THE COMPARISON

A Melasma on the face of a Hispanic woman, with hyperpigmentation on the cheeks, bridge of the nose, and upper lip.

B Melasma on the face of a Malaysian woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and bridge of the nose.

C Melasma on the face of an African woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and lateral to the eyes.

Melasma (also known as chloasma) is a pigmentary disorder that causes chronic symmetric hyperpigmentation on the face. In patients with darker skin tones, centrofacial areas are affected.¹ Increased deposition of melanin distributed in the dermis leads to dermal melanosis. Newer research suggests that mast cell and keratinocyte interactions, altered gene regulation, neovascularization, and disruptions in the basement membrane cause melasma.² Patients present with epidermal or dermal melasma or a combination of both (mixed melasma).³ Wood lamp examination is helpful to distinguish between epidermal and dermal melasma. Dermal and mixed melasma can be difficult to treat and require multimodal treatments.

Epidemiology

Melasma commonly affects women ages 20 to 40 years,⁴ with a female to male ratio of 9:1.⁵ Potential triggers of melasma include hormones (eg, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) and exposure to UV light.^2,5 Melasma occurs in patients of all racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, the prevalence is higher in patients with darker skin tones.²

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

Melasma commonly manifests as symmetrically distributed, reticulated (lacy), dark brown to grayish brown patches on the cheeks, nose, forehead, upper lip, and chin in patients with darker skin tones.⁵ The pigment can be tan brown in patients with lighter skin tones. Given that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and other pigmentary disorders can cause a similar appearance, a biopsy sometimes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, but melasma is diagnosed via physical examination in most patients. Melasma can be misdiagnosed as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, solar lentigines, exogenous ochronosis, and Hori nevus.⁵

Worth noting

Prevention

• Daily sunscreen use is critical to prevent worsening of melasma. Sunscreen may not appear cosmetically elegant on darker skin tones, which creates a barrier to its use.⁶ Protection from both sunlight and visible light is necessary. Visible light, including light from light bulbs and device-emitted blue light, can worsen melasma. Iron oxides in tinted sunscreen offer protection from visible light.
• Physicians can recommend sunscreens that are more transparent or tinted for a better cosmetic match.
• Severe flares of melasma can occur with sun exposure despite good control with medications and laser modalities.

Treatment

• First-line therapies include topical hydroquinone 2% to 4%, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). A popular topical compound is a steroid, tretinoin, and hydroquinone.^1,5 Over-the-counter hydroquinone has been removed from the market due to safety concerns; however, it is still first line in the treatment of melasma. If hydroquinone is prescribed, treatment intervals of 6 to 8 weeks followed by a hydroquinone-free period is advised to reduce the risk for exogenous ochronosis (a paradoxical darkening of the skin).
• Chemical peels are second-line treatments that are effective for melasma. Improvement in epidermal melasma has been shown with chemical peels containing Jessner solution, salicylic acid, or a-hydroxy acid. Patients with dermal and mixed melasma have seen improvement with trichloroacetic acid 25% to 35% with or without Jessner solution.¹
• Cysteamine is a topical treatment created from the degradation of coenzyme A. It disrupts the synthesis of melanin to create a more even skin tone. It may be recommended in combination with sunscreen as a first-line or secondline topical therapy.
• Oral tranexamic acid is a third-line treatment that is an analogue for lysine. It decreases prostaglandin production, which leads to a lower number of tyrosine precursors available for the creation of melanin. Tranexamic acid has been shown to lighten the appearance of melasma.⁷ The most common and dangerous adverse effect of tranexamic acid is blood clots, and this treatment should be avoided in those on combination (estrogen and progestin) contraceptives or those with a personal or family history of clotting disorders.⁸
• Fourth-line treatments such as lasers (performed by dermatologists) can destroy the deposition of pigment while avoiding destruction of epidermal keratinocytes.^1,9,10 They also are commonly employed in refractive melasma. The most common lasers are nonablative fractionated lasers and low-fluence Q-switched lasers. The Q-switched Nd:YAG and picosecond lasers are safe for treating melasma in darker skin tones. Ablative fractionated lasers such as CO₂ lasers and erbium:YAG lasers also have been used in the treatment of melasma; however, there is still an extremely high risk for postinflammatory dyspigmentation 1 to 2 months after the procedure.¹⁰
• Although there is still a risk for rebound hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, use of topical hydroquinone pretreatment may help decrease postoperative hyperpigmentation.^1,5 Patients who are treated with the incorrect laser or overtreated may develop postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, rebound hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.

