User login
New recommendation expands antiretroviral guidance for HIV
.
“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.
The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.
In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.
The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
Task force in primary and preventive care
The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.
A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.
The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
Reducing risk
“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”
Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.
But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.
In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.
“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.
Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”
But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.
It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.
The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.
In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.
The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
Task force in primary and preventive care
The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.
A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.
The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
Reducing risk
“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”
Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.
But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.
In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.
“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.
Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”
But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.
It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
.
“With these new options we could potentially extend pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to a wider population,” says James Stevermer, MD, a member of the task force and a professor of family and community medicine at the University of Missouri–Columbia.
The guidance, published in JAMA, updates the group’s previous recommendation from 2019 to take into account the new options that have become available since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals that included a long-acting injectable form.
In the original report, daily oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine was the only approved medication available and the task force recommended it. Since then, two new regimens have been approved: daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine and the long-acting injectable cabotegravir.
The task force is backing all three options and is recommending that clinicians use whichever formulation is most appropriate for their patients at risk for HIV infection.
Task force in primary and preventive care
The USPSTF is a volunteer group of experts in primary and preventive care who make recommendations on the best preventative interventions clinicians should take on everything from cancer screening, to preventive aspirin use, to behavioral counseling. The group is convened and supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Recommendations from this group are particularly helpful for clinicians who may not see HIV as their area of expertise, says Carolyn Chu, MD, chief medical officer of the American Academy of HIV Medicine. “Hopefully, this will catch the eye of people who are not tracking all of the HIV updates,” she says.
A person’s risk for infection is mostly based on their behavior, Dr. Stevermer says. Those who use injectable drugs, particularly if they share needles, those who use condoms inconsistently and do not know their partner’s HIV status, and those who have recently had bacterial sexually transmitted infections like gonorrhea and syphilis are all at higher risk.
The efficacy of each of the three options is close enough to equal that it doesn’t usually matter which is prescribed, according to the task force. However, daily oral tenofovir alafenamide with emtricitabine is not approved for use by people engaging in receptive vaginal sex. For most people, the best medication option is the one they are most likely able to integrate into their routine. Cabotegravir, for example, which requires injections every 2 months, is an easier method for some people, particularly those who don’t think they could successfully take a daily pill.
Reducing risk
“The evidence is very clear that being able to adhere to taking the medication daily was very closely associated with the effectiveness of PrEP,” Dr. Stevermer says. “So, everything that we can do to make sure that the person who wants to prevent HIV is getting their PrEP as it is supposed to be taken makes it that much more effective.”
Expanding access to antiretrovirals among at-risk groups is an important part of the Ending the HIV Epidemic in the United States initiative that aims to reduce new HIV cases by 90% by 2030.
But an editorial published alongside the recommendation in JAMA notes that uptake of PrEP has been disproportionately low among populations most heavily affected by HIV.
In 2021, 78% of White people expected to benefit from PrEP received it, compared with just 11% of Black people and 21% of Hispanic people, despite both of those populations having a higher incidence of HIV than Whites. PrEP use is also substantially lower among cisgender and transgender women, youth, and people who inject drugs.
“We have an intervention that can markedly reduce people’s risk of getting HIV and so we want to make sure we get this out to all those populations at increased risk,” Dr. Stevermer says.
Having multiple options when it comes to PrEP is a big part of expanding access to the treatment for underserved groups, Dr. Chu says. “Even though oral tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with emtricitabine has been out for a while, we know it’s not getting to everyone, and there may be clinical circumstances that means it’s not the right option,” she says. “Making sure we are supporting choices so people can make the decision for themselves is important.”
But doctors also need to be willing to have an open conversation with their patients and bring up the topic of PrEP in a way that doesn’t feel judgmental or stigmatizing, Dr. Chu says.
It is also important not to make assumptions about who would want to talk about medication, she adds. “How can we change the narrative around PrEP?” she asks. “The evidence is there, these medications are effective and safe; weave PrEP into your preventive care portfolio to at least start the conversation.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Mohs found to confer survival benefit in localized Merkel cell carcinoma
results from a national retrospective cohort study suggest.
The study found that, in patients with pathologically confirmed, localized T1/T2 MCC, “treatment with MMS was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in hazard of death compared with WLE,” reported John A. Carucci, MD, PhD, and colleagues in the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, New York. The results provide “preliminary data suggesting that treatment of localized, early-stage MCC with MMS may result in the most optimal patient survival outcomes for this aggressive form of skin cancer,” they added. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“Although data for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers have been definitive in demonstrating the advantage of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment over conventional WLE or NME [narrow-margin excision], the data for MCC, likely because of the disease’s rarity and limitations of available data sets, have been mixed,” they wrote.
Results from national studies published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found no difference in survival among patients with localized MCC treated with WLE versus MMS. “However, these studies did not have confirmed pathologic node status, a substantial limitation considering that clinically node-negative cases of localized MCC have sentinel lymph node positivity rates ranging from 25% to 40%,” the authors noted.
To evaluate the association of the surgical excision modality and patient survival for pathologically confirmed localized T1/T2 MCC, Dr. Carucci and coauthors examined a cohort of 2,313 patients from the National Cancer Database with T1/T2 MCC diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2018, with pathologically confirmed, negative regional lymph nodes and treated with surgery. Their mean age was 71 years and 57.9% were male. Of the 2,313 patients, 1,452 underwent WLE, 104 underwent MMS, and 757 underwent NME.
The unadjusted analysis revealed that, compared with WLE, excision with MMS had the best unadjusted mean survival rates: 87.4% versus 86.1%, respectively, at 3 years, 84.5% versus 76.9% at 5 years, and 81.8% versus 60.9% at 10 years. Patients treated with NME had similar mean survival rates as those treated with WLE: 84.8% at 3 years, 78.3% at 5 years, and 60.8% at 10 years.
Multivariable survival analysis demonstrated that treatment with MMS was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with WLE (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).
“These data suggest that MMS may provide a survival benefit in the treatment of localized MCC, although further prospective work studying this issue is required,” the authors concluded. “Future directions may also focus on elucidating the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in localized cases treated with MMS.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fewer numbers of patients receiving MMS surgery, lack of randomization, and potential for selection bias.
In an interview, Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the field of MCC “has undergone rapid and robust transformation over the past 20 years. These changes encompass advancements in diagnosing the condition, identifying linked viruses, and developing systemic treatments.”
The study findings “imply that comprehensive assessment of histologic margins might offer advantages beyond minimizing scars, minimizing functional impact, and reducing the likelihood of local recurrence,” he said.
“It’s beyond doubt,” he added, that the study “furnishes us with yet another set of real-world insights that will undoubtedly influence patient outcomes. These insights serve to bring clarity to the ways in which we can deliver precisely targeted surgical treatment with durable outcomes for localized MCC.”
Patricia M. Richey, MD, director of Mohs surgery at Boston University, who was also asked to comment on the study, added that, because of the nature of the National Cancer Database, “the authors of this study were unfortunately unable to report disease-specific survival or immunosuppression status. That being said, the preliminary data presented are convincing and should result in us further exploring this topic, as well as readdressing and questioning related issues such as whether or not adjuvant radiotherapy is truly beneficial in cases with histologic clearance via Mohs.”
Dr. Carucci reported receiving grant funding from Regeneron for investigator-initiated basic research. No other author disclosures were reported. Neither Dr. Blalock nor Dr. Richey had relevant disclosures.
results from a national retrospective cohort study suggest.
The study found that, in patients with pathologically confirmed, localized T1/T2 MCC, “treatment with MMS was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in hazard of death compared with WLE,” reported John A. Carucci, MD, PhD, and colleagues in the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, New York. The results provide “preliminary data suggesting that treatment of localized, early-stage MCC with MMS may result in the most optimal patient survival outcomes for this aggressive form of skin cancer,” they added. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“Although data for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers have been definitive in demonstrating the advantage of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment over conventional WLE or NME [narrow-margin excision], the data for MCC, likely because of the disease’s rarity and limitations of available data sets, have been mixed,” they wrote.
Results from national studies published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found no difference in survival among patients with localized MCC treated with WLE versus MMS. “However, these studies did not have confirmed pathologic node status, a substantial limitation considering that clinically node-negative cases of localized MCC have sentinel lymph node positivity rates ranging from 25% to 40%,” the authors noted.
To evaluate the association of the surgical excision modality and patient survival for pathologically confirmed localized T1/T2 MCC, Dr. Carucci and coauthors examined a cohort of 2,313 patients from the National Cancer Database with T1/T2 MCC diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2018, with pathologically confirmed, negative regional lymph nodes and treated with surgery. Their mean age was 71 years and 57.9% were male. Of the 2,313 patients, 1,452 underwent WLE, 104 underwent MMS, and 757 underwent NME.
The unadjusted analysis revealed that, compared with WLE, excision with MMS had the best unadjusted mean survival rates: 87.4% versus 86.1%, respectively, at 3 years, 84.5% versus 76.9% at 5 years, and 81.8% versus 60.9% at 10 years. Patients treated with NME had similar mean survival rates as those treated with WLE: 84.8% at 3 years, 78.3% at 5 years, and 60.8% at 10 years.
Multivariable survival analysis demonstrated that treatment with MMS was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with WLE (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).
“These data suggest that MMS may provide a survival benefit in the treatment of localized MCC, although further prospective work studying this issue is required,” the authors concluded. “Future directions may also focus on elucidating the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in localized cases treated with MMS.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fewer numbers of patients receiving MMS surgery, lack of randomization, and potential for selection bias.
In an interview, Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the field of MCC “has undergone rapid and robust transformation over the past 20 years. These changes encompass advancements in diagnosing the condition, identifying linked viruses, and developing systemic treatments.”
The study findings “imply that comprehensive assessment of histologic margins might offer advantages beyond minimizing scars, minimizing functional impact, and reducing the likelihood of local recurrence,” he said.
“It’s beyond doubt,” he added, that the study “furnishes us with yet another set of real-world insights that will undoubtedly influence patient outcomes. These insights serve to bring clarity to the ways in which we can deliver precisely targeted surgical treatment with durable outcomes for localized MCC.”
Patricia M. Richey, MD, director of Mohs surgery at Boston University, who was also asked to comment on the study, added that, because of the nature of the National Cancer Database, “the authors of this study were unfortunately unable to report disease-specific survival or immunosuppression status. That being said, the preliminary data presented are convincing and should result in us further exploring this topic, as well as readdressing and questioning related issues such as whether or not adjuvant radiotherapy is truly beneficial in cases with histologic clearance via Mohs.”
Dr. Carucci reported receiving grant funding from Regeneron for investigator-initiated basic research. No other author disclosures were reported. Neither Dr. Blalock nor Dr. Richey had relevant disclosures.
results from a national retrospective cohort study suggest.
The study found that, in patients with pathologically confirmed, localized T1/T2 MCC, “treatment with MMS was associated with an approximately 40% reduction in hazard of death compared with WLE,” reported John A. Carucci, MD, PhD, and colleagues in the department of dermatology at NYU Langone Health, New York. The results provide “preliminary data suggesting that treatment of localized, early-stage MCC with MMS may result in the most optimal patient survival outcomes for this aggressive form of skin cancer,” they added. The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“Although data for keratinocytic nonmelanoma skin cancers have been definitive in demonstrating the advantage of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment over conventional WLE or NME [narrow-margin excision], the data for MCC, likely because of the disease’s rarity and limitations of available data sets, have been mixed,” they wrote.
Results from national studies published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute and the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found no difference in survival among patients with localized MCC treated with WLE versus MMS. “However, these studies did not have confirmed pathologic node status, a substantial limitation considering that clinically node-negative cases of localized MCC have sentinel lymph node positivity rates ranging from 25% to 40%,” the authors noted.
To evaluate the association of the surgical excision modality and patient survival for pathologically confirmed localized T1/T2 MCC, Dr. Carucci and coauthors examined a cohort of 2,313 patients from the National Cancer Database with T1/T2 MCC diagnosed between Jan. 1, 2004, and Dec. 31, 2018, with pathologically confirmed, negative regional lymph nodes and treated with surgery. Their mean age was 71 years and 57.9% were male. Of the 2,313 patients, 1,452 underwent WLE, 104 underwent MMS, and 757 underwent NME.
