Read More

Read More

Read More

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral antibiotic treatment for 7-10 days works for most feverish children with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), reported Tej K. Mattoo, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and associates.

A good clinical assessment supported by laboratory results using a clean urine specimen is crucial to accurately diagnosing UTI in children, Dr. Mattoo and colleagues reported in a state-of-the-art review article in Pediatrics.

The authors set out to summarize the current literature on UTI in children with the goal of guiding clinical management. They provide a thorough summary of the research on a wide range of issues, including pathogenesis of acute pyelonephritis and renal scarring, risk factors for UTI and renal scarring, diagnosis and common errors in diagnosis, complications of UTI and post-UTI renal imaging, antibiotics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical interventions, and prevention of recurrent UTIs.
 

What key steps make all the difference?

To help guide practicing physicians through this wealth of information, Dr. Mattoo noted in an interview that, although the review article offers “many takeaway messages,” there are several issues of crucial importance. Notably, urine collection in young children who are not yet toilet trained can present considerable challenges in achieving an accurate assessment. A contaminated urine specimen leads to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, and in some cases unwarranted hospitalization, intravenous lines, renal imaging, and follow-up investigations, Dr. Mattoo said.

Ureteral catheterization or suprapubic bladder aspiration are the preferred methods of specimen collection, especially in cases where specimens collected with a perineal bag are dipstick positive, the authors explained. Midstream collection (known as the Quick-Wee method) can also be used following stimulation of the suprapubic area with cold fluid-soaked gauze.

Also of considerable importance is distinguishing bladder infections from kidney infections whenever possible, Dr. Mattoo noted. The antibiotic treatment, complications, and follow-up plans can be different for each, he cautioned. The authors have provided a helpful table within the article to help make this differentiation.
 

Timing is crucial

Prescribing treatment with an antibiotic within 48 hours of fever onset is essential for the prevention of renal scarring, Dr. Mattoo advised. The key is to treat with the goal of avoiding long-term complications. Although there are some exceptions, most cases of UTI can be treated with oral antibiotics and do not require hospitalization.

Some children with first UTI need additional testing, such as renal imaging, to ensure that there are no underlying risk factors for UTI. These children, in particular, can be at an increased risk of recurrent UTI and renal scarring, Dr. Mattoo explained.

Antibiotic resistance is a major emerging problem in patients with UTI at all ages and we should use antibiotics only in patients who truly have a UTI that requires such treatment, he urged.

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, noted: “In the words of the British novelist Tom Holt, ‘There are few moments of clarity more profound than those that follow the emptying of an overcharged bladder. The world slows down, the focus sharpens, the brain comes back online. Huge nebulous difficulties prove on close calm examination to be merely cloud giants.’ Thank you to Drs. Mattoo, Nelson, and Shaikh for providing this clarity of current UTI diagnosis and management,” Dr. Joos said.

“It bears repeating that because of the rare prevalence of grade 4 to 5 vesicoureteral reflux in children with their first UTI, current guidelines recommend that a voiding cystourethrogram can be reserved for children with an abnormal ultrasound, atypical pathogen, complicated clinical course, or known renal scarring,” added Dr. Joos.

The authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Oral antibiotic treatment for 7-10 days works for most feverish children with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), reported Tej K. Mattoo, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and associates.

A good clinical assessment supported by laboratory results using a clean urine specimen is crucial to accurately diagnosing UTI in children, Dr. Mattoo and colleagues reported in a state-of-the-art review article in Pediatrics.

The authors set out to summarize the current literature on UTI in children with the goal of guiding clinical management. They provide a thorough summary of the research on a wide range of issues, including pathogenesis of acute pyelonephritis and renal scarring, risk factors for UTI and renal scarring, diagnosis and common errors in diagnosis, complications of UTI and post-UTI renal imaging, antibiotics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical interventions, and prevention of recurrent UTIs.
 

What key steps make all the difference?

To help guide practicing physicians through this wealth of information, Dr. Mattoo noted in an interview that, although the review article offers “many takeaway messages,” there are several issues of crucial importance. Notably, urine collection in young children who are not yet toilet trained can present considerable challenges in achieving an accurate assessment. A contaminated urine specimen leads to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, and in some cases unwarranted hospitalization, intravenous lines, renal imaging, and follow-up investigations, Dr. Mattoo said.

Ureteral catheterization or suprapubic bladder aspiration are the preferred methods of specimen collection, especially in cases where specimens collected with a perineal bag are dipstick positive, the authors explained. Midstream collection (known as the Quick-Wee method) can also be used following stimulation of the suprapubic area with cold fluid-soaked gauze.

Also of considerable importance is distinguishing bladder infections from kidney infections whenever possible, Dr. Mattoo noted. The antibiotic treatment, complications, and follow-up plans can be different for each, he cautioned. The authors have provided a helpful table within the article to help make this differentiation.
 

Timing is crucial

Prescribing treatment with an antibiotic within 48 hours of fever onset is essential for the prevention of renal scarring, Dr. Mattoo advised. The key is to treat with the goal of avoiding long-term complications. Although there are some exceptions, most cases of UTI can be treated with oral antibiotics and do not require hospitalization.

Some children with first UTI need additional testing, such as renal imaging, to ensure that there are no underlying risk factors for UTI. These children, in particular, can be at an increased risk of recurrent UTI and renal scarring, Dr. Mattoo explained.

Antibiotic resistance is a major emerging problem in patients with UTI at all ages and we should use antibiotics only in patients who truly have a UTI that requires such treatment, he urged.

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, noted: “In the words of the British novelist Tom Holt, ‘There are few moments of clarity more profound than those that follow the emptying of an overcharged bladder. The world slows down, the focus sharpens, the brain comes back online. Huge nebulous difficulties prove on close calm examination to be merely cloud giants.’ Thank you to Drs. Mattoo, Nelson, and Shaikh for providing this clarity of current UTI diagnosis and management,” Dr. Joos said.

“It bears repeating that because of the rare prevalence of grade 4 to 5 vesicoureteral reflux in children with their first UTI, current guidelines recommend that a voiding cystourethrogram can be reserved for children with an abnormal ultrasound, atypical pathogen, complicated clinical course, or known renal scarring,” added Dr. Joos.

The authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

Oral antibiotic treatment for 7-10 days works for most feverish children with uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI), reported Tej K. Mattoo, MD, of Wayne State University, Detroit, and associates.

A good clinical assessment supported by laboratory results using a clean urine specimen is crucial to accurately diagnosing UTI in children, Dr. Mattoo and colleagues reported in a state-of-the-art review article in Pediatrics.

The authors set out to summarize the current literature on UTI in children with the goal of guiding clinical management. They provide a thorough summary of the research on a wide range of issues, including pathogenesis of acute pyelonephritis and renal scarring, risk factors for UTI and renal scarring, diagnosis and common errors in diagnosis, complications of UTI and post-UTI renal imaging, antibiotics, antimicrobial prophylaxis, surgical interventions, and prevention of recurrent UTIs.
 

What key steps make all the difference?

To help guide practicing physicians through this wealth of information, Dr. Mattoo noted in an interview that, although the review article offers “many takeaway messages,” there are several issues of crucial importance. Notably, urine collection in young children who are not yet toilet trained can present considerable challenges in achieving an accurate assessment. A contaminated urine specimen leads to unnecessary antibiotic treatment, and in some cases unwarranted hospitalization, intravenous lines, renal imaging, and follow-up investigations, Dr. Mattoo said.