Health disparity highlight

Melasma, most common in patients with skin of color, is a common chronic pigmentation disorder that is cosmetically and psychologically burdensome,¹¹ leading to decreased quality of life, emotional functioning, and self-esteem.¹² Clinicians should counsel patients and work closely on long-term management. The treatment options for melasma are considered cosmetic and may be cost prohibitive for many to cover out of pocket. Topical treatments have been found to be the most cost-effective.¹³ Some compounding pharmacies and drug discount programs provide more affordable treatment pricing; however, some patients are still unable to afford these options.

THE COMPARISON

A Melasma on the face of a Hispanic woman, with hyperpigmentation on the cheeks, bridge of the nose, and upper lip.

B Melasma on the face of a Malaysian woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and bridge of the nose.

C Melasma on the face of an African woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and lateral to the eyes.

Melasma (also known as chloasma) is a pigmentary disorder that causes chronic symmetric hyperpigmentation on the face. In patients with darker skin tones, centrofacial areas are affected.¹ Increased deposition of melanin distributed in the dermis leads to dermal melanosis. Newer research suggests that mast cell and keratinocyte interactions, altered gene regulation, neovascularization, and disruptions in the basement membrane cause melasma.² Patients present with epidermal or dermal melasma or a combination of both (mixed melasma).³ Wood lamp examination is helpful to distinguish between epidermal and dermal melasma. Dermal and mixed melasma can be difficult to treat and require multimodal treatments.

Epidemiology

Melasma commonly affects women ages 20 to 40 years,⁴ with a female to male ratio of 9:1.⁵ Potential triggers of melasma include hormones (eg, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) and exposure to UV light.^2,5 Melasma occurs in patients of all racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, the prevalence is higher in patients with darker skin tones.²

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

Melasma commonly manifests as symmetrically distributed, reticulated (lacy), dark brown to grayish brown patches on the cheeks, nose, forehead, upper lip, and chin in patients with darker skin tones.⁵ The pigment can be tan brown in patients with lighter skin tones. Given that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and other pigmentary disorders can cause a similar appearance, a biopsy sometimes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, but melasma is diagnosed via physical examination in most patients. Melasma can be misdiagnosed as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, solar lentigines, exogenous ochronosis, and Hori nevus.⁵

Worth noting

Prevention

• Daily sunscreen use is critical to prevent worsening of melasma. Sunscreen may not appear cosmetically elegant on darker skin tones, which creates a barrier to its use.⁶ Protection from both sunlight and visible light is necessary. Visible light, including light from light bulbs and device-emitted blue light, can worsen melasma. Iron oxides in tinted sunscreen offer protection from visible light.
• Physicians can recommend sunscreens that are more transparent or tinted for a better cosmetic match.
• Severe flares of melasma can occur with sun exposure despite good control with medications and laser modalities.