The unadjusted analysis revealed that, compared with WLE, excision with MMS had the best unadjusted mean survival rates: 87.4% versus 86.1%, respectively, at 3 years, 84.5% versus 76.9% at 5 years, and 81.8% versus 60.9% at 10 years. Patients treated with NME had similar mean survival rates as those treated with WLE: 84.8% at 3 years, 78.3% at 5 years, and 60.8% at 10 years.
Multivariable survival analysis demonstrated that treatment with MMS was associated with significantly improved survival, compared with WLE (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).
“These data suggest that MMS may provide a survival benefit in the treatment of localized MCC, although further prospective work studying this issue is required,” the authors concluded. “Future directions may also focus on elucidating the benefit of adjuvant radiotherapy in localized cases treated with MMS.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fewer numbers of patients receiving MMS surgery, lack of randomization, and potential for selection bias.
In an interview, Travis W. Blalock, MD, director of dermatologic surgery, Mohs micrographic surgery, and cutaneous oncology at Emory University, Atlanta, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the field of MCC “has undergone rapid and robust transformation over the past 20 years. These changes encompass advancements in diagnosing the condition, identifying linked viruses, and developing systemic treatments.”
The study findings “imply that comprehensive assessment of histologic margins might offer advantages beyond minimizing scars, minimizing functional impact, and reducing the likelihood of local recurrence,” he said.
“It’s beyond doubt,” he added, that the study “furnishes us with yet another set of real-world insights that will undoubtedly influence patient outcomes. These insights serve to bring clarity to the ways in which we can deliver precisely targeted surgical treatment with durable outcomes for localized MCC.”
Patricia M. Richey, MD, director of Mohs surgery at Boston University, who was also asked to comment on the study, added that, because of the nature of the National Cancer Database, “the authors of this study were unfortunately unable to report disease-specific survival or immunosuppression status. That being said, the preliminary data presented are convincing and should result in us further exploring this topic, as well as readdressing and questioning related issues such as whether or not adjuvant radiotherapy is truly beneficial in cases with histologic clearance via Mohs.”
Dr. Carucci reported receiving grant funding from Regeneron for investigator-initiated basic research. No other author disclosures were reported. Neither Dr. Blalock nor Dr. Richey had relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
Human frailty is a cash cow
Doctor, if you are caring for patients with diabetes, I sure hope you know more about it than I do. The longer I live, it seems, the less I understand.
In a free society, people can do what they want, and that’s great except when it isn’t. That’s why societies develop ethics and even public laws if ethics are not strong enough to protect us from ourselves and others.
Sugar, sugar
When I was growing up in small-town Alabama during the Depression and World War II, we called it sugar diabetes. Eat too much sugar, you got fat; your blood sugar went up, and you spilled sugar into your urine. Diabetes was fairly rare, and so was obesity. Doctors treated it by limiting the intake of sugar (and various sweet foods), along with attempting weight loss. If that didn’t do the trick, insulin injections.
From then until now, note these trends.
Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed even more infrequently before 1950:
- 1920: 0.2% of the population
- 1930: 0.3% of the population
- 1940: 0.4% of the population
In 2020, although 11.3% of the population was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the unknown undiagnosed proportion could be much higher.
Notice a correlation between sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes? Of course, correlation is not causation, but at the same time, it sure as hell is not negation. Such concordance can be considered hypothesis generating. It may not be true causation, but it’s a good bet when 89% of people with diabetes have overweight or obesity.
What did the entire medical, public health, government, agriculture, nursing, food manufacturing, marketing, advertising, restaurant, and education constituencies do about this as it was happening? They observed, documented, gave lip service, and wrung their hands in public a bit. I do not believe that this is an organized active conspiracy; it would take too many players cooperating over too long a period of time. But it certainly may be a passive conspiracy, and primary care physicians and their patients are trapped.
The proper daily practice of medicine consists of one patient, one physician, one moment, and one decision. Let it be a shared decision, informed by the best evidence and taking cost into consideration. That encounter represents an opportunity, a responsibility, and a conundrum.
Individual health is subsumed under the collective health of the public. As such, a patient’s health is out of the control of both physician and patient; instead, patients are the beneficiaries or victims of the “marketplace.” Humans are frail and easily taken advantage of by the brilliant and highly motivated strategic planning and execution of Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Marketing, and Big Money-Driven Medicine and generally failed by Big Government, Big Public Health, Big Education, Big Psychology, and Big Religion.
Rethinking diabetes
Consider diabetes as one of many examples. What a terrific deal for capitalism. then it discovers (invents) long-term, very expensive, compelling treatments to slim us down, with no end in sight, and still without ever understanding the true nature of diabetes.
Gary Taubes’s great new book, “Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments,” is being published by Alfred A. Knopf in early 2024.
It is 404 pages of (dense) text, with 401 numbered references and footnotes, a bibliography of 790 references, alphabetically arranged for easy cross-checking, and a 25-page index.
Remember Mr. Taubes’s earlier definitive historical treatises: “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (2007), “Why We Get Fat” (2010), “The Case Against Sugar” (2016), and “The Case for Keto” (2020)?
This new book is more like “Good Calories, Bad Calories”: long, dense, detailed, definitive, and of great historical reference value, including original research information from other countries in other languages. The author told me that the many early research reference sources were available only in German and that his use of generative artificial intelligence as an assistant researcher was of great value.
Nonphysician author Mr. Taubes uses his deep understanding of science and history to inform his long-honed talents of impartial investigative journalism as he attempts to understand and then explain why after all these years, the medical scientific community still does not have a sound consensus about the essence of diabetes, diet, insulin, and proper prevention and treatment at a level that is actually effective – amazing and so sad.
To signal these evolved and evolving conflicts, the book includes the following chapters:
- “Rise of the Carbohydrate-Rich and Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets”
- “The Fear of Fat and High-Fat Diets”
- “Insulin and The End of Carbohydrate Restriction and Low Blood Sugar”
Yes, it is difficult. Imagine the bookend segments: “The Nature of Medical Knowledge” and “The Conflicts of Evidence-Based Medicine.” There is also a detailed discussion of good versus bad science spanning three long chapters.
If all that reads like a greatly confused mess to you then you’re beginning to understand. If you are a fan of an unbiased explication of the evolution of understanding the ins and outs of scientific history in richly documented detail, this is a book for you. It’s not a quick nor easy read. And don’t expect to discover whether the newest wonder drugs for weight loss and control of diabetes will be the long-term solution for people with obesity and diabetes worldwide.
Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for type 2 diabetes. About 90% of patients with diabetes have either overweight or obesity. Thus, the complications of these two conditions, which largely overlap, include atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; myocardial infarction; stroke; hypertension; metabolic syndrome; lower-extremity gangrene; chronic kidney disease; retinopathy; glaucoma; cataracts; disabling osteoarthritis; breast, endometrial, colon, and other cancers; fatty liver; sleep apnea; and peripheral neuropathy. These diseases create a major lucrative business for a wide swathe of medical and surgical specialties, plus hospital, clinic, device, pharmaceutical, and food industries.
In summary, we’ve just been through 40 years of failure to recognize the sugar-elephant in the room and intervene with serious preventive efforts. Forty years of fleshing out both the populace and the American medical-industrial complex (AMIC). Talk about a sweet spot. The only successful long-term treatment of obesity (and with it, diabetes) is prevention. Don’t emphasize losing weight. Focus on preventing excessive weight gain, right now, for the population, beginning with yourselves. Otherwise, we continue openly to perpetuate a terrific deal for the AMIC, a travesty for everyone else. Time for some industrial grade penance and a course correction.
Meanwhile, here we are living out Big Pharma’s dream of a big populace, produced by the agriculture and food industries, enjoyed by capitalism after failures of education, medicine, and public health: a seemingly endless supply of people living with big complications who are ready for big (expensive, new) medications to fix the world’s big health problems.
Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief, Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctor, if you are caring for patients with diabetes, I sure hope you know more about it than I do. The longer I live, it seems, the less I understand.
In a free society, people can do what they want, and that’s great except when it isn’t. That’s why societies develop ethics and even public laws if ethics are not strong enough to protect us from ourselves and others.
Sugar, sugar
When I was growing up in small-town Alabama during the Depression and World War II, we called it sugar diabetes. Eat too much sugar, you got fat; your blood sugar went up, and you spilled sugar into your urine. Diabetes was fairly rare, and so was obesity. Doctors treated it by limiting the intake of sugar (and various sweet foods), along with attempting weight loss. If that didn’t do the trick, insulin injections.
From then until now, note these trends.
Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed even more infrequently before 1950:
- 1920: 0.2% of the population
- 1930: 0.3% of the population
- 1940: 0.4% of the population
In 2020, although 11.3% of the population was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the unknown undiagnosed proportion could be much higher.
Notice a correlation between sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes? Of course, correlation is not causation, but at the same time, it sure as hell is not negation. Such concordance can be considered hypothesis generating. It may not be true causation, but it’s a good bet when 89% of people with diabetes have overweight or obesity.
What did the entire medical, public health, government, agriculture, nursing, food manufacturing, marketing, advertising, restaurant, and education constituencies do about this as it was happening? They observed, documented, gave lip service, and wrung their hands in public a bit. I do not believe that this is an organized active conspiracy; it would take too many players cooperating over too long a period of time. But it certainly may be a passive conspiracy, and primary care physicians and their patients are trapped.
The proper daily practice of medicine consists of one patient, one physician, one moment, and one decision. Let it be a shared decision, informed by the best evidence and taking cost into consideration. That encounter represents an opportunity, a responsibility, and a conundrum.
Individual health is subsumed under the collective health of the public. As such, a patient’s health is out of the control of both physician and patient; instead, patients are the beneficiaries or victims of the “marketplace.” Humans are frail and easily taken advantage of by the brilliant and highly motivated strategic planning and execution of Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Marketing, and Big Money-Driven Medicine and generally failed by Big Government, Big Public Health, Big Education, Big Psychology, and Big Religion.
Rethinking diabetes
Consider diabetes as one of many examples. What a terrific deal for capitalism. then it discovers (invents) long-term, very expensive, compelling treatments to slim us down, with no end in sight, and still without ever understanding the true nature of diabetes.
Gary Taubes’s great new book, “Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments,” is being published by Alfred A. Knopf in early 2024.
It is 404 pages of (dense) text, with 401 numbered references and footnotes, a bibliography of 790 references, alphabetically arranged for easy cross-checking, and a 25-page index.
Remember Mr. Taubes’s earlier definitive historical treatises: “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (2007), “Why We Get Fat” (2010), “The Case Against Sugar” (2016), and “The Case for Keto” (2020)?
This new book is more like “Good Calories, Bad Calories”: long, dense, detailed, definitive, and of great historical reference value, including original research information from other countries in other languages. The author told me that the many early research reference sources were available only in German and that his use of generative artificial intelligence as an assistant researcher was of great value.
Nonphysician author Mr. Taubes uses his deep understanding of science and history to inform his long-honed talents of impartial investigative journalism as he attempts to understand and then explain why after all these years, the medical scientific community still does not have a sound consensus about the essence of diabetes, diet, insulin, and proper prevention and treatment at a level that is actually effective – amazing and so sad.
To signal these evolved and evolving conflicts, the book includes the following chapters:
- “Rise of the Carbohydrate-Rich and Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets”
- “The Fear of Fat and High-Fat Diets”
- “Insulin and The End of Carbohydrate Restriction and Low Blood Sugar”
Yes, it is difficult. Imagine the bookend segments: “The Nature of Medical Knowledge” and “The Conflicts of Evidence-Based Medicine.” There is also a detailed discussion of good versus bad science spanning three long chapters.
If all that reads like a greatly confused mess to you then you’re beginning to understand. If you are a fan of an unbiased explication of the evolution of understanding the ins and outs of scientific history in richly documented detail, this is a book for you. It’s not a quick nor easy read. And don’t expect to discover whether the newest wonder drugs for weight loss and control of diabetes will be the long-term solution for people with obesity and diabetes worldwide.
Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for type 2 diabetes. About 90% of patients with diabetes have either overweight or obesity. Thus, the complications of these two conditions, which largely overlap, include atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; myocardial infarction; stroke; hypertension; metabolic syndrome; lower-extremity gangrene; chronic kidney disease; retinopathy; glaucoma; cataracts; disabling osteoarthritis; breast, endometrial, colon, and other cancers; fatty liver; sleep apnea; and peripheral neuropathy. These diseases create a major lucrative business for a wide swathe of medical and surgical specialties, plus hospital, clinic, device, pharmaceutical, and food industries.
In summary, we’ve just been through 40 years of failure to recognize the sugar-elephant in the room and intervene with serious preventive efforts. Forty years of fleshing out both the populace and the American medical-industrial complex (AMIC). Talk about a sweet spot. The only successful long-term treatment of obesity (and with it, diabetes) is prevention. Don’t emphasize losing weight. Focus on preventing excessive weight gain, right now, for the population, beginning with yourselves. Otherwise, we continue openly to perpetuate a terrific deal for the AMIC, a travesty for everyone else. Time for some industrial grade penance and a course correction.
Meanwhile, here we are living out Big Pharma’s dream of a big populace, produced by the agriculture and food industries, enjoyed by capitalism after failures of education, medicine, and public health: a seemingly endless supply of people living with big complications who are ready for big (expensive, new) medications to fix the world’s big health problems.
Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief, Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Doctor, if you are caring for patients with diabetes, I sure hope you know more about it than I do. The longer I live, it seems, the less I understand.
In a free society, people can do what they want, and that’s great except when it isn’t. That’s why societies develop ethics and even public laws if ethics are not strong enough to protect us from ourselves and others.
Sugar, sugar
When I was growing up in small-town Alabama during the Depression and World War II, we called it sugar diabetes. Eat too much sugar, you got fat; your blood sugar went up, and you spilled sugar into your urine. Diabetes was fairly rare, and so was obesity. Doctors treated it by limiting the intake of sugar (and various sweet foods), along with attempting weight loss. If that didn’t do the trick, insulin injections.
From then until now, note these trends.
Type 2 diabetes was diagnosed even more infrequently before 1950:
- 1920: 0.2% of the population
- 1930: 0.3% of the population
- 1940: 0.4% of the population
In 2020, although 11.3% of the population was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, the unknown undiagnosed proportion could be much higher.
Notice a correlation between sugar consumption and prevalence of diabetes? Of course, correlation is not causation, but at the same time, it sure as hell is not negation. Such concordance can be considered hypothesis generating. It may not be true causation, but it’s a good bet when 89% of people with diabetes have overweight or obesity.
What did the entire medical, public health, government, agriculture, nursing, food manufacturing, marketing, advertising, restaurant, and education constituencies do about this as it was happening? They observed, documented, gave lip service, and wrung their hands in public a bit. I do not believe that this is an organized active conspiracy; it would take too many players cooperating over too long a period of time. But it certainly may be a passive conspiracy, and primary care physicians and their patients are trapped.
The proper daily practice of medicine consists of one patient, one physician, one moment, and one decision. Let it be a shared decision, informed by the best evidence and taking cost into consideration. That encounter represents an opportunity, a responsibility, and a conundrum.
Individual health is subsumed under the collective health of the public. As such, a patient’s health is out of the control of both physician and patient; instead, patients are the beneficiaries or victims of the “marketplace.” Humans are frail and easily taken advantage of by the brilliant and highly motivated strategic planning and execution of Big Agriculture, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Marketing, and Big Money-Driven Medicine and generally failed by Big Government, Big Public Health, Big Education, Big Psychology, and Big Religion.
Rethinking diabetes
Consider diabetes as one of many examples. What a terrific deal for capitalism. then it discovers (invents) long-term, very expensive, compelling treatments to slim us down, with no end in sight, and still without ever understanding the true nature of diabetes.
Gary Taubes’s great new book, “Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments,” is being published by Alfred A. Knopf in early 2024.
It is 404 pages of (dense) text, with 401 numbered references and footnotes, a bibliography of 790 references, alphabetically arranged for easy cross-checking, and a 25-page index.
Remember Mr. Taubes’s earlier definitive historical treatises: “Good Calories, Bad Calories” (2007), “Why We Get Fat” (2010), “The Case Against Sugar” (2016), and “The Case for Keto” (2020)?
This new book is more like “Good Calories, Bad Calories”: long, dense, detailed, definitive, and of great historical reference value, including original research information from other countries in other languages. The author told me that the many early research reference sources were available only in German and that his use of generative artificial intelligence as an assistant researcher was of great value.
Nonphysician author Mr. Taubes uses his deep understanding of science and history to inform his long-honed talents of impartial investigative journalism as he attempts to understand and then explain why after all these years, the medical scientific community still does not have a sound consensus about the essence of diabetes, diet, insulin, and proper prevention and treatment at a level that is actually effective – amazing and so sad.
To signal these evolved and evolving conflicts, the book includes the following chapters:
- “Rise of the Carbohydrate-Rich and Very-Low-Carbohydrate Diets”
- “The Fear of Fat and High-Fat Diets”
- “Insulin and The End of Carbohydrate Restriction and Low Blood Sugar”
Yes, it is difficult. Imagine the bookend segments: “The Nature of Medical Knowledge” and “The Conflicts of Evidence-Based Medicine.” There is also a detailed discussion of good versus bad science spanning three long chapters.
If all that reads like a greatly confused mess to you then you’re beginning to understand. If you are a fan of an unbiased explication of the evolution of understanding the ins and outs of scientific history in richly documented detail, this is a book for you. It’s not a quick nor easy read. And don’t expect to discover whether the newest wonder drugs for weight loss and control of diabetes will be the long-term solution for people with obesity and diabetes worldwide.
Obesity and overweight are major risk factors for type 2 diabetes. About 90% of patients with diabetes have either overweight or obesity. Thus, the complications of these two conditions, which largely overlap, include atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; myocardial infarction; stroke; hypertension; metabolic syndrome; lower-extremity gangrene; chronic kidney disease; retinopathy; glaucoma; cataracts; disabling osteoarthritis; breast, endometrial, colon, and other cancers; fatty liver; sleep apnea; and peripheral neuropathy. These diseases create a major lucrative business for a wide swathe of medical and surgical specialties, plus hospital, clinic, device, pharmaceutical, and food industries.
In summary, we’ve just been through 40 years of failure to recognize the sugar-elephant in the room and intervene with serious preventive efforts. Forty years of fleshing out both the populace and the American medical-industrial complex (AMIC). Talk about a sweet spot. The only successful long-term treatment of obesity (and with it, diabetes) is prevention. Don’t emphasize losing weight. Focus on preventing excessive weight gain, right now, for the population, beginning with yourselves. Otherwise, we continue openly to perpetuate a terrific deal for the AMIC, a travesty for everyone else. Time for some industrial grade penance and a course correction.
Meanwhile, here we are living out Big Pharma’s dream of a big populace, produced by the agriculture and food industries, enjoyed by capitalism after failures of education, medicine, and public health: a seemingly endless supply of people living with big complications who are ready for big (expensive, new) medications to fix the world’s big health problems.
Dr. Lundberg is editor in chief, Cancer Commons. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Commentary: Newer Drugs for AD Plus Dupilumab and Other Issues, September 2023
Amlitelimab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the OX40 ligand (Weidinger et al). It is predicted to have broad potential therapeutic application for multiple immune diseases, including atopic dermatitis. I'm not looking for that. I've been spoiled by drugs that have narrow therapeutic application (like IL-23 blockade and IL-4/IL-13 blockade) that target a specific disease very effectively with very little in the way of side effects.
The OX40 ligand/receptor interaction may be too important. When I Google "OX40 deficiency," the first thing that pops up is a combined T- and B-cell immunodeficiency associated with possible aggressive, childhood-onset, disseminated, cutaneous, and systemic Kaposi sarcoma. That doesn't mean that such a horrible outcome will come with the level of pharmacologic OX40 blockade that we would try to achieve in our patients. Clinical trials don't show horrible adverse events — so far. I'm in no hurry to find out in my patients whether real-life efficacy in large numbers of people treated for long periods of time matches up with the short-term safety profiles seen in relatively small clinical trial populations.
It might be nice to give patients upadacitinib only as needed, for example for a flare of their atopic dermatitis, then cut down the dose or stop altogether until the next flare. The study by Guttman-Yassky and colleagues found that atopic dermatitis came back quickly when upadacitinib was stopped. However, their study looked at patients with chronically bad atopic dermatitis. If we have a patient who tends to flare only intermittently, it may be that we could use upadacitinib or other systemic treatments on an intermittent basis. I know when it came to my son's mild atopic dermatitis, intermittent use of a little triamcinolone ointment was all that was needed. Yes, I know that's a "reactive," roller-coaster approach. Yes, I know that a "proactive" keep-the-disease-away approach sounds better. But I'm realistic when it comes to patients' adherence behaviors. I think there's a lot to be said for minimizing drug exposure and just using treatments as needed. Guttman-Yassky's work makes me believe that a lot of patients will need continuous treatment to keep their severe disease under control. I'm not convinced that everyone will need continuous treatment to be happy with their treatment.
O'Connor and colleagues found that emollient bathing is associated with later development of atopic dermatitis. They defined emollient bathing as baths with oil or emulsifier-based additives. This study illustrates the importance of randomization in a controlled trial. Because their study was not randomized, we don't know whether the emollient bathing caused atopic dermatitis or whether families that had more dry skin or more family history of atopic dermatitis were more likely to use emollient bathing.
When dupilumab was first approved, I prescribed it to my patients to take every 2 weeks as recommended on the label. I'm not so sure how many patients actually used it that way. I suspect that a lot of them took the medicine less often than recommended, especially when they were doing well. This report by Sánchez-García and colleagues suggests that patients who are doing very well on dupilumab may be able to take the drug less often. That's probably not news to my patients who are already taking the drug less often than I told them to.
I think less frequent dosing may become even more common over time, particularly for drugs that may have more safety risks than dupilumab. Many patients with atopic dermatitis probably don't need to be taking drugs all the time. Patients who tend to have flare-ups but who do very well for a long period of time between flares may only need drugs intermittently. It will be interesting to see if our patients can use oral treatments for atopic dermatitis that way.
Siegfried and colleagues assessed how well dupilumab worked in children with atopic dermatitis in different areas of the body: head and neck, trunk, upper extremities, lower extremities. Dupilumab worked well in all these areas, as expected.
Xu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of studies of dupilumab for atopic dermatitis and concluded, not shockingly, that dupilumab is safe and effective for atopic dermatitis. Okay, I believe that. They further concluded: "More long-term, high-quality, controlled studies in different regions are needed for further verification." I don't think so. I think the evidence is clear already.
Studies that measure the levels of things are generally not particularly helpful. The study by García-Reyes and colleagues studied the levels of serum thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) in patients with atopic dermatitis. TSLP levels were higher in patients with atopic dermatitis compared with patients without atopic dermatitis. This basically tells us nothing about the role of TSLP in atopic dermatitis. The elevated levels could be causing atopic dermatitis or they could be the body's response to having atopic dermatitis.
To tell whether something is causal we have to look at either genetic studies or studies with specific inhibitors. A specific inhibitor study was done by atopic dermatitis expert Eric Simpson and colleagues.1 This was a randomized, placebo-controlled study in which an anti-TSLP antibody was given to patients with atopic dermatitis. Both the anti-TSLP antibody and placebo groups were permitted to use topical steroids. While the anti-TSLP antibody–treated patients did better than placebo-treated patients, the difference did not achieve statistical significance, probably, I believe, because the placebo-treated patients used more topical steroids. When you want to assess whether a drug for atopic dermatitis is better than placebo, you must be careful about how much topical steroid you let patients in the study use!