Ureteral catheterization or suprapubic bladder aspiration are the preferred methods of specimen collection, especially in cases where specimens collected with a perineal bag are dipstick positive, the authors explained. Midstream collection (known as the Quick-Wee method) can also be used following stimulation of the suprapubic area with cold fluid-soaked gauze.

Also of considerable importance is distinguishing bladder infections from kidney infections whenever possible, Dr. Mattoo noted. The antibiotic treatment, complications, and follow-up plans can be different for each, he cautioned. The authors have provided a helpful table within the article to help make this differentiation.
 

Timing is crucial

Prescribing treatment with an antibiotic within 48 hours of fever onset is essential for the prevention of renal scarring, Dr. Mattoo advised. The key is to treat with the goal of avoiding long-term complications. Although there are some exceptions, most cases of UTI can be treated with oral antibiotics and do not require hospitalization.

Some children with first UTI need additional testing, such as renal imaging, to ensure that there are no underlying risk factors for UTI. These children, in particular, can be at an increased risk of recurrent UTI and renal scarring, Dr. Mattoo explained.

Antibiotic resistance is a major emerging problem in patients with UTI at all ages and we should use antibiotics only in patients who truly have a UTI that requires such treatment, he urged.

In an interview, Timothy Joos, MD, a Seattle internist and pediatrician in private practice, noted: “In the words of the British novelist Tom Holt, ‘There are few moments of clarity more profound than those that follow the emptying of an overcharged bladder. The world slows down, the focus sharpens, the brain comes back online. Huge nebulous difficulties prove on close calm examination to be merely cloud giants.’ Thank you to Drs. Mattoo, Nelson, and Shaikh for providing this clarity of current UTI diagnosis and management,” Dr. Joos said.

“It bears repeating that because of the rare prevalence of grade 4 to 5 vesicoureteral reflux in children with their first UTI, current guidelines recommend that a voiding cystourethrogram can be reserved for children with an abnormal ultrasound, atypical pathogen, complicated clinical course, or known renal scarring,” added Dr. Joos.

The authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Joos is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board but had no other disclosures.

The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.

The plan was unveiled Jan. 14 in the final days of the Trump administration. In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”

The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.

Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
 

Treatment barrier

After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.

“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.

The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.

Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.

“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
 

A ‘disappointment’

On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.

“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.

In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.

In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.

“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.

Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”

Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.

 

Objections

In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.

Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”

“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.

Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.

On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.

“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”

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

The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.

The plan was unveiled Jan. 14 in the final days of the Trump administration. In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”

The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.

Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
 

Treatment barrier

After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.

“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.

The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.

Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.

“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
 

A ‘disappointment’

On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.

“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.

In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.

In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.

“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.

Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”

Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.

 

Objections

In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.

Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”

“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.

Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.

On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.

“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”

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

The Biden administration has halted a Trump administration initiative that would have allowed more physicians to prescribe buprenorphine for opioid use disorder (OUD).

Under the Trump administration’s plan, many doctors would be exempt from taking a day’s training before they could prescribe buprenorphine for OUD.

On Jan. 25, 2021, citing anonymous sources, the Washington Post reported that this action by the Biden administration was likely. At the time, there were concerns about whether the Department of Health & Human Services had the legal authority to make this policy change, the Post reported. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration subsequently announced the derailment of the buprenorphine proposal on its website.

The plan was unveiled Jan. 14 in the final days of the Trump administration. In SAMHSA’s view, the proposal was made “prematurely.” The SAMHSA statement did not detail the reasons for abandoning the Jan. 14 proposal. It had been scheduled to take effect upon publication in the Federal Register.

Instead of finalizing it in this way, the HHS said it would work with other federal agencies to “increase access to buprenorphine, reduce overdose rates and save lives.”

The HHS decision to scupper the proposal disappointed many physician groups. In a letter dated Jan. 27, several physician groups called on the Biden administration to proceed with the Trump proposal.

Under current federal law, physicians who wish to prescribe buprenorphine outside of opioid treatment programs must take an 8-hour course and receive a waiver from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the letter noted. It was signed by the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American Medical Association, and other organizations.
 

Treatment barrier

After taking the training course, it can take 60-90 days for physicians to receive the waiver. The license application can then be submitted. Physician groups argue that this so-called X-waiver requirement creates a barrier to providing medication-assisted treatment.

“Due to the stigma, some clinicians are not willing to pursue this DEA license or even engage in treatment of patients with [OUD],” the letter said.

The Trump administration’s proposal would have limited most physicians to treating no more than 30 patients with buprenorphine for OUD at any one time. This cap would not have applied to hospital-based physicians, such as those practicing emergency medicine, the HHS noted in a statement. The policy would have applied to only physicians who already have registered with the DEA.

Patrice A. Harris, MD, the immediate past president of the AMA and chair of the organization’s Opioid Task Force, was among the many physicians who supported the Trump administration proposal.

“It is estimated that more than 2 million Americans need treatment for opioid use disorder, but only a small percentage actually receive treatment,” Dr. Harris said in statement. Dr. Harris also noted that overdose deaths have reportedly accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show there were more than 83,000 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in June 2020. That is the highest number of overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period and is an increase of more than 21%, compared with the previous year.
 

A ‘disappointment’

On Jan. 28, Dr. Harris said the decision to drop the plan was a disappointment.

“We encourage the current administration to quickly develop a path forward that removes the burdensome waiver requirement, thus allowing more physicians to prescribe this lifesaving medication,” she said in a statement sent to this news organization.

In a Jan. 26 statement, the American Society of Addiction Medicine urged Congress to eliminate the X-waiver and called for more education and training in the treatment of patients who struggle with opioids.

In the 116th session of Congress, which ended on Jan. 3, there was bipartisan support for proposed legislation to ease requirements for buprenorphine prescribing. A House bill had more than 90 Democratic and 21 Republican sponsors. A companion Senate bill had three Democratic and three Republican Sponsors, including Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). On Jan. 25, Dr. Hassan tweeted that she would be seeking an explanation from the Biden administration if it halted the plan to ease the waiver restriction.

“Medication-assisted treatment can save lives, and the buprenorphine waiver requirement should be eliminated so that physicians can more easily prescribe it to those who need it,” she said.

Many clinicians and policy experts turned to Twitter to urge an easing of buprenorphine prescribing, using the hashtag “Xthexwaiver.”

Among them was the official who put forward the Jan. 14 proposal, Brett Giroir, MD. He served as assistant secretary for health during the Trump administration.

 

Objections

In its Jan. 25 article, the Washington Post referred to an article in Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly in which a top federal official in the Trump administration objected to Dr. Giroir’s plan.

Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, who served as the assistant secretary of HHS for SAMHSA, had earlier proposed raising the cap for addiction experts. Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Weekly quotes Dr. McCance-Katz as saying the Trump buprenorphine proposal was “unfair to the incoming administration.”

“The Biden administration has so much work to do to get their programs and policies into place, and to do something like this at the 11th hour that could get doctors into trouble – it’s heinous,” she said in the article.

Dr. McCance-Katz had resigned before the Trump administration proposal was unveiled. On Jan. 7, she issued a public notice announcing she would resign, citing concerns about the previous day’s attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“It had been my plan to stay until the change in administration occurred, but my plans abruptly changed last evening when, on my way back from visiting an excellent residential treatment program in New York, I saw the violent takeover of the Capitol building,” she said.

On Twitter, Roland Flores, MD, an anesthesiologist and pain specialist, urged his colleagues to consider the need for more education among clinicians who treat OUD. He jousted a bit with those favoring a swift drive to “XtheXwaiver” and questioned their arguments about the burden of the current rules.