Treatment

• First-line therapies include topical hydroquinone 2% to 4%, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). A popular topical compound is a steroid, tretinoin, and hydroquinone.^1,5 Over-the-counter hydroquinone has been removed from the market due to safety concerns; however, it is still first line in the treatment of melasma. If hydroquinone is prescribed, treatment intervals of 6 to 8 weeks followed by a hydroquinone-free period is advised to reduce the risk for exogenous ochronosis (a paradoxical darkening of the skin).
• Chemical peels are second-line treatments that are effective for melasma. Improvement in epidermal melasma has been shown with chemical peels containing Jessner solution, salicylic acid, or a-hydroxy acid. Patients with dermal and mixed melasma have seen improvement with trichloroacetic acid 25% to 35% with or without Jessner solution.¹
• Cysteamine is a topical treatment created from the degradation of coenzyme A. It disrupts the synthesis of melanin to create a more even skin tone. It may be recommended in combination with sunscreen as a first-line or secondline topical therapy.
• Oral tranexamic acid is a third-line treatment that is an analogue for lysine. It decreases prostaglandin production, which leads to a lower number of tyrosine precursors available for the creation of melanin. Tranexamic acid has been shown to lighten the appearance of melasma.⁷ The most common and dangerous adverse effect of tranexamic acid is blood clots, and this treatment should be avoided in those on combination (estrogen and progestin) contraceptives or those with a personal or family history of clotting disorders.⁸
• Fourth-line treatments such as lasers (performed by dermatologists) can destroy the deposition of pigment while avoiding destruction of epidermal keratinocytes.^1,9,10 They also are commonly employed in refractive melasma. The most common lasers are nonablative fractionated lasers and low-fluence Q-switched lasers. The Q-switched Nd:YAG and picosecond lasers are safe for treating melasma in darker skin tones. Ablative fractionated lasers such as CO₂ lasers and erbium:YAG lasers also have been used in the treatment of melasma; however, there is still an extremely high risk for postinflammatory dyspigmentation 1 to 2 months after the procedure.¹⁰
• Although there is still a risk for rebound hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, use of topical hydroquinone pretreatment may help decrease postoperative hyperpigmentation.^1,5 Patients who are treated with the incorrect laser or overtreated may develop postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, rebound hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.

Health disparity highlight

Melasma, most common in patients with skin of color, is a common chronic pigmentation disorder that is cosmetically and psychologically burdensome,¹¹ leading to decreased quality of life, emotional functioning, and self-esteem.¹² Clinicians should counsel patients and work closely on long-term management. The treatment options for melasma are considered cosmetic and may be cost prohibitive for many to cover out of pocket. Topical treatments have been found to be the most cost-effective.¹³ Some compounding pharmacies and drug discount programs provide more affordable treatment pricing; however, some patients are still unable to afford these options.

THE COMPARISON

A Melasma on the face of a Hispanic woman, with hyperpigmentation on the cheeks, bridge of the nose, and upper lip.

B Melasma on the face of a Malaysian woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and bridge of the nose.

C Melasma on the face of an African woman, with hyperpigmentation on the upper cheeks and lateral to the eyes.

Melasma (also known as chloasma) is a pigmentary disorder that causes chronic symmetric hyperpigmentation on the face. In patients with darker skin tones, centrofacial areas are affected.¹ Increased deposition of melanin distributed in the dermis leads to dermal melanosis. Newer research suggests that mast cell and keratinocyte interactions, altered gene regulation, neovascularization, and disruptions in the basement membrane cause melasma.² Patients present with epidermal or dermal melasma or a combination of both (mixed melasma).³ Wood lamp examination is helpful to distinguish between epidermal and dermal melasma. Dermal and mixed melasma can be difficult to treat and require multimodal treatments.

Epidemiology

Melasma commonly affects women ages 20 to 40 years,⁴ with a female to male ratio of 9:1.⁵ Potential triggers of melasma include hormones (eg, pregnancy, oral contraceptives, hormone replacement therapy) and exposure to UV light.^2,5 Melasma occurs in patients of all racial and ethnic backgrounds; however, the prevalence is higher in patients with darker skin tones.²

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

Melasma commonly manifests as symmetrically distributed, reticulated (lacy), dark brown to grayish brown patches on the cheeks, nose, forehead, upper lip, and chin in patients with darker skin tones.⁵ The pigment can be tan brown in patients with lighter skin tones. Given that postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and other pigmentary disorders can cause a similar appearance, a biopsy sometimes is needed to confirm the diagnosis, but melasma is diagnosed via physical examination in most patients. Melasma can be misdiagnosed as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, solar lentigines, exogenous ochronosis, and Hori nevus.⁵

Worth noting

Prevention

• Daily sunscreen use is critical to prevent worsening of melasma. Sunscreen may not appear cosmetically elegant on darker skin tones, which creates a barrier to its use.⁶ Protection from both sunlight and visible light is necessary. Visible light, including light from light bulbs and device-emitted blue light, can worsen melasma. Iron oxides in tinted sunscreen offer protection from visible light.
• Physicians can recommend sunscreens that are more transparent or tinted for a better cosmetic match.
• Severe flares of melasma can occur with sun exposure despite good control with medications and laser modalities.