Additional Reference
- Simpson EL, Parnes JR, She D, et al. Tezepelumab, an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized phase 2a clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(4):1013-1021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.11.059
Amlitelimab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the OX40 ligand (Weidinger et al). It is predicted to have broad potential therapeutic application for multiple immune diseases, including atopic dermatitis. I'm not looking for that. I've been spoiled by drugs that have narrow therapeutic application (like IL-23 blockade and IL-4/IL-13 blockade) that target a specific disease very effectively with very little in the way of side effects.
The OX40 ligand/receptor interaction may be too important. When I Google "OX40 deficiency," the first thing that pops up is a combined T- and B-cell immunodeficiency associated with possible aggressive, childhood-onset, disseminated, cutaneous, and systemic Kaposi sarcoma. That doesn't mean that such a horrible outcome will come with the level of pharmacologic OX40 blockade that we would try to achieve in our patients. Clinical trials don't show horrible adverse events — so far. I'm in no hurry to find out in my patients whether real-life efficacy in large numbers of people treated for long periods of time matches up with the short-term safety profiles seen in relatively small clinical trial populations.
It might be nice to give patients upadacitinib only as needed, for example for a flare of their atopic dermatitis, then cut down the dose or stop altogether until the next flare. The study by Guttman-Yassky and colleagues found that atopic dermatitis came back quickly when upadacitinib was stopped. However, their study looked at patients with chronically bad atopic dermatitis. If we have a patient who tends to flare only intermittently, it may be that we could use upadacitinib or other systemic treatments on an intermittent basis. I know when it came to my son's mild atopic dermatitis, intermittent use of a little triamcinolone ointment was all that was needed. Yes, I know that's a "reactive," roller-coaster approach. Yes, I know that a "proactive" keep-the-disease-away approach sounds better. But I'm realistic when it comes to patients' adherence behaviors. I think there's a lot to be said for minimizing drug exposure and just using treatments as needed. Guttman-Yassky's work makes me believe that a lot of patients will need continuous treatment to keep their severe disease under control. I'm not convinced that everyone will need continuous treatment to be happy with their treatment.
O'Connor and colleagues found that emollient bathing is associated with later development of atopic dermatitis. They defined emollient bathing as baths with oil or emulsifier-based additives. This study illustrates the importance of randomization in a controlled trial. Because their study was not randomized, we don't know whether the emollient bathing caused atopic dermatitis or whether families that had more dry skin or more family history of atopic dermatitis were more likely to use emollient bathing.
When dupilumab was first approved, I prescribed it to my patients to take every 2 weeks as recommended on the label. I'm not so sure how many patients actually used it that way. I suspect that a lot of them took the medicine less often than recommended, especially when they were doing well. This report by Sánchez-García and colleagues suggests that patients who are doing very well on dupilumab may be able to take the drug less often. That's probably not news to my patients who are already taking the drug less often than I told them to.
I think less frequent dosing may become even more common over time, particularly for drugs that may have more safety risks than dupilumab. Many patients with atopic dermatitis probably don't need to be taking drugs all the time. Patients who tend to have flare-ups but who do very well for a long period of time between flares may only need drugs intermittently. It will be interesting to see if our patients can use oral treatments for atopic dermatitis that way.
Siegfried and colleagues assessed how well dupilumab worked in children with atopic dermatitis in different areas of the body: head and neck, trunk, upper extremities, lower extremities. Dupilumab worked well in all these areas, as expected.
Xu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of studies of dupilumab for atopic dermatitis and concluded, not shockingly, that dupilumab is safe and effective for atopic dermatitis. Okay, I believe that. They further concluded: "More long-term, high-quality, controlled studies in different regions are needed for further verification." I don't think so. I think the evidence is clear already.
Studies that measure the levels of things are generally not particularly helpful. The study by García-Reyes and colleagues studied the levels of serum thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) in patients with atopic dermatitis. TSLP levels were higher in patients with atopic dermatitis compared with patients without atopic dermatitis. This basically tells us nothing about the role of TSLP in atopic dermatitis. The elevated levels could be causing atopic dermatitis or they could be the body's response to having atopic dermatitis.
To tell whether something is causal we have to look at either genetic studies or studies with specific inhibitors. A specific inhibitor study was done by atopic dermatitis expert Eric Simpson and colleagues.1 This was a randomized, placebo-controlled study in which an anti-TSLP antibody was given to patients with atopic dermatitis. Both the anti-TSLP antibody and placebo groups were permitted to use topical steroids. While the anti-TSLP antibody–treated patients did better than placebo-treated patients, the difference did not achieve statistical significance, probably, I believe, because the placebo-treated patients used more topical steroids. When you want to assess whether a drug for atopic dermatitis is better than placebo, you must be careful about how much topical steroid you let patients in the study use!
Additional Reference
- Simpson EL, Parnes JR, She D, et al. Tezepelumab, an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized phase 2a clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(4):1013-1021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.11.059
Amlitelimab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the OX40 ligand (Weidinger et al). It is predicted to have broad potential therapeutic application for multiple immune diseases, including atopic dermatitis. I'm not looking for that. I've been spoiled by drugs that have narrow therapeutic application (like IL-23 blockade and IL-4/IL-13 blockade) that target a specific disease very effectively with very little in the way of side effects.
The OX40 ligand/receptor interaction may be too important. When I Google "OX40 deficiency," the first thing that pops up is a combined T- and B-cell immunodeficiency associated with possible aggressive, childhood-onset, disseminated, cutaneous, and systemic Kaposi sarcoma. That doesn't mean that such a horrible outcome will come with the level of pharmacologic OX40 blockade that we would try to achieve in our patients. Clinical trials don't show horrible adverse events — so far. I'm in no hurry to find out in my patients whether real-life efficacy in large numbers of people treated for long periods of time matches up with the short-term safety profiles seen in relatively small clinical trial populations.
It might be nice to give patients upadacitinib only as needed, for example for a flare of their atopic dermatitis, then cut down the dose or stop altogether until the next flare. The study by Guttman-Yassky and colleagues found that atopic dermatitis came back quickly when upadacitinib was stopped. However, their study looked at patients with chronically bad atopic dermatitis. If we have a patient who tends to flare only intermittently, it may be that we could use upadacitinib or other systemic treatments on an intermittent basis. I know when it came to my son's mild atopic dermatitis, intermittent use of a little triamcinolone ointment was all that was needed. Yes, I know that's a "reactive," roller-coaster approach. Yes, I know that a "proactive" keep-the-disease-away approach sounds better. But I'm realistic when it comes to patients' adherence behaviors. I think there's a lot to be said for minimizing drug exposure and just using treatments as needed. Guttman-Yassky's work makes me believe that a lot of patients will need continuous treatment to keep their severe disease under control. I'm not convinced that everyone will need continuous treatment to be happy with their treatment.
O'Connor and colleagues found that emollient bathing is associated with later development of atopic dermatitis. They defined emollient bathing as baths with oil or emulsifier-based additives. This study illustrates the importance of randomization in a controlled trial. Because their study was not randomized, we don't know whether the emollient bathing caused atopic dermatitis or whether families that had more dry skin or more family history of atopic dermatitis were more likely to use emollient bathing.
When dupilumab was first approved, I prescribed it to my patients to take every 2 weeks as recommended on the label. I'm not so sure how many patients actually used it that way. I suspect that a lot of them took the medicine less often than recommended, especially when they were doing well. This report by Sánchez-García and colleagues suggests that patients who are doing very well on dupilumab may be able to take the drug less often. That's probably not news to my patients who are already taking the drug less often than I told them to.
I think less frequent dosing may become even more common over time, particularly for drugs that may have more safety risks than dupilumab. Many patients with atopic dermatitis probably don't need to be taking drugs all the time. Patients who tend to have flare-ups but who do very well for a long period of time between flares may only need drugs intermittently. It will be interesting to see if our patients can use oral treatments for atopic dermatitis that way.
Siegfried and colleagues assessed how well dupilumab worked in children with atopic dermatitis in different areas of the body: head and neck, trunk, upper extremities, lower extremities. Dupilumab worked well in all these areas, as expected.
Xu and colleagues did a meta-analysis of studies of dupilumab for atopic dermatitis and concluded, not shockingly, that dupilumab is safe and effective for atopic dermatitis. Okay, I believe that. They further concluded: "More long-term, high-quality, controlled studies in different regions are needed for further verification." I don't think so. I think the evidence is clear already.
Studies that measure the levels of things are generally not particularly helpful. The study by García-Reyes and colleagues studied the levels of serum thymic stromal lymphopoietin (TSLP) in patients with atopic dermatitis. TSLP levels were higher in patients with atopic dermatitis compared with patients without atopic dermatitis. This basically tells us nothing about the role of TSLP in atopic dermatitis. The elevated levels could be causing atopic dermatitis or they could be the body's response to having atopic dermatitis.
To tell whether something is causal we have to look at either genetic studies or studies with specific inhibitors. A specific inhibitor study was done by atopic dermatitis expert Eric Simpson and colleagues.1 This was a randomized, placebo-controlled study in which an anti-TSLP antibody was given to patients with atopic dermatitis. Both the anti-TSLP antibody and placebo groups were permitted to use topical steroids. While the anti-TSLP antibody–treated patients did better than placebo-treated patients, the difference did not achieve statistical significance, probably, I believe, because the placebo-treated patients used more topical steroids. When you want to assess whether a drug for atopic dermatitis is better than placebo, you must be careful about how much topical steroid you let patients in the study use!
Additional Reference
- Simpson EL, Parnes JR, She D, et al. Tezepelumab, an anti-thymic stromal lymphopoietin monoclonal antibody, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis: A randomized phase 2a clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80(4):1013-1021. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2018.11.059
First guidelines developed for childhood eosinophilic GI disorders beyond eosinophilic esophagitis
The limited scope and depth of existing literature on childhood eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) spurred an international group of researchers and clinicians to develop the first clinical practice guidelines for diagnosing and treating these rare conditions.
They were developed jointly by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition.
Non-EoE EGIDs are rare chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, estimated at less than 200,000 cases annually in the United States, with unknown long-term consequences, Glenn Furuta, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver and section head of gastroenterology at Children’s Hospital Colorado, both in Aurora, said in an interview
“There are many unmet needs. Research has been limited and has not progressed at the pace we want it to,” added Dr. Furuta, who is corresponding author of the guidelines.
The guidelines were published online in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition, by lead author Alexandra Papadopoulou, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, first department of pediatrics, University of Athens, and Children’s Hospital Agia Sofia, also in Athens, and colleagues.
With these, we provide guidance for clinicians to better understand the conditions and also how to diagnose and initiate care for patients with these rare diseases, said Dr. Furuta.
Difficult-to-diagnose conditions
Guideline development involved a working group of 26 pediatric gastroenterologists, adult gastroenterologists, allergists/immunologists, and pathologists from 16 countries across five continents. The consensus document includes 34 statements based on available evidence and 41 recommendations based on expert opinion and best clinical practices. In cases where the supporting evidence was weak but agreement was strong, the authors issued conditional recommendations.
The guidelines subdivide the non-EoE EGIDs according to inflammation location: eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD), eosinophilic colitis, and eosinophilic enteritis. The latter can be further subdivided into EoD, eosinophilic jejunitis, and eosinophilic ileitis.
Non-EoE EGIDs are hard to diagnose because symptoms are relatively nonspecific and may include abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and bloody stools, all of which could have any number of underlying causes, Dr. Furuta said.
If you are treating a patient who is not getting better with such symptoms as persisting infections, acid-related problems, significant bleeding leading to anemia, intestinal perforation or obstruction, or low serum protein leading to swelling, then you should think that something else is going on that requires more of an evaluation, Dr. Furuta noted.
Patients with personal or family histories of eosinophilic or allergic disease should raise greater suspicion, Dr. Furuta said. “The next step requires an endoscopy and biopsy.”
Awareness of non-EoE EGIDs has been higher among pediatric gastroenterologists than among those treating adult disease because pediatric gastroenterologists have always obtained biopsies of the intestinal tract, Dr. Furuta noted.