“I think ‘all this red tape’ is a little bit of an exaggeration – it’s an 8-hour online course, and an application,” Dr. Flores tweeted in one exchange. “But #XtheXwaiver is fine – it’s probably rooted in stigma. It’s unlikely to make much difference tho. The waiver wasn’t the thing keeping docs from prescribing.”

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

The National Institutes of Health has launched a database to track COVID-19–related neurologic symptoms, complications, and outcomes as well as the effects of the virus on preexisting neurologic conditions.

“We know COVID-19 can disrupt multiple body systems, but the effects of the virus and the body’s response to COVID-19 infection on the brain, spinal cord, nerves, and muscle can be particularly devastating and contribute to persistence of disability even after the virus is cleared,” said Barbara Karp, MD, program director at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.

“There is an urgent need to understand COVID-19–related neurological problems, which not uncommonly include headaches, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, stroke, pain, and sleep disorders as well as some very rare complications of serious infections,” said Dr. Karp.

The COVID-19 NeuroDatabank/BioBank (NeuroCOVID) is funded by the NINDS. It was created and will be maintained by researchers at NYU Langone Health in New York.

The project is led by Andrea Troxel, ScD, professor of population health, and Eva Petkova, PhD, professor of population health and child and adolescent psychiatry, both at New York University.

“We’ve built a pretty comprehensive database that will accept deidentified patient information about new neurological issues that coincide with their COVID disease or worsening of preexisting neurological problems,” said Dr. Troxel. “In addition, we have a bio repository that will accept almost any kind of biological sample, such as blood, plasma, cerebrospinal fluid, and tissue,” she said.

“Neuroimages are very difficult to store because the files are so enormous, but we’ve had some questions about that, and we’re looking into whether we can accommodate neuroimages,” Dr. Troxel noted.

Dr. Troxel said a “blast of information and invitations” has gone out in an effort to acquire data and biospecimens. “We’ve been really pleased with the amount of interest already, interest not only from large academic medical centers, as you might expect, but also from some smaller stand-alone clinics and even some individuals who have either experienced some of these neurological problems of COVID or know those who have and are really eager to try to provide information,” she added.

Researchers interested in using data and biosamples from the database may submit requests to the NeuroCOVID Steering Committee. More information is available online on the NeuroCOVID website.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cardiovascular disease and related risk factors can be common among male breast cancer patients, suggests a small study in this rare malignancy.

Among 24 male breast cancer patients evaluated over a decade in the Washington area, 88% were obese or overweight, 58% had hypertension, and 54% had hyperlipidemia.

Tachyarrhythmia existed in 8% of the men before cancer treatment and developed in 13% during treatment.

Two patients had preexisting heart failure, two patients developed the disease after treatment, and another two patients experienced a decline in left ventricular ejection fraction during the course of their cancer treatment.

“Our hope is that treating male breast cancer patients becomes a multidisciplinary approach where oncologists recruit their cardio-oncologist counterparts to mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, so patients live a long and healthy life after cancer treatment,” said Michael Ibrahim, one of the study authors and a 4th-year medical student at Georgetown University in Washington.

The data were presented Jan. 25 as part of the American College of Cardiology’s Advancing the Cardiovascular Care of the Oncology Patient virtual course, which is hosting live sessions Feb. 5-6.

Although the association between cardiovascular disease and breast cancer is well documented in female breast cancer patients, there is little evidence in their male counterparts, especially African Americans, Mr. Ibrahim noted.

To provide some context, Mr. Ibrahim highlighted a 2018 report in nearly 3,500 female breast cancer patients, ages 40-79, in whom 52% were obese/overweight, 35% had hypertension, and 28% had hyperlipidemia.

Diabetes was present in 7.5% of the women, which was roughly equivalent to the 8% found among the men, Mr. Ibrahim said. The men were of similar age (38-79 years), with 42% being African American, 29% White, 4% Hispanic, and 25% another ethnicity.

Importantly, half of the men had a family history of breast cancer, and two were positive for a mutation in the BRCA gene.

A 2017 in-depth review of male breast cancer cites advancing age, hormonal imbalance, radiation exposure, and family history of breast cancer as key risk factors for the development of the disease, but the “most relevant risk factor” is a mutation in the BRCA2 gene.

Male breast cancer accounts for less than 1% of all breast cancers, but the incidence is rising and, in some patient groups, reaching 15% over their lifetimes, the paper notes. Additionally, these patients are at special risk for developing a second cancer.

Remarkably, 25% of men in the D.C. cohort were diagnosed with a second primary malignancy, 13% a third primary cancer, and 4% a fourth primary cancer, Mr. Ibrahim reported. “This goes to show that male breast cancer patients should routinely undergo cancer screening,” he said.

The initial diagnosis was invasive ductal carcinoma in 79% of the men, with the remaining ductal carcinoma in situ. All patients underwent mastectomy, 17% had anthracycline chemotherapy, 8% received HER2-targeted therapy, 16% had radiation, and 71% received hormone therapy.

In terms of cardiovascular management, statins were the most prescribed medication (46%), followed by antiplatelet therapy (42%) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (38%).

An implantable cardioverter defibrillator/pacemaker was the most common intervention (16%), followed by bypass surgery in 8% and coronary angioplasty in 4%.

Mr. Ibrahim noted that the study was limited by the small sample size and that further research is needed to understand the risk of preexisting cardiovascular disease on long-term outcomes as well as the cardiotoxic effects of chemoradiation in male breast cancer patients.

In a statement, Mr. Ibrahim reiterated the need for a multidisciplinary cancer care team to evaluate patients’ cardiovascular risk prior to and through cancer treatment.

“On a more personal level, cancer patients are already surprised by their cancer diagnosis,” he added. “Similar to the pretreatment consultation with radiation oncology, breast surgery, and medical oncology, an upfront cardiovascular risk assessment provides greater comfort and further minimizes psychological surprise with cardiovascular complications going into cancer treatment.”

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new study links the COVID-19 pandemic to decreased lung cancer diagnoses, changes in disease severity, and worsened outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.

“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”

Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
 

Study details

Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.

The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
 

Differences by time period and subtype

During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.

Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).

Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.

In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).

For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).

Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).

For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
 

Implications and next steps

“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”

Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.

“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”

Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.

A new study links the COVID-19 pandemic to decreased lung cancer diagnoses, changes in disease severity, and worsened outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.

“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”

Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
 

Study details

Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.

The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
 

Differences by time period and subtype

During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.

Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).

Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.

In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).

For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).

Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).

For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
 

Implications and next steps

“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”

Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.

“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”

Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.

A new study links the COVID-19 pandemic to decreased lung cancer diagnoses, changes in disease severity, and worsened outcomes for patients with lung cancer.

The two-center study showed a 38% decrease in new lung cancer diagnoses during the pandemic. Patients diagnosed with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) during the pandemic had more severe disease than patients diagnosed prepandemic, but cases of SCLC were not more severe during the pandemic. Still, the 30-day mortality rate nearly doubled for both NSCLC and SCLC patients during the pandemic.

“The prioritization of the health care system towards COVID-19 patients has led to drastic changes in cancer management that could interfere with the initial diagnosis of lung cancer, resulting in delayed treatment and worse outcomes,” said Roxana Reyes, MD, of Hospital Clínic de Barcelona. “Delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality.”

Dr. Reyes and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of the impact of COVID-19 on the incidence of new lung cancer cases, disease severity, and clinical outcomes. Dr. Reyes reported the group’s findings at the 2020 World Conference on Lung Cancer (Abstract 3700), which was rescheduled for January 2021.
 

Study details

Dr. Reyes and colleagues compared data from two tertiary hospitals in Spain in the first 6 months of 2020 with data from the same period in 2019. Spain was one of the countries most affected by COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic.