Treatment

• First-line therapies include topical hydroquinone 2% to 4%, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). A popular topical compound is a steroid, tretinoin, and hydroquinone.^1,5 Over-the-counter hydroquinone has been removed from the market due to safety concerns; however, it is still first line in the treatment of melasma. If hydroquinone is prescribed, treatment intervals of 6 to 8 weeks followed by a hydroquinone-free period is advised to reduce the risk for exogenous ochronosis (a paradoxical darkening of the skin).
• Chemical peels are second-line treatments that are effective for melasma. Improvement in epidermal melasma has been shown with chemical peels containing Jessner solution, salicylic acid, or a-hydroxy acid. Patients with dermal and mixed melasma have seen improvement with trichloroacetic acid 25% to 35% with or without Jessner solution.¹
• Cysteamine is a topical treatment created from the degradation of coenzyme A. It disrupts the synthesis of melanin to create a more even skin tone. It may be recommended in combination with sunscreen as a first-line or secondline topical therapy.
• Oral tranexamic acid is a third-line treatment that is an analogue for lysine. It decreases prostaglandin production, which leads to a lower number of tyrosine precursors available for the creation of melanin. Tranexamic acid has been shown to lighten the appearance of melasma.⁷ The most common and dangerous adverse effect of tranexamic acid is blood clots, and this treatment should be avoided in those on combination (estrogen and progestin) contraceptives or those with a personal or family history of clotting disorders.⁸
• Fourth-line treatments such as lasers (performed by dermatologists) can destroy the deposition of pigment while avoiding destruction of epidermal keratinocytes.^1,9,10 They also are commonly employed in refractive melasma. The most common lasers are nonablative fractionated lasers and low-fluence Q-switched lasers. The Q-switched Nd:YAG and picosecond lasers are safe for treating melasma in darker skin tones. Ablative fractionated lasers such as CO₂ lasers and erbium:YAG lasers also have been used in the treatment of melasma; however, there is still an extremely high risk for postinflammatory dyspigmentation 1 to 2 months after the procedure.¹⁰
• Although there is still a risk for rebound hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, use of topical hydroquinone pretreatment may help decrease postoperative hyperpigmentation.^1,5 Patients who are treated with the incorrect laser or overtreated may develop postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, rebound hyperpigmentation, or hypopigmentation.

Health disparity highlight

Melasma, most common in patients with skin of color, is a common chronic pigmentation disorder that is cosmetically and psychologically burdensome,¹¹ leading to decreased quality of life, emotional functioning, and self-esteem.¹² Clinicians should counsel patients and work closely on long-term management. The treatment options for melasma are considered cosmetic and may be cost prohibitive for many to cover out of pocket. Topical treatments have been found to be the most cost-effective.¹³ Some compounding pharmacies and drug discount programs provide more affordable treatment pricing; however, some patients are still unable to afford these options.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

Radiotherapy followed by immunotherapy within 1-12 months – but not sooner or later – may boost progression-free survival in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer, according to a new study. However, patients still fared poorly on average since overall survival remained low and didn’t change significantly.

While not conclusive, the new research – released at European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 – offers early insight into the best timing for the experimental combination treatment, study coauthor Yanyan Lou, MD, PhD, an oncologist at Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., said in an interview.

The wide availability of radiation therapy could also allow the therapy to be administered even in regions with poor access to sophisticated medical care, she said. “Radiation is a very feasible approach that pretty much everybody in your community can get.”

Radiotherapy is typically not added to immunotherapy in patients with non–small cell lung cancer. But “there has been recent interest in the combination: Would tumor necrosis from radiation enhance the immunogenicity of the tumor and thus enhance the effect of immunotherapy?” oncologist Toby Campbell, MD, of University of Wisconsin–Madison, said in an interview.