The guidelines recommend that diagnosis of non-EoE EGIDs in children and adolescents must include signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal dysfunction, dense eosinophilic infiltrates found in mucosal or full-thickness biopsies above organ-specific threshold values included in the document, and absence of other diseases associated with GI mucosal eosinophilic inflammation.
Individualized treatment
The authors noted that the strength of recommendations varies with the often-modest availability of randomized controlled trial data on treatment efficacy.
For example, they recommended that systemic steroids be considered to induce remission but only conditionally recommend topical steroids. They conditionally recommend consideration of empiric elimination diets and conditionally recommend against using food allergy testing to guide diet.
The choice of treatment should be individualized on the basis of the affected GI segment, severity of the disease, patient characteristics, and family resources and capabilities, the authors wrote.
“We’ve provided guidance on how to care for patients based on the consensus of experts who have the necessary experience and knowledge base,” Dr. Furuta said. “Our ability to say: ‘Here are the established treatments,’ is lacking, though. We need research studies to verify that our recommended approaches are indeed correct.”
The authors conditionally recommended that treatment goals include achieving symptom resolution, improving gross endoscopic and histologic abnormalities, promoting normal childhood growth and development, and preventing disease complications.
No pediatric study has determined the natural history of non-EoE EGIDs, and no study of maintenance therapy has been conducted, the authors noted.
For this reason, they conditionally recommended that the clinical decision to continue therapy should be discussed with patients and their parents/caregivers, and those discussions include the benefits and risk of long-term treatment, its cost, and its impact on health-related quality of life.
A starting point for patient management
In a comment, Vincent Mukkada, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and an attending physician in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, observed that, though improved awareness among pediatric gastroenterologists may account for some of the increase in GI eosinophil disease, the incidence is also likely growing.
“We’re looking for them much more,” said Dr. Mukkada.
“But I also think they’re increasing, just like all other atopic diseases. We’re not sure why,” he added.
“The hope is that these guidelines will allow nonsubspecialized gastroenterologists and allergists feel comfortable to at least start on the journey of managing these patients. And, for pediatricians who learn that their patient has received a non-EoE EGID diagnosis, they can go to the summary figures in this one document and very quickly get an overview of the disease and its course,” Dr. Mukkada said.
Guideline development was funded by the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. The authors and Dr. Mukkada reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The limited scope and depth of existing literature on childhood eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) spurred an international group of researchers and clinicians to develop the first clinical practice guidelines for diagnosing and treating these rare conditions.
They were developed jointly by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition.
Non-EoE EGIDs are rare chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, estimated at less than 200,000 cases annually in the United States, with unknown long-term consequences, Glenn Furuta, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver and section head of gastroenterology at Children’s Hospital Colorado, both in Aurora, said in an interview
“There are many unmet needs. Research has been limited and has not progressed at the pace we want it to,” added Dr. Furuta, who is corresponding author of the guidelines.
The guidelines were published online in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition, by lead author Alexandra Papadopoulou, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, first department of pediatrics, University of Athens, and Children’s Hospital Agia Sofia, also in Athens, and colleagues.
With these, we provide guidance for clinicians to better understand the conditions and also how to diagnose and initiate care for patients with these rare diseases, said Dr. Furuta.
Difficult-to-diagnose conditions
Guideline development involved a working group of 26 pediatric gastroenterologists, adult gastroenterologists, allergists/immunologists, and pathologists from 16 countries across five continents. The consensus document includes 34 statements based on available evidence and 41 recommendations based on expert opinion and best clinical practices. In cases where the supporting evidence was weak but agreement was strong, the authors issued conditional recommendations.
The guidelines subdivide the non-EoE EGIDs according to inflammation location: eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD), eosinophilic colitis, and eosinophilic enteritis. The latter can be further subdivided into EoD, eosinophilic jejunitis, and eosinophilic ileitis.
Non-EoE EGIDs are hard to diagnose because symptoms are relatively nonspecific and may include abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and bloody stools, all of which could have any number of underlying causes, Dr. Furuta said.
If you are treating a patient who is not getting better with such symptoms as persisting infections, acid-related problems, significant bleeding leading to anemia, intestinal perforation or obstruction, or low serum protein leading to swelling, then you should think that something else is going on that requires more of an evaluation, Dr. Furuta noted.
Patients with personal or family histories of eosinophilic or allergic disease should raise greater suspicion, Dr. Furuta said. “The next step requires an endoscopy and biopsy.”
Awareness of non-EoE EGIDs has been higher among pediatric gastroenterologists than among those treating adult disease because pediatric gastroenterologists have always obtained biopsies of the intestinal tract, Dr. Furuta noted.
The guidelines recommend that diagnosis of non-EoE EGIDs in children and adolescents must include signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal dysfunction, dense eosinophilic infiltrates found in mucosal or full-thickness biopsies above organ-specific threshold values included in the document, and absence of other diseases associated with GI mucosal eosinophilic inflammation.
Individualized treatment
The authors noted that the strength of recommendations varies with the often-modest availability of randomized controlled trial data on treatment efficacy.
For example, they recommended that systemic steroids be considered to induce remission but only conditionally recommend topical steroids. They conditionally recommend consideration of empiric elimination diets and conditionally recommend against using food allergy testing to guide diet.
The choice of treatment should be individualized on the basis of the affected GI segment, severity of the disease, patient characteristics, and family resources and capabilities, the authors wrote.
“We’ve provided guidance on how to care for patients based on the consensus of experts who have the necessary experience and knowledge base,” Dr. Furuta said. “Our ability to say: ‘Here are the established treatments,’ is lacking, though. We need research studies to verify that our recommended approaches are indeed correct.”
The authors conditionally recommended that treatment goals include achieving symptom resolution, improving gross endoscopic and histologic abnormalities, promoting normal childhood growth and development, and preventing disease complications.
No pediatric study has determined the natural history of non-EoE EGIDs, and no study of maintenance therapy has been conducted, the authors noted.
For this reason, they conditionally recommended that the clinical decision to continue therapy should be discussed with patients and their parents/caregivers, and those discussions include the benefits and risk of long-term treatment, its cost, and its impact on health-related quality of life.
A starting point for patient management
In a comment, Vincent Mukkada, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and an attending physician in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, observed that, though improved awareness among pediatric gastroenterologists may account for some of the increase in GI eosinophil disease, the incidence is also likely growing.
“We’re looking for them much more,” said Dr. Mukkada.
“But I also think they’re increasing, just like all other atopic diseases. We’re not sure why,” he added.
“The hope is that these guidelines will allow nonsubspecialized gastroenterologists and allergists feel comfortable to at least start on the journey of managing these patients. And, for pediatricians who learn that their patient has received a non-EoE EGID diagnosis, they can go to the summary figures in this one document and very quickly get an overview of the disease and its course,” Dr. Mukkada said.
Guideline development was funded by the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. The authors and Dr. Mukkada reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The limited scope and depth of existing literature on childhood eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs) beyond eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) spurred an international group of researchers and clinicians to develop the first clinical practice guidelines for diagnosing and treating these rare conditions.
They were developed jointly by the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition.
Non-EoE EGIDs are rare chronic inflammatory disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, estimated at less than 200,000 cases annually in the United States, with unknown long-term consequences, Glenn Furuta, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver and section head of gastroenterology at Children’s Hospital Colorado, both in Aurora, said in an interview
“There are many unmet needs. Research has been limited and has not progressed at the pace we want it to,” added Dr. Furuta, who is corresponding author of the guidelines.
The guidelines were published online in the Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition, by lead author Alexandra Papadopoulou, MD, division of gastroenterology and hepatology, first department of pediatrics, University of Athens, and Children’s Hospital Agia Sofia, also in Athens, and colleagues.
With these, we provide guidance for clinicians to better understand the conditions and also how to diagnose and initiate care for patients with these rare diseases, said Dr. Furuta.
Difficult-to-diagnose conditions
Guideline development involved a working group of 26 pediatric gastroenterologists, adult gastroenterologists, allergists/immunologists, and pathologists from 16 countries across five continents. The consensus document includes 34 statements based on available evidence and 41 recommendations based on expert opinion and best clinical practices. In cases where the supporting evidence was weak but agreement was strong, the authors issued conditional recommendations.
The guidelines subdivide the non-EoE EGIDs according to inflammation location: eosinophilic gastritis, eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD), eosinophilic colitis, and eosinophilic enteritis. The latter can be further subdivided into EoD, eosinophilic jejunitis, and eosinophilic ileitis.
Non-EoE EGIDs are hard to diagnose because symptoms are relatively nonspecific and may include abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and bloody stools, all of which could have any number of underlying causes, Dr. Furuta said.
If you are treating a patient who is not getting better with such symptoms as persisting infections, acid-related problems, significant bleeding leading to anemia, intestinal perforation or obstruction, or low serum protein leading to swelling, then you should think that something else is going on that requires more of an evaluation, Dr. Furuta noted.
Patients with personal or family histories of eosinophilic or allergic disease should raise greater suspicion, Dr. Furuta said. “The next step requires an endoscopy and biopsy.”
Awareness of non-EoE EGIDs has been higher among pediatric gastroenterologists than among those treating adult disease because pediatric gastroenterologists have always obtained biopsies of the intestinal tract, Dr. Furuta noted.
The guidelines recommend that diagnosis of non-EoE EGIDs in children and adolescents must include signs or symptoms of gastrointestinal dysfunction, dense eosinophilic infiltrates found in mucosal or full-thickness biopsies above organ-specific threshold values included in the document, and absence of other diseases associated with GI mucosal eosinophilic inflammation.
Individualized treatment
The authors noted that the strength of recommendations varies with the often-modest availability of randomized controlled trial data on treatment efficacy.
For example, they recommended that systemic steroids be considered to induce remission but only conditionally recommend topical steroids. They conditionally recommend consideration of empiric elimination diets and conditionally recommend against using food allergy testing to guide diet.
The choice of treatment should be individualized on the basis of the affected GI segment, severity of the disease, patient characteristics, and family resources and capabilities, the authors wrote.
“We’ve provided guidance on how to care for patients based on the consensus of experts who have the necessary experience and knowledge base,” Dr. Furuta said. “Our ability to say: ‘Here are the established treatments,’ is lacking, though. We need research studies to verify that our recommended approaches are indeed correct.”
The authors conditionally recommended that treatment goals include achieving symptom resolution, improving gross endoscopic and histologic abnormalities, promoting normal childhood growth and development, and preventing disease complications.
No pediatric study has determined the natural history of non-EoE EGIDs, and no study of maintenance therapy has been conducted, the authors noted.
For this reason, they conditionally recommended that the clinical decision to continue therapy should be discussed with patients and their parents/caregivers, and those discussions include the benefits and risk of long-term treatment, its cost, and its impact on health-related quality of life.
A starting point for patient management
In a comment, Vincent Mukkada, MD, professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and an attending physician in gastroenterology, hepatology, and nutrition at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center, observed that, though improved awareness among pediatric gastroenterologists may account for some of the increase in GI eosinophil disease, the incidence is also likely growing.
“We’re looking for them much more,” said Dr. Mukkada.
“But I also think they’re increasing, just like all other atopic diseases. We’re not sure why,” he added.
“The hope is that these guidelines will allow nonsubspecialized gastroenterologists and allergists feel comfortable to at least start on the journey of managing these patients. And, for pediatricians who learn that their patient has received a non-EoE EGID diagnosis, they can go to the summary figures in this one document and very quickly get an overview of the disease and its course,” Dr. Mukkada said.
Guideline development was funded by the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition and the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. The authors and Dr. Mukkada reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY & NUTRITION
Kidney stones on the rise: Where are the specialists?
While increasing the number of nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is necessary, nonspecialists need to play a larger role in recognizing and preventing kidney stones.
Primary care and emergency department physicians can be the front lines of counseling patients who do not have underlying genetic causes of kidney stones on how to prevent a recurrence, according to Irina Jaeger, MD, a urologist at University Hospitals and an assistant professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland.