The study’s primary endpoint was differences by period in the number of new lung cancer cases and disease severity. A secondary endpoint was 30-day mortality rate by period and histology.

The study included 162 patients newly diagnosed with lung cancer – 100 diagnosed before the pandemic began and 62 diagnosed during the pandemic. Overall, 68% of patients had NSCLC, and 32% had SCLC.

Baseline characteristics were similar between the prepandemic and pandemic groups, except for the proportion of nonsmokers. Twice as many patients diagnosed during the pandemic were nonsmokers (16% vs. 8%).
 

Differences by time period and subtype

During the pandemic, there was a 38% reduction in all lung cancer diagnoses, a 36% reduction in NSCLC diagnoses, and a 42% reduction in SCLC diagnoses.

Respiratory symptoms were more common during the pandemic for both NSCLC (30% vs. 23%) and SCLC (32% vs. 24%).

Cases of NSCLC diagnosed during the pandemic were more severe, but SCLC cases were not.

In the NSCLC cohort, symptomatic disease was more common during the pandemic (74% vs. 63%), as were advanced disease (58% vs. 46%), more than two metastatic sites (16% vs. 12%), oncologic emergencies (7% vs. 3%), hospitalization (21% vs. 18%), and death during hospitalization (44% vs. 17%).

For SCLC, symptomatic disease was less common during the pandemic (74% vs. 79%), as were advanced disease (52% vs. 67%), more than two metastatic sites (26% vs. 36%), oncologic emergencies (5% vs. 12%), hospitalization (21% vs. 33%), and death during hospitalization (0% vs. 18%).

Nevertheless, the 30-day mortality rate almost doubled during the pandemic for both NSCLC (49% vs. 25%) and SCLC (32% vs. 18%).

For both subtypes together, the median overall survival was 6.7 months during the pandemic and 7.9 months before the pandemic.
 

Implications and next steps

“In our descriptive study, lung cancer diagnosis is being affected during the COVID-19 pandemic,” Dr. Reyes said. “Fewer new lung cancer cases were diagnosed during COVID-19.”

Some patients with acute respiratory infections who tested negative for COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the pandemic may have had undiagnosed lung cancer, noted Matthew Peters, MD, of Concord Repatriation General Hospital and Macquarie University Hospital, both in Sydney, who was not involved in this study.

“They receive a negative result and think their problem is reduced but wonder why they still have a cough,” Dr. Peters said. “The various lockdowns and social distancing reduced the diagnosis of respiratory viral illnesses that often result in an accidental diagnosis of lung cancer. As time goes by, we will recapture harvesting of accidental diagnosis of lung cancer and provide curative treatments.”

Dr. Reyes emphasized that strategies for maintaining cancer diagnoses need to be implemented during the pandemic. She also noted that this study is ongoing, with the goal of assessing the long-term impact of COVID-19.

Dr. Reyes disclosed relationships with Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. She did not disclose funding for this study. Dr. Peters disclosed relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda.

For appetite control, a low-fat, plant-based diet has advantages over a low-carbohydrate, animal-based ketogenic diet, although the keto diet wins when it comes to keeping post-meal glucose and insulin levels in check, new research suggests.

In a highly controlled crossover study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, people consumed fewer daily calories when on a low-fat, plant-based diet, but their insulin and blood glucose levels were higher than when they followed a low-carbohydrate, animal-based diet.

“There is this somewhat-outdated idea now that higher-fat diets, because they have more calories per gram, tend to make people overeat – something called the passive overconsumption model,” senior investigator Kevin Hall, PhD, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in an interview.

The other more popular model these days, he explained, is the carbohydrate-insulin model, which holds that following a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar that causes insulin levels to spike will increase hunger and cause a person to overeat.

In this study, Dr. Hall and colleagues tested these two hypotheses head to head.

“The short answer is that we got exactly the opposite predictions from the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. In other words, instead of making people eat more and gaining weight and body fat, they actually ended up eating less on that diet and losing body fat compared to the higher-fat diet,” Dr. Hall said.

“Yet, the passive overconsumption model also failed, because despite them eating a very energy-dense diet and high fat, they didn’t gain weight and gain body fat. And so both of these models of why people overeat and gain weight seem to be inadequate in our study,” he said. “This suggests that things are a little bit more complicated.”

The study was published online Jan. 21, 2021 in Nature Medicine.
 

Pros and cons to both diets

For the study, the researchers housed 20 healthy adults who did not have diabetes for 4 continuous weeks at the NIH Clinical Center. The mean age of the participants was 29.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m².

The participants were randomly allocated to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with low-energy density (about 1 kcal/g⁻¹), or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with high energy density (about 2 kcal/g⁻¹) for 2 weeks. They then crossed over to the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Both diets contained about 14% protein and were matched for total calories, although the low-carb diet had twice as many calories per gram of food than the low-fat diet. Participants could eat what and however much they chose of the meals they were given.

One participant withdrew, owing to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet phase. For the primary outcome, the researchers compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period.

They found that energy intake from the low-fat diet was reduced by approximately 550-700 kcal/d⁻¹, compared with the low-carbohydrate keto diet. Yet, despite the large differences in calorie intake, participants reported no differences in hunger, enjoyment of meals, or fullness between the two diets.

Participants lost weight on both diets (about 1-2 kg on average), but only the low-fat diet led to a significant loss of body fat.

“Interestingly, our findings suggest benefits to both diets, at least in the short term,” Dr. Hall said in a news release.

“While the low-fat, plant-based diet helps curb appetite, the animal-based, low-carb diet resulted in lower and more steady insulin and glucose levels. We don’t yet know if these differences would be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr. Hall added that it’s important to note that the study was not designed to make diet recommendations for weight loss, and the results might have been different had the participants been actively trying to lose weight.

“In fact, they didn’t even know what the study was about; we just said we want you to eat the two diets, and we’re going to see what happens in your body either as you eat as much or as little as you want,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag in terms of which diet might be better for an individual. I think you can interpret this study as that there are positives and negatives for both diets,” Dr. Hall said.
 

Diet ‘tribes’

In a comment, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said it’s important to note that “a ‘low-carb diet’ has yet to be defined, and many definitions exist.

“We really need a standard definition of what constitutes ‘low-carb’ so that studies can be designed and evaluated in a consistent manner. It’s problematic because, without a standard definition, the ‘diet tribe’ researchers (keto versus plant-based) always seem to find the answer that is in their own favor,” Dr. Wallace said. “This study does seem to use less than 20 grams of carbs per day, which in my mind is pretty low carb.”

Perhaps the most important caveat, he added, is that, in the real world, “most people don’t adhere to these very strict diets – not even for 2 weeks.”

The study was supported by the NIDDK Intramural Research Program, with additional NIH support from a National Institute of Nursing Research grant. One author has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, serves on the scientific advisory council for Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, and Danone. Dr. Hall and the other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of the Think Healthy Group, editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements, and deputy editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

For appetite control, a low-fat, plant-based diet has advantages over a low-carbohydrate, animal-based ketogenic diet, although the keto diet wins when it comes to keeping post-meal glucose and insulin levels in check, new research suggests.

In a highly controlled crossover study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, people consumed fewer daily calories when on a low-fat, plant-based diet, but their insulin and blood glucose levels were higher than when they followed a low-carbohydrate, animal-based diet.

“There is this somewhat-outdated idea now that higher-fat diets, because they have more calories per gram, tend to make people overeat – something called the passive overconsumption model,” senior investigator Kevin Hall, PhD, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in an interview.

