have focused on ESAs. However, data from actual tests of the clinical risks and benefits of ESAs do not exist.⁹ In practice, ESAs are equivalent to pets. It stands to reason that similar to pets, ESAs could reduce loneliness, improve life satisfaction, and provide a sense of well-being.⁹ A systematic review suggested that pets provide benefits to patients with mental health conditions “through the intensity of connectivity with their owners and the contribution they make to emotional support in times of crises together with their ability to help manage symptoms when they arise.”¹⁸ In response to a congressional mandate, the US Department of Veterans Affairs launched a multi-site study from December 2014 to June 2019 to examine how limitations on activity and quality of life in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder are impacted by the provision of a service dog vs an emotional support dog.¹⁹ As of October 14, 2021, results had not been published.¹⁹

Continue to: What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

What’s in a disability service animal/ESA letter?

If you decide to write a letter advocating for your patient to have a service animal or ESA, the letter should appear on letterhead, be written by a licensed mental health professional, and include the following^2,20:

• statement that the letter is being written at the patient’s request and is being given directly to the patient for use as the patient sees fit
• confirmation of the patient’s DSM-5 mental health diagnosis
• explanation of how the animal helps alleviate symptoms of the patient’s condition, briefly describing any interaction(s) between the animal and patient that you may have observed, and if applicable, a mention of any training the animal may have received from a qualified trainer if applicable
• explanation of the possible negative effects of the patient not having the animal with him or her
• statement that you are not vouching for the animal’s behavior
• verification of your involvement in your patient’s treatment and your assessment of the patient as their licensed mental health professional (including details such as date and type of license you have and the state/other jurisdiction where it was issued).

In a letter for a service animal, also indicate that your patient is psychiatrically disabled to the extent that your patient is not able to perform at least one major life task without the daily assistance of a service animal.²Should you write your patient a letter?

Writing a letter advocating for a patient to have a service animal or ESA may appear innocuous, but doing so may have serious ramifications. Writing a letter certifying a dog as a service animal does not make that animal a service animal; the dog must be specifically trained for a task or tasks directly related to that individual’s disability. There are no current standards for conducting evaluations to determine the need a patient has for a service animal or ESA. How to conduct such evaluations is beyond the scope of this article. There are meager opportunities for formal education and training on how to conduct these evaluations.⁹ Online resources may be incomplete or inaccurate, and this information is often produced by lay animal enthusiasts and organizations, which can lead to a biased depiction of these animals.⁹

If you decide to write a letter for your patient, consider the following forensic and ethical concerns.

Remain objective. As an advocate for your patient, you may find it difficult to remain neutral and objective when asked to determine if your patient has a disability, the severity of the disability, the impact of the disability on your patient’s life, and the need for a service animal or ESA. Ensure that your advocacy for your patient does not impair your objectivity; if that is difficult, consider referring your patient to a third party who can conduct an objective evaluation.

Understand the risks. If you make written recommendations for special accommodations in a letter and those recommendations are disputed by an agency, that agency could initiate legal action and you may be called to justify your recommendations in a deposition or open court.^9,21 Before writing the letter, ask yourself, “Can I defend my determination that my patient is disabled by a DSM-5 disorder and that this disability requires the presence of an animal in exception to existing policy?”²¹ Be prepared to state in a legal proceeding that the presence of a service animal or ESA is necessary. If you are unwilling to risk exposure to a legal action, then you should likely refrain from writing the letter. It is a crime to fraudulently certify an animal as a service animal in some jurisdictions, and such conduct could result in disciplinary action by your licensing board.²¹

Conduct a systematic examination. When you write a letter for your patient, you are explicitly declaring your patient has a disability or condition. Comprehensive disability determinations are complex and are best conducted by assessing for objective evidence of psychiatric disorders and impairment through the use of standard, systematic examination methods.²² Unstandardized measures (eg, asking patients open-ended questions and then relying on your clinical judgement and interpretation in arriving at conclusions) are not as effective.²² In addition, consider the possibility that your patient may malinger their symptoms in an effort to obtain a letter supporting a service animal or ESA. Assessing for malingering is essential to making a disability determination, especially if a disability claim is based primarily on self-report.²²

Anticipate pushback. Problems can arise when a patient wants a letter that you cannot or will not provide due to your scope of practice. Consider how you would resolve the situation when you do not believe your patient has a disability that requires the presence of a service animal or ESA—or you believe that your patient no longer needs a service animal or ESA—and the patient disagrees.²¹ Disagreeing with your patient’s assessment could result in a conflict of interest that could damage the therapeutic relationship.²¹

Box 2

Bottom Line 

Disability service animals and emotional support animals (ESAs) differ in their roles and legal protections. Before writing a letter in support of a patient’s request for a service animal or ESA, take into account the forensic and ethical implications of doing so.

Related Resources

• US Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division. Disability Rights Section. ADA requirements. Service animals. Updated February 24, 2020. https://www.ada.gov/service_ animals_2010.htm

• American Veterinary Medical Association. Service, emotional support and therapy animals. https://www. avma.org/resources-tools/animal-health-welfare/ service-emotional-support-and-therapy-animals

• US Department of Transportation. US Department of Transportation announces final rule on traveling by air with service animals. https://www.transportation.gov/briefingroom/us-department-transportation-announces-finalrule-traveling-air-service-animals