“A lot of this care can be implemented by our primary care physicians, such as counseling on decreasing sodium in the diet and increasing fluid intake, which benefits so many different health conditions as well as stones,” said Gregory E. Tasian, MD, MSCE, an attending pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If we can think about this holistically, we can really make strides.”
Focus on prevention
Taking a holistic approach, Dr. Tasian added, will require rethinking how health teams approach patient care and manage kidney stones.
“We think of stones as episodic events that are painful, and then pass,” he said. “But it’s really a disorder of mineral metabolism.”
Understanding these episodes as a chronic disease can also explain why nephrolithiasis often goes hand in hand with higher instances of heart attack and stroke, hypertension, and bone breaks, he added.
Simple measures such as staying hydrated and consuming citrate in the form of lemon water or lemonade can help patients prevent recurring kidney stones, Dr. Jaeger said.
But patients who have had a stone also need to see a specialist to rule out any underlying causes. Kidney stones are routinely viewed as episodic events that don’t pose much of a health threat, but between 30% and 50% of people diagnosed with stones will experience a recurrence within 5 years. Educating patients on how they can prevent future episodes is a crucial part of care.
“Even if they are passing the stones on their own without surgery, they should really be evaluated by a urologist or a nephrologist,” Dr. Jaeger said.
David S. Goldfarb, MD, clinical director of the division of nephrology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that access to nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is a critical piece of prevention. While urologists can treat stones, nephrologists get to the bottom of why the stones occurred in the first place and help patients prevent further stones from forming.
“The majority of urologists in the U.S. don’t do much in regard to prevention,” he said. “There needs to be more nephrologists.”
Kidney stones now appear to be increasingly common in patient populations that previously did not have the condition.
A study published in 2016 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology found that the annual incidence of kidney stones increased 16% from 1997 to 2012, with the biggest increase seen among teenagers. Stones were 52% more common among girls and women than among men, but the condition is also becoming more common in men starting at age 25. Meanwhile, Black Americans of all ages saw greater rates of kidney stone development than their White counterparts.
Fewer residents are choosing to specialize in nephrology, with a decrease in the choice of fellowship of 50% from 2009 to 2019, according to a 2023 report by the American Society of Nephrology.
A 2019 survey of nearly 4,200 residents found that only 60% of nephrology fellowship positions were filled in 2018, and the majority of those residents reported a lack of interest in the kidney as being the most critical factor in not selecting the specialty. Others reported lack of exposure to nephrology overall.
Diagnosing the root cause
Getting to the root cause of how further kidney stones can be prevented usually requires a nephrologist, according to Dr. Jaeger.
“As a urologist, 90% of what we do is surgery,” she said.
Although urologists are trained in analyzing 24-hour urine tests, which can reveal risks that can be addressed by preventive changes, many urologists tap a specialized nephrologist, who may analyze the samples with a keener eye.
“When individuals pass a stone, fewer than 10% seek care with a specialist after that and that’s a missed opportunity to prevent future stones,” Dr. Tasian said.
Not all nephrologists specialize in stones, but they may be better equipped to recognize when a patient needs to see someone who does. Failing to involve a nephrologist who specializes in kidney stones can have grave consequences for patient health.
Dr. Goldfarb is currently caring for a patient with a kidney transplant that had begun to lose function. Clinicians who originally cared for the patient took a kidney biopsy, which showed fragments of calcium oxalate, a common type of kidney stone, in her native kidneys.
After receiving a kidney transplant, her health began to decline again and a second biopsy found that the new kidney was forming the same type of stones. Her nephrologist knew this meant she likely had a genetic disorder and referred her to Dr. Goldfarb, who specializes in underlying genetic causes of kidney stones. A genetic test revealed that the patient had primary hyperoxaluria.
“She would have been treated completely differently if that had been recognized as the cause of her original kidney disease,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “Now her kidney transplant is getting kidney stones and I’m working with her to prevent that.”
Under Dr. Goldfarb, the patient will have access to a new experimental drug, called nedosiran, currently in clinical trials. It is specifically for primary hyperoxaluria.
“The kidney doctor that made the diagnosis correctly and referred her to me isn’t a kidney stone specialist; he is a general nephrologist who has taken an interest in the topic of kidney stones, recognizing there is sometimes some nuance and specialty of issues related to this,” Dr. Goldfarb said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
While increasing the number of nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is necessary, nonspecialists need to play a larger role in recognizing and preventing kidney stones.
Primary care and emergency department physicians can be the front lines of counseling patients who do not have underlying genetic causes of kidney stones on how to prevent a recurrence, according to Irina Jaeger, MD, a urologist at University Hospitals and an assistant professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland.
“A lot of this care can be implemented by our primary care physicians, such as counseling on decreasing sodium in the diet and increasing fluid intake, which benefits so many different health conditions as well as stones,” said Gregory E. Tasian, MD, MSCE, an attending pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If we can think about this holistically, we can really make strides.”
Focus on prevention
Taking a holistic approach, Dr. Tasian added, will require rethinking how health teams approach patient care and manage kidney stones.
“We think of stones as episodic events that are painful, and then pass,” he said. “But it’s really a disorder of mineral metabolism.”
Understanding these episodes as a chronic disease can also explain why nephrolithiasis often goes hand in hand with higher instances of heart attack and stroke, hypertension, and bone breaks, he added.
Simple measures such as staying hydrated and consuming citrate in the form of lemon water or lemonade can help patients prevent recurring kidney stones, Dr. Jaeger said.
But patients who have had a stone also need to see a specialist to rule out any underlying causes. Kidney stones are routinely viewed as episodic events that don’t pose much of a health threat, but between 30% and 50% of people diagnosed with stones will experience a recurrence within 5 years. Educating patients on how they can prevent future episodes is a crucial part of care.
“Even if they are passing the stones on their own without surgery, they should really be evaluated by a urologist or a nephrologist,” Dr. Jaeger said.
David S. Goldfarb, MD, clinical director of the division of nephrology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that access to nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is a critical piece of prevention. While urologists can treat stones, nephrologists get to the bottom of why the stones occurred in the first place and help patients prevent further stones from forming.
“The majority of urologists in the U.S. don’t do much in regard to prevention,” he said. “There needs to be more nephrologists.”
Kidney stones now appear to be increasingly common in patient populations that previously did not have the condition.
A study published in 2016 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology found that the annual incidence of kidney stones increased 16% from 1997 to 2012, with the biggest increase seen among teenagers. Stones were 52% more common among girls and women than among men, but the condition is also becoming more common in men starting at age 25. Meanwhile, Black Americans of all ages saw greater rates of kidney stone development than their White counterparts.
Fewer residents are choosing to specialize in nephrology, with a decrease in the choice of fellowship of 50% from 2009 to 2019, according to a 2023 report by the American Society of Nephrology.
A 2019 survey of nearly 4,200 residents found that only 60% of nephrology fellowship positions were filled in 2018, and the majority of those residents reported a lack of interest in the kidney as being the most critical factor in not selecting the specialty. Others reported lack of exposure to nephrology overall.
Diagnosing the root cause
Getting to the root cause of how further kidney stones can be prevented usually requires a nephrologist, according to Dr. Jaeger.
“As a urologist, 90% of what we do is surgery,” she said.
Although urologists are trained in analyzing 24-hour urine tests, which can reveal risks that can be addressed by preventive changes, many urologists tap a specialized nephrologist, who may analyze the samples with a keener eye.
“When individuals pass a stone, fewer than 10% seek care with a specialist after that and that’s a missed opportunity to prevent future stones,” Dr. Tasian said.
Not all nephrologists specialize in stones, but they may be better equipped to recognize when a patient needs to see someone who does. Failing to involve a nephrologist who specializes in kidney stones can have grave consequences for patient health.
Dr. Goldfarb is currently caring for a patient with a kidney transplant that had begun to lose function. Clinicians who originally cared for the patient took a kidney biopsy, which showed fragments of calcium oxalate, a common type of kidney stone, in her native kidneys.
After receiving a kidney transplant, her health began to decline again and a second biopsy found that the new kidney was forming the same type of stones. Her nephrologist knew this meant she likely had a genetic disorder and referred her to Dr. Goldfarb, who specializes in underlying genetic causes of kidney stones. A genetic test revealed that the patient had primary hyperoxaluria.
“She would have been treated completely differently if that had been recognized as the cause of her original kidney disease,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “Now her kidney transplant is getting kidney stones and I’m working with her to prevent that.”
Under Dr. Goldfarb, the patient will have access to a new experimental drug, called nedosiran, currently in clinical trials. It is specifically for primary hyperoxaluria.
“The kidney doctor that made the diagnosis correctly and referred her to me isn’t a kidney stone specialist; he is a general nephrologist who has taken an interest in the topic of kidney stones, recognizing there is sometimes some nuance and specialty of issues related to this,” Dr. Goldfarb said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
While increasing the number of nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is necessary, nonspecialists need to play a larger role in recognizing and preventing kidney stones.
Primary care and emergency department physicians can be the front lines of counseling patients who do not have underlying genetic causes of kidney stones on how to prevent a recurrence, according to Irina Jaeger, MD, a urologist at University Hospitals and an assistant professor of urology at Case Western Reserve University, both in Cleveland.
“A lot of this care can be implemented by our primary care physicians, such as counseling on decreasing sodium in the diet and increasing fluid intake, which benefits so many different health conditions as well as stones,” said Gregory E. Tasian, MD, MSCE, an attending pediatric urologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. “If we can think about this holistically, we can really make strides.”
Focus on prevention
Taking a holistic approach, Dr. Tasian added, will require rethinking how health teams approach patient care and manage kidney stones.
“We think of stones as episodic events that are painful, and then pass,” he said. “But it’s really a disorder of mineral metabolism.”
Understanding these episodes as a chronic disease can also explain why nephrolithiasis often goes hand in hand with higher instances of heart attack and stroke, hypertension, and bone breaks, he added.
Simple measures such as staying hydrated and consuming citrate in the form of lemon water or lemonade can help patients prevent recurring kidney stones, Dr. Jaeger said.
But patients who have had a stone also need to see a specialist to rule out any underlying causes. Kidney stones are routinely viewed as episodic events that don’t pose much of a health threat, but between 30% and 50% of people diagnosed with stones will experience a recurrence within 5 years. Educating patients on how they can prevent future episodes is a crucial part of care.
“Even if they are passing the stones on their own without surgery, they should really be evaluated by a urologist or a nephrologist,” Dr. Jaeger said.
David S. Goldfarb, MD, clinical director of the division of nephrology at NYU Langone Health, New York, said that access to nephrologists who specialize in kidney stones is a critical piece of prevention. While urologists can treat stones, nephrologists get to the bottom of why the stones occurred in the first place and help patients prevent further stones from forming.
“The majority of urologists in the U.S. don’t do much in regard to prevention,” he said. “There needs to be more nephrologists.”
Kidney stones now appear to be increasingly common in patient populations that previously did not have the condition.
A study published in 2016 in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology found that the annual incidence of kidney stones increased 16% from 1997 to 2012, with the biggest increase seen among teenagers. Stones were 52% more common among girls and women than among men, but the condition is also becoming more common in men starting at age 25. Meanwhile, Black Americans of all ages saw greater rates of kidney stone development than their White counterparts.
Fewer residents are choosing to specialize in nephrology, with a decrease in the choice of fellowship of 50% from 2009 to 2019, according to a 2023 report by the American Society of Nephrology.
A 2019 survey of nearly 4,200 residents found that only 60% of nephrology fellowship positions were filled in 2018, and the majority of those residents reported a lack of interest in the kidney as being the most critical factor in not selecting the specialty. Others reported lack of exposure to nephrology overall.
Diagnosing the root cause
Getting to the root cause of how further kidney stones can be prevented usually requires a nephrologist, according to Dr. Jaeger.
“As a urologist, 90% of what we do is surgery,” she said.
Although urologists are trained in analyzing 24-hour urine tests, which can reveal risks that can be addressed by preventive changes, many urologists tap a specialized nephrologist, who may analyze the samples with a keener eye.