The other more popular model these days, he explained, is the carbohydrate-insulin model, which holds that following a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar that causes insulin levels to spike will increase hunger and cause a person to overeat.

In this study, Dr. Hall and colleagues tested these two hypotheses head to head.

“The short answer is that we got exactly the opposite predictions from the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. In other words, instead of making people eat more and gaining weight and body fat, they actually ended up eating less on that diet and losing body fat compared to the higher-fat diet,” Dr. Hall said.

“Yet, the passive overconsumption model also failed, because despite them eating a very energy-dense diet and high fat, they didn’t gain weight and gain body fat. And so both of these models of why people overeat and gain weight seem to be inadequate in our study,” he said. “This suggests that things are a little bit more complicated.”

The study was published online Jan. 21, 2021 in Nature Medicine.
 

Pros and cons to both diets

For the study, the researchers housed 20 healthy adults who did not have diabetes for 4 continuous weeks at the NIH Clinical Center. The mean age of the participants was 29.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m².

The participants were randomly allocated to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with low-energy density (about 1 kcal/g⁻¹), or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with high energy density (about 2 kcal/g⁻¹) for 2 weeks. They then crossed over to the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Both diets contained about 14% protein and were matched for total calories, although the low-carb diet had twice as many calories per gram of food than the low-fat diet. Participants could eat what and however much they chose of the meals they were given.

One participant withdrew, owing to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet phase. For the primary outcome, the researchers compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period.

They found that energy intake from the low-fat diet was reduced by approximately 550-700 kcal/d⁻¹, compared with the low-carbohydrate keto diet. Yet, despite the large differences in calorie intake, participants reported no differences in hunger, enjoyment of meals, or fullness between the two diets.

Participants lost weight on both diets (about 1-2 kg on average), but only the low-fat diet led to a significant loss of body fat.

“Interestingly, our findings suggest benefits to both diets, at least in the short term,” Dr. Hall said in a news release.

“While the low-fat, plant-based diet helps curb appetite, the animal-based, low-carb diet resulted in lower and more steady insulin and glucose levels. We don’t yet know if these differences would be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr. Hall added that it’s important to note that the study was not designed to make diet recommendations for weight loss, and the results might have been different had the participants been actively trying to lose weight.

“In fact, they didn’t even know what the study was about; we just said we want you to eat the two diets, and we’re going to see what happens in your body either as you eat as much or as little as you want,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag in terms of which diet might be better for an individual. I think you can interpret this study as that there are positives and negatives for both diets,” Dr. Hall said.
 

Diet ‘tribes’

In a comment, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said it’s important to note that “a ‘low-carb diet’ has yet to be defined, and many definitions exist.

“We really need a standard definition of what constitutes ‘low-carb’ so that studies can be designed and evaluated in a consistent manner. It’s problematic because, without a standard definition, the ‘diet tribe’ researchers (keto versus plant-based) always seem to find the answer that is in their own favor,” Dr. Wallace said. “This study does seem to use less than 20 grams of carbs per day, which in my mind is pretty low carb.”

Perhaps the most important caveat, he added, is that, in the real world, “most people don’t adhere to these very strict diets – not even for 2 weeks.”

The study was supported by the NIDDK Intramural Research Program, with additional NIH support from a National Institute of Nursing Research grant. One author has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, serves on the scientific advisory council for Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, and Danone. Dr. Hall and the other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of the Think Healthy Group, editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements, and deputy editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

For appetite control, a low-fat, plant-based diet has advantages over a low-carbohydrate, animal-based ketogenic diet, although the keto diet wins when it comes to keeping post-meal glucose and insulin levels in check, new research suggests.

In a highly controlled crossover study conducted at the National Institutes of Health, people consumed fewer daily calories when on a low-fat, plant-based diet, but their insulin and blood glucose levels were higher than when they followed a low-carbohydrate, animal-based diet.

“There is this somewhat-outdated idea now that higher-fat diets, because they have more calories per gram, tend to make people overeat – something called the passive overconsumption model,” senior investigator Kevin Hall, PhD, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, said in an interview.

The other more popular model these days, he explained, is the carbohydrate-insulin model, which holds that following a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar that causes insulin levels to spike will increase hunger and cause a person to overeat.

In this study, Dr. Hall and colleagues tested these two hypotheses head to head.

“The short answer is that we got exactly the opposite predictions from the carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity. In other words, instead of making people eat more and gaining weight and body fat, they actually ended up eating less on that diet and losing body fat compared to the higher-fat diet,” Dr. Hall said.

“Yet, the passive overconsumption model also failed, because despite them eating a very energy-dense diet and high fat, they didn’t gain weight and gain body fat. And so both of these models of why people overeat and gain weight seem to be inadequate in our study,” he said. “This suggests that things are a little bit more complicated.”

The study was published online Jan. 21, 2021 in Nature Medicine.
 

Pros and cons to both diets

For the study, the researchers housed 20 healthy adults who did not have diabetes for 4 continuous weeks at the NIH Clinical Center. The mean age of the participants was 29.9 years, and the mean body mass index was 27.8 kg/m².

The participants were randomly allocated to consume ad libitum either a plant-based, low-fat diet (10.3% fat, 75.2% carbohydrate) with low-energy density (about 1 kcal/g⁻¹), or an animal-based, ketogenic, low-carbohydrate diet (75.8% fat, 10.0% carbohydrate) with high energy density (about 2 kcal/g⁻¹) for 2 weeks. They then crossed over to the alternate diet for 2 weeks.

Both diets contained about 14% protein and were matched for total calories, although the low-carb diet had twice as many calories per gram of food than the low-fat diet. Participants could eat what and however much they chose of the meals they were given.

One participant withdrew, owing to hypoglycemia during the low-carbohydrate diet phase. For the primary outcome, the researchers compared mean daily ad libitum energy intake between each 2-week diet period.

They found that energy intake from the low-fat diet was reduced by approximately 550-700 kcal/d⁻¹, compared with the low-carbohydrate keto diet. Yet, despite the large differences in calorie intake, participants reported no differences in hunger, enjoyment of meals, or fullness between the two diets.

Participants lost weight on both diets (about 1-2 kg on average), but only the low-fat diet led to a significant loss of body fat.

“Interestingly, our findings suggest benefits to both diets, at least in the short term,” Dr. Hall said in a news release.

“While the low-fat, plant-based diet helps curb appetite, the animal-based, low-carb diet resulted in lower and more steady insulin and glucose levels. We don’t yet know if these differences would be sustained over the long term,” he said.

Dr. Hall added that it’s important to note that the study was not designed to make diet recommendations for weight loss, and the results might have been different had the participants been actively trying to lose weight.

“In fact, they didn’t even know what the study was about; we just said we want you to eat the two diets, and we’re going to see what happens in your body either as you eat as much or as little as you want,” he said.

“It’s a bit of a mixed bag in terms of which diet might be better for an individual. I think you can interpret this study as that there are positives and negatives for both diets,” Dr. Hall said.
 

Diet ‘tribes’

In a comment, Taylor Wallace, PhD, adjunct professor, department of nutrition and food studies, George Mason University, Fairfax, Va., said it’s important to note that “a ‘low-carb diet’ has yet to be defined, and many definitions exist.

“We really need a standard definition of what constitutes ‘low-carb’ so that studies can be designed and evaluated in a consistent manner. It’s problematic because, without a standard definition, the ‘diet tribe’ researchers (keto versus plant-based) always seem to find the answer that is in their own favor,” Dr. Wallace said. “This study does seem to use less than 20 grams of carbs per day, which in my mind is pretty low carb.”