Research has indeed suggested that the treatments may have a synergistic effect, he said, and it’s clear that “strategies to try and increase immunogenicity are an important area to investigate.”

But he cautioned that “we have a long way to go to understanding how immunogenicity works and how the gut microbiome, tumor, immunotherapy, and the immune system interact with one another.”

For the new study, researchers retrospectively analyzed cases of 225 patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (male = 56%, median age = 68, 79% adenocarcinoma) who were treated with immunotherapy at Mayo Clinic–Jacksonville from 2011 to 2022. The study excluded those who received targeted therapy or prior concurrent chemoradiotherapy and durvalumab.

The most common metastases were bone and central nervous system types (41% and 25%, respectively). Fifty-six percent of patients received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy. Another 27% never received radiotherapy, and 17% received it after immunotherapy was discontinued.

Common types of immunotherapy included pembrolizumab (78%), nivolumab (14%), and atezolizumab (12%).

Overall, the researchers found no statistically significant differences in various outcomes between patients who received radiotherapy before or during immunotherapy compared with those who didn’t get radiotherapy (progression-free survival: 5.9 vs. 5.5 months, P = .66; overall survival: 16.9 vs. 13.1 months, P = .84; immune-related adverse events: 26.2% vs. 34.4%, P = .24).

However, the researchers found that progression-free survival was significantly higher in one group: Those who received radiotherapy 1-12 months before immunotherapy vs. those who received it less than 1 month before (12.6 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.83, P = .005,) and those who never received radiotherapy (12.6 vs. 5.5 months, HR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.36-0.89, P = .0197).

There wasn’t a statistically significant difference in overall survival.

The small number of subjects and the variation in treatment protocols may have prevented the study from revealing a survival benefit, Dr. Lou said.

As for adverse effects, she said a preliminary analysis didn’t turn up any.

It’s not clear why a 1- to 12-month gap between radiotherapy and immunotherapy may be most effective, she said. Moving forward, “we need validate this in a large cohort,” she noted.

In regard to cost, immunotherapy is notoriously expensive. Pembrolizumab, for example, has a list price of $10,897 per 200-mg dose given every 3 weeks, and patients may take the drug for a year or two.

Dr. Campbell, who didn’t take part in the new study, said it suggests that research into radiation-immunotherapy combination treatment may be worthwhile.

No funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Campbell reported no disclosures.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

A new report offers more insight into the connection between cumulative smoking levels and lung cancer.

People who have smoked an average of 1 pack a day for 20-39 years tripled their tumor risk versus less-heavy smokers and 30-fold versus those who never smoked. For those who smoked the equivalent of 1 pack for 40-60 years, or 2 packs for 20-30 years, the risk levels grew by fourfold and 40-fold, respectively. For those who’ve smoked even more, the likelihood of developing lung cancer is high, but the risk remains stable and doesn’t grow more over time, according to the analysis.

The report, released at the annual European Lung Cancer Congress 2023 meeting, and an earlier related study “underscore the importance of smoking abstinence and early smoking cessation,” said study lead author J. Anthony Nations, MD, MBA, in an interview.

The earlier study, published in JAMA Oncology, relied on a “pack-year” analysis to evaluate the risk of lung cancer in smokers. A pack-year refers to the cigarette use of a person who smoked a pack a day for 1 year. It’s the equivalent of smoking half a pack for 2 years or 2 packs for 6 months.

By this measure, a smoker with 20 pack-years of cigarette use smoked the equivalent of a pack a day for 20 years or 2 packs a day for 10 years. U.S. guidelines recommend annual low-dose CT lung cancer screening in adults who are aged 50-80, have more than 20 pack-years of tobacco exposure, and either currently smoke or quit within the last 15 years.

The JAMA Oncology report “showed that, compared with never-smokers, current heavy and nonheavy smokers had [a] 40 and 10 times higher risk of lung cancer, respectively,” said Dr. Nations, who is also a pulmonologist with Washington D.C. Veterans Affairs Medical Center. “A smoking history of greater than 20 pack-years was considered heavy, but current heavy smokers had a median pack-year smoking history of 50 pack-years. This observation prompted us to want to look more closely at pack-year smoking history.”