“When individuals pass a stone, fewer than 10% seek care with a specialist after that and that’s a missed opportunity to prevent future stones,” Dr. Tasian said.
Not all nephrologists specialize in stones, but they may be better equipped to recognize when a patient needs to see someone who does. Failing to involve a nephrologist who specializes in kidney stones can have grave consequences for patient health.
Dr. Goldfarb is currently caring for a patient with a kidney transplant that had begun to lose function. Clinicians who originally cared for the patient took a kidney biopsy, which showed fragments of calcium oxalate, a common type of kidney stone, in her native kidneys.
After receiving a kidney transplant, her health began to decline again and a second biopsy found that the new kidney was forming the same type of stones. Her nephrologist knew this meant she likely had a genetic disorder and referred her to Dr. Goldfarb, who specializes in underlying genetic causes of kidney stones. A genetic test revealed that the patient had primary hyperoxaluria.
“She would have been treated completely differently if that had been recognized as the cause of her original kidney disease,” Dr. Goldfarb said. “Now her kidney transplant is getting kidney stones and I’m working with her to prevent that.”
Under Dr. Goldfarb, the patient will have access to a new experimental drug, called nedosiran, currently in clinical trials. It is specifically for primary hyperoxaluria.
“The kidney doctor that made the diagnosis correctly and referred her to me isn’t a kidney stone specialist; he is a general nephrologist who has taken an interest in the topic of kidney stones, recognizing there is sometimes some nuance and specialty of issues related to this,” Dr. Goldfarb said.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Long COVID leads to greater health risks, research finds
That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”
The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.
“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”
Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.
“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”
People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”
The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.
“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”
Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.
“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”
People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
That is the finding of a new study from Washington University in St. Louis. The school distributed a press release about the study, which was published in the journal Nature Medicine.
“Some estimates show more than 90% of the U.S. population has been infected with COVID-19,” Ziyad Al-Aly, chief of research and development at Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System and clinical epidemiologist at Washington University, told the St. Louis Post–Dispatch. “Doctors need to realize that their patients could be at risk of these conditions, be it heart disease or lung problems or brain problems – they’re at risk.”
The researchers compared the health records for 138,000 patients who had been infected with those of 6 million who had not. They followed 80 health conditions associated with long COVID for 2 years. They used unnamed records from the VA.
“There was really nothing at all looking at what happens to people at two years after the infection,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “So we decided to take a look.”
Patients who hadn’t been hospitalized within 30 days of infection had a higher risk of death 6 months after recovery, and a higher risk of hospitalization within 18 months. They had higher risk of diabetes, fatigue, joint pain, and other problems compared with people who had not been infected.
“In the nonhospitalized group, risks remained elevated for several problems, for several organ systems,” Dr. Al-Aly said. “For the people who were hospitalized, the risk was ubiquitous across all organ systems. It really spans the gamut with respect to the organ systems that are affected.”
People who had been hospitalized had a 65% greater risk of illnesses after 2 years. Nonhospitalized patients had just a 35% greater risk.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Financial Insecurity Among US Adults With Psoriasis
To the Editor:
Approximately 3% of the US population, or 6.9 million adults, is affected by psoriasis.1 Psoriasis has a substantial impact on quality of life and is associated with increased health care expenses and medication costs. In 2013, it was reported that the estimated US annual cost—direct, indirect, intangible, and comorbidity costs—of psoriasis for adults was $112 billion.2 We investigated the prevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of adult psoriasis patients (aged ≥20 years) with financial insecurity utilizing the 2009–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.3
We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database to evaluate financial insecurity. Financial insecurity was evaluated by 2 outcome variables. The primary outcome variable was assessed by the question “Are you covered by health insurance or some other kind of health care plan (including health insurance obtained through employment or purchased directly as well as government programs like Medicare and Medicaid that provide medical care or help pay medical bills)?”3 Our secondary outcome variable was evaluated by a reported annual household income of less than $20,000. P values in Table 1 were calculated using Pearson χ2 tests. In Table 2, multivariate logistic regressions were performed using Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC) to analyze associations between outcome variables and sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, marital status, US citizenship status, and tobacco use. Subsequently, relationships with P<.05 were considered statistically significant.
Our analysis comprised 480 individuals with psoriasis; 40 individuals were excluded from our analysis because they did not report annual household income and health insurance status (Table 1). Among the 480 individuals with psoriasis, approximately 16% (weighted) reported a lack of health insurance, and approximately 17% (weighted) reported an annual household income of less than $20,000. Among those who reported an annual household income of less than $20,000, approximately 38% (weighted) of them reported that they did not have health insurance.
Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that elderly individuals (aged >60 years), college graduates, married individuals, and US citizens had decreased odds of lacking health insurance (Table 2). Additionally, those with a history of tobacco use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.02; 95% CI, 1.00-4.05) were associated with lacking health insurance. Non-Hispanic Black individuals (AOR 2.26; 95% CI, 1.09-4.71) and US citizens (AOR 5.01; 95% CI, 1.28-19.63) had a significant association with an annual household income of less than $20,000 (P<.05). Lastly, males, those with education beyond ninth grade, and married individuals had a significantly decreased odds of having an annual household income of less than $20,000 (P<.05)(Table 2).
Our findings indicate that certain sociodemographic groups of psoriasis patients have an increased risk for being financially insecure. It is important to evaluate the cost of treatment, number of necessary visits to the office, and cost of transportation, as these factors can serve as a major economic burden to patients being managed for psoriasis.4 Additionally, the cost of biologics has been increasing over time.5 Taking all of this into account when caring for psoriasis patients is crucial, as understanding the financial status of patients can assist with determining appropriate individualized treatment regimens.
- Liu J, Thatiparthi A, Martin A, et al. Prevalence of psoriasis among adults in the US 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:767-769. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.035
- Brezinski EA, Dhillon JS, Armstrong AW. Economic burden of psoriasis in the United States: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:651-658. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3593
- National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES questionnaires, datasets, and related documentation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed June 22, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.govnchs/nhanes/Default.aspx
- Maya-Rico AM, Londoño-García Á, Palacios-Barahona AU, et al. Out-of-pocket costs for patients with psoriasis in an outpatient dermatology referral service. An Bras Dermatol. 2021;96:295-300. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.09.004
- Cheng J, Feldman SR. The cost of biologics for psoriasis is increasing. Drugs Context. 2014;3:212266. doi:10.7573/dic.212266
To the Editor:
Approximately 3% of the US population, or 6.9 million adults, is affected by psoriasis.1 Psoriasis has a substantial impact on quality of life and is associated with increased health care expenses and medication costs. In 2013, it was reported that the estimated US annual cost—direct, indirect, intangible, and comorbidity costs—of psoriasis for adults was $112 billion.2 We investigated the prevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of adult psoriasis patients (aged ≥20 years) with financial insecurity utilizing the 2009–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.3
We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database to evaluate financial insecurity. Financial insecurity was evaluated by 2 outcome variables. The primary outcome variable was assessed by the question “Are you covered by health insurance or some other kind of health care plan (including health insurance obtained through employment or purchased directly as well as government programs like Medicare and Medicaid that provide medical care or help pay medical bills)?”3 Our secondary outcome variable was evaluated by a reported annual household income of less than $20,000. P values in Table 1 were calculated using Pearson χ2 tests. In Table 2, multivariate logistic regressions were performed using Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC) to analyze associations between outcome variables and sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, marital status, US citizenship status, and tobacco use. Subsequently, relationships with P<.05 were considered statistically significant.
Our analysis comprised 480 individuals with psoriasis; 40 individuals were excluded from our analysis because they did not report annual household income and health insurance status (Table 1). Among the 480 individuals with psoriasis, approximately 16% (weighted) reported a lack of health insurance, and approximately 17% (weighted) reported an annual household income of less than $20,000. Among those who reported an annual household income of less than $20,000, approximately 38% (weighted) of them reported that they did not have health insurance.
Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that elderly individuals (aged >60 years), college graduates, married individuals, and US citizens had decreased odds of lacking health insurance (Table 2). Additionally, those with a history of tobacco use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.02; 95% CI, 1.00-4.05) were associated with lacking health insurance. Non-Hispanic Black individuals (AOR 2.26; 95% CI, 1.09-4.71) and US citizens (AOR 5.01; 95% CI, 1.28-19.63) had a significant association with an annual household income of less than $20,000 (P<.05). Lastly, males, those with education beyond ninth grade, and married individuals had a significantly decreased odds of having an annual household income of less than $20,000 (P<.05)(Table 2).
Our findings indicate that certain sociodemographic groups of psoriasis patients have an increased risk for being financially insecure. It is important to evaluate the cost of treatment, number of necessary visits to the office, and cost of transportation, as these factors can serve as a major economic burden to patients being managed for psoriasis.4 Additionally, the cost of biologics has been increasing over time.5 Taking all of this into account when caring for psoriasis patients is crucial, as understanding the financial status of patients can assist with determining appropriate individualized treatment regimens.
To the Editor:
Approximately 3% of the US population, or 6.9 million adults, is affected by psoriasis.1 Psoriasis has a substantial impact on quality of life and is associated with increased health care expenses and medication costs. In 2013, it was reported that the estimated US annual cost—direct, indirect, intangible, and comorbidity costs—of psoriasis for adults was $112 billion.2 We investigated the prevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of adult psoriasis patients (aged ≥20 years) with financial insecurity utilizing the 2009–2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data.3
We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 2009-2014 NHANES database to evaluate financial insecurity. Financial insecurity was evaluated by 2 outcome variables. The primary outcome variable was assessed by the question “Are you covered by health insurance or some other kind of health care plan (including health insurance obtained through employment or purchased directly as well as government programs like Medicare and Medicaid that provide medical care or help pay medical bills)?”3 Our secondary outcome variable was evaluated by a reported annual household income of less than $20,000. P values in Table 1 were calculated using Pearson χ2 tests. In Table 2, multivariate logistic regressions were performed using Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC) to analyze associations between outcome variables and sociodemographic characteristics. Additionally, we controlled for age, race/ethnicity, sex, education, marital status, US citizenship status, and tobacco use. Subsequently, relationships with P<.05 were considered statistically significant.
Our analysis comprised 480 individuals with psoriasis; 40 individuals were excluded from our analysis because they did not report annual household income and health insurance status (Table 1). Among the 480 individuals with psoriasis, approximately 16% (weighted) reported a lack of health insurance, and approximately 17% (weighted) reported an annual household income of less than $20,000. Among those who reported an annual household income of less than $20,000, approximately 38% (weighted) of them reported that they did not have health insurance.
Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that elderly individuals (aged >60 years), college graduates, married individuals, and US citizens had decreased odds of lacking health insurance (Table 2). Additionally, those with a history of tobacco use (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 2.02; 95% CI, 1.00-4.05) were associated with lacking health insurance. Non-Hispanic Black individuals (AOR 2.26; 95% CI, 1.09-4.71) and US citizens (AOR 5.01; 95% CI, 1.28-19.63) had a significant association with an annual household income of less than $20,000 (P<.05). Lastly, males, those with education beyond ninth grade, and married individuals had a significantly decreased odds of having an annual household income of less than $20,000 (P<.05)(Table 2).
Our findings indicate that certain sociodemographic groups of psoriasis patients have an increased risk for being financially insecure. It is important to evaluate the cost of treatment, number of necessary visits to the office, and cost of transportation, as these factors can serve as a major economic burden to patients being managed for psoriasis.4 Additionally, the cost of biologics has been increasing over time.5 Taking all of this into account when caring for psoriasis patients is crucial, as understanding the financial status of patients can assist with determining appropriate individualized treatment regimens.