Perhaps the most important caveat, he added, is that, in the real world, “most people don’t adhere to these very strict diets – not even for 2 weeks.”

The study was supported by the NIDDK Intramural Research Program, with additional NIH support from a National Institute of Nursing Research grant. One author has received reimbursement for speaking at conferences sponsored by companies selling nutritional products, serves on the scientific advisory council for Kerry Taste and Nutrition, and is part of an academic consortium that has received research funding from Abbott Nutrition, Nestec, and Danone. Dr. Hall and the other authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Wallace is principal and CEO of the Think Healthy Group, editor of the Journal of Dietary Supplements, and deputy editor of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition.

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

Clinicians using systemic retinoids for treating ichthyosis and other disorders of cornification (DOC) in children and adolescents should aim for the lowest dose possible to balance therapeutic goals with acceptable toxicity levels, advised the authors of a new consensus statement.

In the statement, published in Pediatric Dermatology, they also addressed the effects of topical and systemic retinoid use on bone, eye, cardiovascular, and mental health, and the risks some retinoids pose to reproductive health.

Many patients with these chronic conditions, driven by multiple genetic mutations, respond to topical and/or systemic retinoids. However, to date, no specific guidance has addressed the safety, efficacy, or overall precautions for their use in the pediatric population, one of the statement authors, Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview.

Dr. Levy was one of the physicians on the multidisciplinary panel, The Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance Use of Retinoids in Ichthyosis Work Group, formed to devise best practice recommendations on the use of retinoids in the management of ichthyoses and other cornification disorders in children and adolescents. The panel conducted an extensive evidence-based literature review and met in person to arrive at their conclusions. Representation from the Foundation for Ichthyosis and Related Skin Types (FIRST) was also key to this work. “Additionally, the teratogenic effects of retinoids prompted examination of gynecologic considerations and the role of the iPLEDGE program in the United States on patient access to isotretinoin,” the authors wrote.


 

Retinoid effects, dosing

“Both topical and systemic retinoids can improve scaling in patients with select forms of ichthyosis,” and some subtypes of disease respond better to treatment than others, they noted. Oral or topical retinoids are known to improve cases of congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma (select genotypes), Sjögren-Larsson syndrome, ichthyosis follicularis–alopecia-photophobia syndromes and keratitis-ichthyosis-deafness syndrome, erythrokeratodermia variabilis, harlequin ichthyosis, ichthyosis with confetti, and other subtypes.

Comparatively, they added, there are no data on the use of retinoids, or data showing no improvement with retinoids for several ichthyosis subtypes, including congenital hemidysplasia with ichthyosiform erythroderma and limb defects, CHIME syndrome, Conradi-Hünermann-Happle syndrome, ichthyosis-hypotrichosis syndrome, ichthyosis-hypotrichosis-sclerosing cholangitis, ichthyosis prematurity syndrome, MEDNIK syndrome, peeling skin disease, Refsum syndrome, and trichothiodystrophy though the response to such cases may vary.

Retinoids may worsen conditions that lead to peeling or skin fragility, atopic diathesis, or excessive desquamation, “and should be used with caution,” the authors advised.

Pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe disease and significant functional or psychological impairment “should be offered the opportunity to make a benefit/risk assessment of treatment” with a systemic retinoid, they added, noting that topical retinoids have a lower risk profile and may be a better choice for milder disease.

Clinicians should aim for the lowest dose possible “that will achieve and maintain the desired therapeutic effect with acceptable mucocutaneous and systemic toxicities,” the panel recommended. Lower doses work especially well in patients with epidermolytic ichthyoses and erythrokeratodermia variabilis.

“Given the cutaneous and extracutaneous toxicities of oral retinoids, lower doses were found to achieve the most acceptable risk-benefit result. Few individuals now receive more than 1 mg/kg per day of isotretinoin or 0.5 mg/kg per day of acitretin,” according to the panel.

Dosing decisions call for a group conversation between physicians, patients and caregivers, addressing skin care, comfort and appearance issues, risk of adverse effects, and tolerance of the therapy.
 

Retinoid effects on organs

The impact of retinoids on the body varies by organ system, type of therapy and dosage. Dose and duration of therapy, for example, help determine the toxic effects of retinoids on bone. “Long-term use of systemic retinoids in ichthyosis/DOC is associated with skeletal concerns,” noted the authors, adding that clinicians should still consider this therapeutic approach if there is a strong clinical case for using it in a patient.

Children on long-term systemic therapy should undergo a series of tests and evaluations for bone monitoring, including an annual growth assessment. The group also recommended a baseline skeletal radiographic survey when children are on long-term systemic retinoid therapy, repeated after 3-5 years or when symptoms are present. Clinicians should also inquire about diet and discuss with patients factors that impact susceptibility to retinoid bone toxicity, such as genetic risk, diet and physical activity.

They also recommended monitoring patients taking systemic retinoids for psychiatric symptoms.

Adolescents of childbearing potential using systemic retinoids, who are sexually active, should receive counseling about contraceptive options, and should use two forms of contraception, including one highly effective method, the statement advises.

In the United States, all patients and prescribers of isotretinoin must comply with iPLEDGE guidelines; the statement addresses the issue that iPLEDGE was not designed for long-term use of isotretinoin in patients with ichthyosis, and “imposes a significant burden” in this group.

Other practice gaps and unmet needs in this area of study were discussed, calling for a closer examination of optimal timing of therapy initiation, and the adverse effects of long-term retinoid treatment. “The work, as a whole, is a starting point for these important management issues,” said Dr. Levy.

Unrestricted educational grants from Sun Pharmaceuticals and FIRST funded this effort. Dr. Levy’s disclosed serving on the advisory board and as a consultant for Cassiopea, Regeneron, and UCB, and an investigator for Fibrocell, Galderma, Janssen, and Pfizer. The other authors disclosed serving as investigators, advisers, consultants, and/or other relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Clinicians using systemic retinoids for treating ichthyosis and other disorders of cornification (DOC) in children and adolescents should aim for the lowest dose possible to balance therapeutic goals with acceptable toxicity levels, advised the authors of a new consensus statement.

In the statement, published in Pediatric Dermatology, they also addressed the effects of topical and systemic retinoid use on bone, eye, cardiovascular, and mental health, and the risks some retinoids pose to reproductive health.

Many patients with these chronic conditions, driven by multiple genetic mutations, respond to topical and/or systemic retinoids. However, to date, no specific guidance has addressed the safety, efficacy, or overall precautions for their use in the pediatric population, one of the statement authors, Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview.

Dr. Levy was one of the physicians on the multidisciplinary panel, The Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance Use of Retinoids in Ichthyosis Work Group, formed to devise best practice recommendations on the use of retinoids in the management of ichthyoses and other cornification disorders in children and adolescents. The panel conducted an extensive evidence-based literature review and met in person to arrive at their conclusions. Representation from the Foundation for Ichthyosis and Related Skin Types (FIRST) was also key to this work. “Additionally, the teratogenic effects of retinoids prompted examination of gynecologic considerations and the role of the iPLEDGE program in the United States on patient access to isotretinoin,” the authors wrote.


 

Retinoid effects, dosing

“Both topical and systemic retinoids can improve scaling in patients with select forms of ichthyosis,” and some subtypes of disease respond better to treatment than others, they noted. Oral or topical retinoids are known to improve cases of congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma (select genotypes), Sjögren-Larsson syndrome, ichthyosis follicularis–alopecia-photophobia syndromes and keratitis-ichthyosis-deafness syndrome, erythrokeratodermia variabilis, harlequin ichthyosis, ichthyosis with confetti, and other subtypes.