For the new analysis, researchers tracked 2,505 older adults (mean age, 73 ± 5.7 years; 69% women, 17% African American) in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Of those, 532 were current smokers (18% less than 20 pack-years, 30% 20-39 pack-years, 34% 40–59 pack-years, and 18% greater than 60 pack-years).

Lung cancer occurred in 0.5% of those who never smoked, 5% of those who smoked less than 20 pack-years, 14.6% of those who smoked 20-39 pack-years, 17.7% of those who smoked 40-59 pack-years, and 16.0% for those who smoked more than 60 pack-years. In an analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and competing risk of death, researchers found that those who smoked less than 20 pack-years were 9.73 times more likely to develop lung cancer than those who never smoked (hazard ratio, 9.73). The HRs of lung cancer versus never-smokers for the other groups were 30.33 (20-39 pack-years), 42.97 (40-59 pack-years), and 46.02 (greater than 60 pack-years.).

“While it was not surprising that the risk of lung cancer in current heavy smokers would be proportionately greater in smokers with higher pack-year smoking history, we were surprised to see that the risk almost plateaued in the heaviest current smokers,” Dr. Nations said.

As for the clinical message from the findings, Dr. Nations said they reveal that quitting smoking makes a difference in lung cancer risk, even after many years of heavy smoking. “Smokers who quit after a 30–pack-year smoking history will not incur the higher risk of those with a 40– or 50–pack-year smoking history.”

The previous JAMA Oncology paper also showed that quitting pays dividends by reducing lung cancer risk. Subjects with at least 20 pack-years of smoking who quit less than 15 years ago nearly halved their excess risk of lung cancer, compared with similar current smokers who didn’t quit.

In an interview, cancer researcher Robert J. Volk, PhD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, praised the new analysis but noted that it has limitations: “The sample is fairly small – 532 adults who currently smoke – and the subgroups based on pack-years are even smaller.”

No study funding is reported. The study authors and Dr. Volk reported no disclosures.

*This article was updated on 4/17/23.

THE CASE

An 85-year-old woman with hypertension presented to our hospital with a 10-month history of insomnia along with abdominal discomfort. Several months prior, the patient had undergone an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the results of which were normal, and had received diagnoses of psychogenic insomnia and abdominal pain from her previous physician. At that time, she was prescribed eszopiclone, but her insomnia did not improve. She did not complain of any other gastrointestinal symptoms.

On examination at our hospital, the patient’s abdomen was soft and nontender. Laboratory results were unremarkable. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to exclude obvious malignancy and showed no remarkable findings.

Additional history taking and physical examination were performed. The patient reported that she could sleep for only about 2 hours per night due to persistent severe discomfort around the umbilicus, which she described as “itching.” The discomfort occurred along with an urge to move while she laid in a state of relaxed wakefulness. This discomfort occurred no matter what position she laid in and improved if she walked or tapped around the umbilicus for a while. She denied any unusual or uncomfortable sensations in her lower extremities.

Her symptoms were absent during the daytime and not related to diet. Furthermore, she did not have any symptoms of anxiety and/or depression; a detailed neurologic examination, including cognitive assessment and extrapyramidal system, yielded unremarkable findings. Additional laboratory tests showed a mild iron deficiency (ferritin, 52.6 µ g/L; iron, 10.7 µ mol/L) without anemia.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Given the patient’s presentation and clinical history, the differential diagnosis included restless abdomen (which is a spectrum or a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome [RLS]) and its mimics, which include fibromyalgia and gastrointestinal tract diseases. We considered the characteristic symptoms of this case (ie, irresistible symptoms, lengthy duration of symptoms, and sleep problems) to better support the diagnosis of restless abdomen than its mimics.¹ In particular, abdominal discomfort that led to insomnia was characteristic of restless abdomen, helping to pinpoint the diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

RLS is a common sensorimotor disorder that is characterized by an unpleasant urge to move the legs.² RLS may manifest as an idiopathic condition, or it can be secondary to medical conditions such as iron deficiency and Parkinson disease.^3,4 Because the unpleasant symptom is exacerbated in the evenings, patients with RLS frequently complain of sleep disturbance.