- Liu J, Thatiparthi A, Martin A, et al. Prevalence of psoriasis among adults in the US 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:767-769. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.035
- Brezinski EA, Dhillon JS, Armstrong AW. Economic burden of psoriasis in the United States: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:651-658. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3593
- National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES questionnaires, datasets, and related documentation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed June 22, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.govnchs/nhanes/Default.aspx
- Maya-Rico AM, Londoño-García Á, Palacios-Barahona AU, et al. Out-of-pocket costs for patients with psoriasis in an outpatient dermatology referral service. An Bras Dermatol. 2021;96:295-300. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.09.004
- Cheng J, Feldman SR. The cost of biologics for psoriasis is increasing. Drugs Context. 2014;3:212266. doi:10.7573/dic.212266
- Liu J, Thatiparthi A, Martin A, et al. Prevalence of psoriasis among adults in the US 2009-2010 and 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:767-769. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2020.10.035
- Brezinski EA, Dhillon JS, Armstrong AW. Economic burden of psoriasis in the United States: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151:651-658. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.3593
- National Center for Health Statistics. NHANES questionnaires, datasets, and related documentation. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Accessed June 22, 2023. https://wwwn.cdc.govnchs/nhanes/Default.aspx
- Maya-Rico AM, Londoño-García Á, Palacios-Barahona AU, et al. Out-of-pocket costs for patients with psoriasis in an outpatient dermatology referral service. An Bras Dermatol. 2021;96:295-300. doi:10.1016/j.abd.2020.09.004
- Cheng J, Feldman SR. The cost of biologics for psoriasis is increasing. Drugs Context. 2014;3:212266. doi:10.7573/dic.212266
Practice Points
- The economic burden on patients with psoriasis has been rising over time, as the disease impacts many aspects of patients’ lives.
- Various sociodemographic groups among patients with psoriasis are financially insecure. Knowing which groups are at higher risk for poor outcomes due to financial insecurity can assist with appropriate treatment regimens.
Risky drinking common in cancer survivors
An analysis of more than 15,000 adults with a cancer diagnosis revealed that nearly 80% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 13% consumed a moderate amount of alcohol in a typical day, while close to 40% engaged in hazardous drinking.
The numbers are “staggering,” Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. “Most concerning is that those on cancer treatment are engaged in a similar level of risky drinking.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Drinking alcohol can increase a person’s risk for a variety of cancers, including oral and pharyngeal cancer as well as esophageal, colorectal, liver, and female breast cancers.
Consuming alcohol is also associated with numerous risks among people diagnosed with cancer. In the short term, alcohol consumption can worsen postsurgical outcomes as well as impair cognition and amplify cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the long term, drinking alcohol can elevate a person’s risk of recurrence, secondary tumors, and mortality.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently issued a statement reinforcing the need to prioritize alcohol consumption as a key modifiable behavioral factor in the cancer control research agenda.
The current American Cancer Society guidelines indicate that it’s best to avoid or, at least, minimize alcohol consumption. Men should limit their intake to no more than two drinks per day and women should have no more than one drink per day.
Despite this data and guidelines, alcohol drinking patterns among cancer survivors in the United States remain poorly understood.
To explore further, the researchers identified 15,199 adult cancer survivors enrolled in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.
Overall, 78% of the cohort – more than 11,800 individuals – were current drinkers. In a typical day, 24% engaged in binge drinking – consuming six or more drinks on a single occasion – and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption, the researchers classified hazardous drinking as scores of 4 or higher in men and 3 or higher in women.
Drinking patterns looked similar in the subset of 1,839 patients undergoing cancer treatment. In this group, 76% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 12% exceeded moderate drinking levels, 23% reported binge drinking, and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. In this group, men, Hispanics, people diagnosed with cancer before age 18, and smokers were more likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors.
“We know that many people who are diagnosed with cancer continue to drink alcohol, but this study provides much more detailed information about that,” said Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, senior scientific director for cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.
Given the degree of drinking identified in this population, Dr. Cao highlighted the importance of talking to patients about alcohol.
“Our findings highlight an opportunity for enhanced support and intervention concerning risky drinking behaviors” in oncology, Dr. Cao said. “Given the societal norms surrounding alcohol and the general lack of awareness of alcohol’s short- and long-term impact on cancer outcomes, gently educating patients/survivors about potential risks while understanding the cultural and societal contexts of drinking can make a difference.”
Dr. Islami agreed that oncologists should talk to their patients about alcohol, “especially those going through active treatment because alcohol may affect the treatment or may be associated with more complications of the treatment.”
“Many people now know that smoking causes cancer, but unfortunately, many people do not know about the association of alcohol with cancer,” he said.
Outside of an awareness gap, there are numerous risk factors for substance abuse among cancer survivors, Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the cancer survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, explained.
Alcohol can help some cancer survivors dull feelings of isolation, fear, stress, and poor pain management that may accompany their diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Meyers, who was not involved in the research. That is why “it is important for patients to be honest with their providers and for providers to ask about substance use in a nonjudgmental way.”
In these conversations, oncologists should educate patients about the safety risks associated with alcohol intake during or after treatment and that there is no established “safe” amount of alcohol. Incorporating a mental health screening and questions about a family history of substance abuse can also help identify patients “most at risk so providers can be proactive,” she said.
The study was supported by a grant from the NIH. Dr. Cao, Dr. Islami, and Dr. Meyers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An analysis of more than 15,000 adults with a cancer diagnosis revealed that nearly 80% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 13% consumed a moderate amount of alcohol in a typical day, while close to 40% engaged in hazardous drinking.
The numbers are “staggering,” Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. “Most concerning is that those on cancer treatment are engaged in a similar level of risky drinking.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Drinking alcohol can increase a person’s risk for a variety of cancers, including oral and pharyngeal cancer as well as esophageal, colorectal, liver, and female breast cancers.
Consuming alcohol is also associated with numerous risks among people diagnosed with cancer. In the short term, alcohol consumption can worsen postsurgical outcomes as well as impair cognition and amplify cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the long term, drinking alcohol can elevate a person’s risk of recurrence, secondary tumors, and mortality.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently issued a statement reinforcing the need to prioritize alcohol consumption as a key modifiable behavioral factor in the cancer control research agenda.
The current American Cancer Society guidelines indicate that it’s best to avoid or, at least, minimize alcohol consumption. Men should limit their intake to no more than two drinks per day and women should have no more than one drink per day.
Despite this data and guidelines, alcohol drinking patterns among cancer survivors in the United States remain poorly understood.
To explore further, the researchers identified 15,199 adult cancer survivors enrolled in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.
Overall, 78% of the cohort – more than 11,800 individuals – were current drinkers. In a typical day, 24% engaged in binge drinking – consuming six or more drinks on a single occasion – and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption, the researchers classified hazardous drinking as scores of 4 or higher in men and 3 or higher in women.
Drinking patterns looked similar in the subset of 1,839 patients undergoing cancer treatment. In this group, 76% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 12% exceeded moderate drinking levels, 23% reported binge drinking, and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. In this group, men, Hispanics, people diagnosed with cancer before age 18, and smokers were more likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors.
“We know that many people who are diagnosed with cancer continue to drink alcohol, but this study provides much more detailed information about that,” said Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, senior scientific director for cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.
Given the degree of drinking identified in this population, Dr. Cao highlighted the importance of talking to patients about alcohol.
“Our findings highlight an opportunity for enhanced support and intervention concerning risky drinking behaviors” in oncology, Dr. Cao said. “Given the societal norms surrounding alcohol and the general lack of awareness of alcohol’s short- and long-term impact on cancer outcomes, gently educating patients/survivors about potential risks while understanding the cultural and societal contexts of drinking can make a difference.”
Dr. Islami agreed that oncologists should talk to their patients about alcohol, “especially those going through active treatment because alcohol may affect the treatment or may be associated with more complications of the treatment.”
“Many people now know that smoking causes cancer, but unfortunately, many people do not know about the association of alcohol with cancer,” he said.
Outside of an awareness gap, there are numerous risk factors for substance abuse among cancer survivors, Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the cancer survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, explained.
Alcohol can help some cancer survivors dull feelings of isolation, fear, stress, and poor pain management that may accompany their diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Meyers, who was not involved in the research. That is why “it is important for patients to be honest with their providers and for providers to ask about substance use in a nonjudgmental way.”
In these conversations, oncologists should educate patients about the safety risks associated with alcohol intake during or after treatment and that there is no established “safe” amount of alcohol. Incorporating a mental health screening and questions about a family history of substance abuse can also help identify patients “most at risk so providers can be proactive,” she said.
The study was supported by a grant from the NIH. Dr. Cao, Dr. Islami, and Dr. Meyers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
An analysis of more than 15,000 adults with a cancer diagnosis revealed that nearly 80% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 13% consumed a moderate amount of alcohol in a typical day, while close to 40% engaged in hazardous drinking.
The numbers are “staggering,” Yin Cao, ScD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis, said in an interview. “Most concerning is that those on cancer treatment are engaged in a similar level of risky drinking.”
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Drinking alcohol can increase a person’s risk for a variety of cancers, including oral and pharyngeal cancer as well as esophageal, colorectal, liver, and female breast cancers.
Consuming alcohol is also associated with numerous risks among people diagnosed with cancer. In the short term, alcohol consumption can worsen postsurgical outcomes as well as impair cognition and amplify cardiotoxicity in patients undergoing chemotherapy. In the long term, drinking alcohol can elevate a person’s risk of recurrence, secondary tumors, and mortality.
The American Society of Clinical Oncology recently issued a statement reinforcing the need to prioritize alcohol consumption as a key modifiable behavioral factor in the cancer control research agenda.
The current American Cancer Society guidelines indicate that it’s best to avoid or, at least, minimize alcohol consumption. Men should limit their intake to no more than two drinks per day and women should have no more than one drink per day.
Despite this data and guidelines, alcohol drinking patterns among cancer survivors in the United States remain poorly understood.
To explore further, the researchers identified 15,199 adult cancer survivors enrolled in the National Institutes of Health’s All of Us Research Program.
Overall, 78% of the cohort – more than 11,800 individuals – were current drinkers. In a typical day, 24% engaged in binge drinking – consuming six or more drinks on a single occasion – and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. Using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test–Consumption, the researchers classified hazardous drinking as scores of 4 or higher in men and 3 or higher in women.
Drinking patterns looked similar in the subset of 1,839 patients undergoing cancer treatment. In this group, 76% were current drinkers. Among current drinkers, 12% exceeded moderate drinking levels, 23% reported binge drinking, and 38% engaged in hazardous drinking. In this group, men, Hispanics, people diagnosed with cancer before age 18, and smokers were more likely to engage in risky drinking behaviors.
“We know that many people who are diagnosed with cancer continue to drink alcohol, but this study provides much more detailed information about that,” said Farhad Islami, MD, PhD, senior scientific director for cancer disparity research at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the study.
Given the degree of drinking identified in this population, Dr. Cao highlighted the importance of talking to patients about alcohol.
“Our findings highlight an opportunity for enhanced support and intervention concerning risky drinking behaviors” in oncology, Dr. Cao said. “Given the societal norms surrounding alcohol and the general lack of awareness of alcohol’s short- and long-term impact on cancer outcomes, gently educating patients/survivors about potential risks while understanding the cultural and societal contexts of drinking can make a difference.”
Dr. Islami agreed that oncologists should talk to their patients about alcohol, “especially those going through active treatment because alcohol may affect the treatment or may be associated with more complications of the treatment.”
“Many people now know that smoking causes cancer, but unfortunately, many people do not know about the association of alcohol with cancer,” he said.
Outside of an awareness gap, there are numerous risk factors for substance abuse among cancer survivors, Marleen Meyers, MD, director of the cancer survivorship program at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York, explained.
Alcohol can help some cancer survivors dull feelings of isolation, fear, stress, and poor pain management that may accompany their diagnosis and treatment, said Dr. Meyers, who was not involved in the research. That is why “it is important for patients to be honest with their providers and for providers to ask about substance use in a nonjudgmental way.”
In these conversations, oncologists should educate patients about the safety risks associated with alcohol intake during or after treatment and that there is no established “safe” amount of alcohol. Incorporating a mental health screening and questions about a family history of substance abuse can also help identify patients “most at risk so providers can be proactive,” she said.
The study was supported by a grant from the NIH. Dr. Cao, Dr. Islami, and Dr. Meyers report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Consider housing insecurity, other issues when managing challenging skin diseases in children, expert says
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
AT SPD 2023