Comparatively, they added, there are no data on the use of retinoids, or data showing no improvement with retinoids for several ichthyosis subtypes, including congenital hemidysplasia with ichthyosiform erythroderma and limb defects, CHIME syndrome, Conradi-Hünermann-Happle syndrome, ichthyosis-hypotrichosis syndrome, ichthyosis-hypotrichosis-sclerosing cholangitis, ichthyosis prematurity syndrome, MEDNIK syndrome, peeling skin disease, Refsum syndrome, and trichothiodystrophy though the response to such cases may vary.

Retinoids may worsen conditions that lead to peeling or skin fragility, atopic diathesis, or excessive desquamation, “and should be used with caution,” the authors advised.

Pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe disease and significant functional or psychological impairment “should be offered the opportunity to make a benefit/risk assessment of treatment” with a systemic retinoid, they added, noting that topical retinoids have a lower risk profile and may be a better choice for milder disease.

Clinicians should aim for the lowest dose possible “that will achieve and maintain the desired therapeutic effect with acceptable mucocutaneous and systemic toxicities,” the panel recommended. Lower doses work especially well in patients with epidermolytic ichthyoses and erythrokeratodermia variabilis.

“Given the cutaneous and extracutaneous toxicities of oral retinoids, lower doses were found to achieve the most acceptable risk-benefit result. Few individuals now receive more than 1 mg/kg per day of isotretinoin or 0.5 mg/kg per day of acitretin,” according to the panel.

Dosing decisions call for a group conversation between physicians, patients and caregivers, addressing skin care, comfort and appearance issues, risk of adverse effects, and tolerance of the therapy.
 

Retinoid effects on organs

The impact of retinoids on the body varies by organ system, type of therapy and dosage. Dose and duration of therapy, for example, help determine the toxic effects of retinoids on bone. “Long-term use of systemic retinoids in ichthyosis/DOC is associated with skeletal concerns,” noted the authors, adding that clinicians should still consider this therapeutic approach if there is a strong clinical case for using it in a patient.

Children on long-term systemic therapy should undergo a series of tests and evaluations for bone monitoring, including an annual growth assessment. The group also recommended a baseline skeletal radiographic survey when children are on long-term systemic retinoid therapy, repeated after 3-5 years or when symptoms are present. Clinicians should also inquire about diet and discuss with patients factors that impact susceptibility to retinoid bone toxicity, such as genetic risk, diet and physical activity.

They also recommended monitoring patients taking systemic retinoids for psychiatric symptoms.

Adolescents of childbearing potential using systemic retinoids, who are sexually active, should receive counseling about contraceptive options, and should use two forms of contraception, including one highly effective method, the statement advises.

In the United States, all patients and prescribers of isotretinoin must comply with iPLEDGE guidelines; the statement addresses the issue that iPLEDGE was not designed for long-term use of isotretinoin in patients with ichthyosis, and “imposes a significant burden” in this group.

Other practice gaps and unmet needs in this area of study were discussed, calling for a closer examination of optimal timing of therapy initiation, and the adverse effects of long-term retinoid treatment. “The work, as a whole, is a starting point for these important management issues,” said Dr. Levy.

Unrestricted educational grants from Sun Pharmaceuticals and FIRST funded this effort. Dr. Levy’s disclosed serving on the advisory board and as a consultant for Cassiopea, Regeneron, and UCB, and an investigator for Fibrocell, Galderma, Janssen, and Pfizer. The other authors disclosed serving as investigators, advisers, consultants, and/or other relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Clinicians using systemic retinoids for treating ichthyosis and other disorders of cornification (DOC) in children and adolescents should aim for the lowest dose possible to balance therapeutic goals with acceptable toxicity levels, advised the authors of a new consensus statement.

In the statement, published in Pediatric Dermatology, they also addressed the effects of topical and systemic retinoid use on bone, eye, cardiovascular, and mental health, and the risks some retinoids pose to reproductive health.

Many patients with these chronic conditions, driven by multiple genetic mutations, respond to topical and/or systemic retinoids. However, to date, no specific guidance has addressed the safety, efficacy, or overall precautions for their use in the pediatric population, one of the statement authors, Moise L. Levy, MD, professor of pediatrics and medicine at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview.

Dr. Levy was one of the physicians on the multidisciplinary panel, The Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance Use of Retinoids in Ichthyosis Work Group, formed to devise best practice recommendations on the use of retinoids in the management of ichthyoses and other cornification disorders in children and adolescents. The panel conducted an extensive evidence-based literature review and met in person to arrive at their conclusions. Representation from the Foundation for Ichthyosis and Related Skin Types (FIRST) was also key to this work. “Additionally, the teratogenic effects of retinoids prompted examination of gynecologic considerations and the role of the iPLEDGE program in the United States on patient access to isotretinoin,” the authors wrote.


 

Retinoid effects, dosing

“Both topical and systemic retinoids can improve scaling in patients with select forms of ichthyosis,” and some subtypes of disease respond better to treatment than others, they noted. Oral or topical retinoids are known to improve cases of congenital ichthyosiform erythroderma (select genotypes), Sjögren-Larsson syndrome, ichthyosis follicularis–alopecia-photophobia syndromes and keratitis-ichthyosis-deafness syndrome, erythrokeratodermia variabilis, harlequin ichthyosis, ichthyosis with confetti, and other subtypes.

Comparatively, they added, there are no data on the use of retinoids, or data showing no improvement with retinoids for several ichthyosis subtypes, including congenital hemidysplasia with ichthyosiform erythroderma and limb defects, CHIME syndrome, Conradi-Hünermann-Happle syndrome, ichthyosis-hypotrichosis syndrome, ichthyosis-hypotrichosis-sclerosing cholangitis, ichthyosis prematurity syndrome, MEDNIK syndrome, peeling skin disease, Refsum syndrome, and trichothiodystrophy though the response to such cases may vary.

Retinoids may worsen conditions that lead to peeling or skin fragility, atopic diathesis, or excessive desquamation, “and should be used with caution,” the authors advised.

Pediatric and adult patients with moderate to severe disease and significant functional or psychological impairment “should be offered the opportunity to make a benefit/risk assessment of treatment” with a systemic retinoid, they added, noting that topical retinoids have a lower risk profile and may be a better choice for milder disease.

Clinicians should aim for the lowest dose possible “that will achieve and maintain the desired therapeutic effect with acceptable mucocutaneous and systemic toxicities,” the panel recommended. Lower doses work especially well in patients with epidermolytic ichthyoses and erythrokeratodermia variabilis.

“Given the cutaneous and extracutaneous toxicities of oral retinoids, lower doses were found to achieve the most acceptable risk-benefit result. Few individuals now receive more than 1 mg/kg per day of isotretinoin or 0.5 mg/kg per day of acitretin,” according to the panel.

Dosing decisions call for a group conversation between physicians, patients and caregivers, addressing skin care, comfort and appearance issues, risk of adverse effects, and tolerance of the therapy.
 

Retinoid effects on organs

The impact of retinoids on the body varies by organ system, type of therapy and dosage. Dose and duration of therapy, for example, help determine the toxic effects of retinoids on bone. “Long-term use of systemic retinoids in ichthyosis/DOC is associated with skeletal concerns,” noted the authors, adding that clinicians should still consider this therapeutic approach if there is a strong clinical case for using it in a patient.

Children on long-term systemic therapy should undergo a series of tests and evaluations for bone monitoring, including an annual growth assessment. The group also recommended a baseline skeletal radiographic survey when children are on long-term systemic retinoid therapy, repeated after 3-5 years or when symptoms are present. Clinicians should also inquire about diet and discuss with patients factors that impact susceptibility to retinoid bone toxicity, such as genetic risk, diet and physical activity.

They also recommended monitoring patients taking systemic retinoids for psychiatric symptoms.

Adolescents of childbearing potential using systemic retinoids, who are sexually active, should receive counseling about contraceptive options, and should use two forms of contraception, including one highly effective method, the statement advises.

In the United States, all patients and prescribers of isotretinoin must comply with iPLEDGE guidelines; the statement addresses the issue that iPLEDGE was not designed for long-term use of isotretinoin in patients with ichthyosis, and “imposes a significant burden” in this group.

Other practice gaps and unmet needs in this area of study were discussed, calling for a closer examination of optimal timing of therapy initiation, and the adverse effects of long-term retinoid treatment. “The work, as a whole, is a starting point for these important management issues,” said Dr. Levy.

Unrestricted educational grants from Sun Pharmaceuticals and FIRST funded this effort. Dr. Levy’s disclosed serving on the advisory board and as a consultant for Cassiopea, Regeneron, and UCB, and an investigator for Fibrocell, Galderma, Janssen, and Pfizer. The other authors disclosed serving as investigators, advisers, consultants, and/or other relationships with various pharmaceutical companies.

Delaying surgical reconstruction of fistula structures until after patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have been on adalimumab for a minimum of 6 months transforms primary wound closure into a highly attractive option, a pilot study suggests.

“Our experience suggests that under the effects of treatment with adalimumab, wound healing disorders with primary wound closure occur less often. And primary wound closure offers advantages over secondary wound healing: shorter length of inpatient stay, lower morbidity, fewer functional problems, and better quality of life,” Gefion Girbig, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

She noted that primary wound closure following surgery for HS is controversial. For example, current German guidelines recommend complete surgical excision of HS lesions, followed by secondary wound healing; the guidelines advise against primary wound closure. But those guidelines were issued back in 2012, years before adalimumab (Humira) achieved regulatory approval as the first and to date only medication indicated for treatment of HS.

Experts agree that while adalimumab has been a difference maker for many patients with HS, surgery is still often necessary. And many surgeons prefer secondary wound healing in HS. That’s because healing by first intention has historically often resulted in complications involving wound healing disorders and infection. These complications necessitate loosening of the primary closure to permit further wound healing by second intention, with a resultant prolonged healing time, explained Dr. Girbig, of the Institute for Health Sciences Research in Dermatology and Nursing at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

She and her coinvestigators hypothesized that the disordered wound healing is a consequence of the underlying inflammatory disease that lies at the core of HS, and that quelling the inflammation with adalimumab for at least 6 months before performing surgery with primary closure while the anti-TNF therapy continues would reduce the incidence of wound healing disorders.

This was borne out in the group’s small observational pilot study. It included 10 patients with HS who underwent surgery only after at least 6 months on adalimumab. Six had surgery for axillary HS and four for inguinal disease. Only 2 of the 10 developed a wound healing disorder. Both had surgical reconstruction in the inguinal area. Neither case involved infection. Surgical management entailed opening part of the suture to allow simultaneous secondary wound closure.

This 20% incidence of disordered wound healing when primary closure was carried out while systemic inflammation was controlled via adalimumab is markedly lower than rates reported using primary closure without adalimumab. Dr. Girbig and her coinvestigators are now conducting a larger controlled study to confirm their findings.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

Delaying surgical reconstruction of fistula structures until after patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have been on adalimumab for a minimum of 6 months transforms primary wound closure into a highly attractive option, a pilot study suggests.

“Our experience suggests that under the effects of treatment with adalimumab, wound healing disorders with primary wound closure occur less often. And primary wound closure offers advantages over secondary wound healing: shorter length of inpatient stay, lower morbidity, fewer functional problems, and better quality of life,” Gefion Girbig, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

She noted that primary wound closure following surgery for HS is controversial. For example, current German guidelines recommend complete surgical excision of HS lesions, followed by secondary wound healing; the guidelines advise against primary wound closure. But those guidelines were issued back in 2012, years before adalimumab (Humira) achieved regulatory approval as the first and to date only medication indicated for treatment of HS.

Experts agree that while adalimumab has been a difference maker for many patients with HS, surgery is still often necessary. And many surgeons prefer secondary wound healing in HS. That’s because healing by first intention has historically often resulted in complications involving wound healing disorders and infection. These complications necessitate loosening of the primary closure to permit further wound healing by second intention, with a resultant prolonged healing time, explained Dr. Girbig, of the Institute for Health Sciences Research in Dermatology and Nursing at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

She and her coinvestigators hypothesized that the disordered wound healing is a consequence of the underlying inflammatory disease that lies at the core of HS, and that quelling the inflammation with adalimumab for at least 6 months before performing surgery with primary closure while the anti-TNF therapy continues would reduce the incidence of wound healing disorders.

This was borne out in the group’s small observational pilot study. It included 10 patients with HS who underwent surgery only after at least 6 months on adalimumab. Six had surgery for axillary HS and four for inguinal disease. Only 2 of the 10 developed a wound healing disorder. Both had surgical reconstruction in the inguinal area. Neither case involved infection. Surgical management entailed opening part of the suture to allow simultaneous secondary wound closure.

This 20% incidence of disordered wound healing when primary closure was carried out while systemic inflammation was controlled via adalimumab is markedly lower than rates reported using primary closure without adalimumab. Dr. Girbig and her coinvestigators are now conducting a larger controlled study to confirm their findings.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]

Delaying surgical reconstruction of fistula structures until after patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have been on adalimumab for a minimum of 6 months transforms primary wound closure into a highly attractive option, a pilot study suggests.

“Our experience suggests that under the effects of treatment with adalimumab, wound healing disorders with primary wound closure occur less often. And primary wound closure offers advantages over secondary wound healing: shorter length of inpatient stay, lower morbidity, fewer functional problems, and better quality of life,” Gefion Girbig, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

She noted that primary wound closure following surgery for HS is controversial. For example, current German guidelines recommend complete surgical excision of HS lesions, followed by secondary wound healing; the guidelines advise against primary wound closure. But those guidelines were issued back in 2012, years before adalimumab (Humira) achieved regulatory approval as the first and to date only medication indicated for treatment of HS.

Experts agree that while adalimumab has been a difference maker for many patients with HS, surgery is still often necessary. And many surgeons prefer secondary wound healing in HS. That’s because healing by first intention has historically often resulted in complications involving wound healing disorders and infection. These complications necessitate loosening of the primary closure to permit further wound healing by second intention, with a resultant prolonged healing time, explained Dr. Girbig, of the Institute for Health Sciences Research in Dermatology and Nursing at University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (Germany).

She and her coinvestigators hypothesized that the disordered wound healing is a consequence of the underlying inflammatory disease that lies at the core of HS, and that quelling the inflammation with adalimumab for at least 6 months before performing surgery with primary closure while the anti-TNF therapy continues would reduce the incidence of wound healing disorders.

This was borne out in the group’s small observational pilot study. It included 10 patients with HS who underwent surgery only after at least 6 months on adalimumab. Six had surgery for axillary HS and four for inguinal disease. Only 2 of the 10 developed a wound healing disorder. Both had surgical reconstruction in the inguinal area. Neither case involved infection. Surgical management entailed opening part of the suture to allow simultaneous secondary wound closure.

This 20% incidence of disordered wound healing when primary closure was carried out while systemic inflammation was controlled via adalimumab is markedly lower than rates reported using primary closure without adalimumab. Dr. Girbig and her coinvestigators are now conducting a larger controlled study to confirm their findings.

She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study.

[email protected]