Cases of RLS-like sensory disorders, with symptoms involving sites other than the lower extremities (eg, arms, mouth, trunk, and genitals) recently have been reported.^5-7 Among them is restless abdomen, a rare disorder that manifests with a restless abdominal sensation and worsens the quality of sleep and life.⁶

Continue to: Restless abdomen meets all...

Restless abdomen meets all other diagnostic criteria for RLS except for the affected anatomy.^6,8 In most cases of restless abdomen, the uncomfortable sensation involves the abdomen, as well as other parts of the body (eg, legs and arms). Cases in which the symptoms are confined to the abdomen are rare, with only 7 reported to date. ^6,8-10 All of these cases have involved patients older than 40 years. ^6,8-10

Treatment is straightforward, but consider iron supplementation, as well

Because RLS or its variants degrade the quality of life and sleep in patients,^3,4 appropriate therapy must be initiated early. Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—specifically, pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.^6,8-10

Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.

Previous clinical research has shown that patients with RLS have low levels of iron in the brain and may benefit from iron supplementation, even if they are not anemic.^3,4 Iron replacement is suggested for patients with RLS whose fasting serum ferritin level is ≤ 75 µg/L.⁴ It is not known to what extent iron deficiency is involved in the pathophysiology of restless abdomen, and further research is required to determine the optimal therapy for it.

Our patient was started on oral supplementation with sodium ferrous citrate (50 mg/d) based on an initial suspicion that iron deficiency was the cause of her restless abdomen. We also suggested that the patient undergo a fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, but she declined because of her advanced age.

After 2 months of iron supplementation, the patient’s serum ferritin levels improved (100 µg/L) and her insomnia and abdominal discomfort improved a bit. However, 3 months after starting on the iron supplementation, her symptoms flared again.

Continue to: We then prescribed...

We then prescribed pramipexole 0.25 mg/d. The patient’s symptoms subsequently resolved, and she no longer experienced insomnia. This favorable response to dopamine agonist therapy supported the diagnosis of restless abdomen. The patient continues to take the pramipexole to prevent a relapse.

THE TAKEAWAY

Insomnia is a common presenting complaint in primary care and sleeping pills may be prescribed without adequate investigation of the cause. However, some patients may have serious underlying diseases.¹¹

Although restless abdomen is a disorder that causes severe sleep disturbance and impairs the patient’s quality of sleep and life, it is not widely recognized by clinicians and may be misdiagnosed. When recognized, insomnia due to restless abdomen can be relieved by a simple therapy: oral dopamine agonists. Therefore, primary care physicians should consider restless abdomen as a potential cause of insomnia with abdominal symptoms.

CORRESPONDENCE
Hirohisa Fujikawa, MD, Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; [email protected]

THE CASE

An 85-year-old woman with hypertension presented to our hospital with a 10-month history of insomnia along with abdominal discomfort. Several months prior, the patient had undergone an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the results of which were normal, and had received diagnoses of psychogenic insomnia and abdominal pain from her previous physician. At that time, she was prescribed eszopiclone, but her insomnia did not improve. She did not complain of any other gastrointestinal symptoms.

On examination at our hospital, the patient’s abdomen was soft and nontender. Laboratory results were unremarkable. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to exclude obvious malignancy and showed no remarkable findings.

Additional history taking and physical examination were performed. The patient reported that she could sleep for only about 2 hours per night due to persistent severe discomfort around the umbilicus, which she described as “itching.” The discomfort occurred along with an urge to move while she laid in a state of relaxed wakefulness. This discomfort occurred no matter what position she laid in and improved if she walked or tapped around the umbilicus for a while. She denied any unusual or uncomfortable sensations in her lower extremities.

Her symptoms were absent during the daytime and not related to diet. Furthermore, she did not have any symptoms of anxiety and/or depression; a detailed neurologic examination, including cognitive assessment and extrapyramidal system, yielded unremarkable findings. Additional laboratory tests showed a mild iron deficiency (ferritin, 52.6 µ g/L; iron, 10.7 µ mol/L) without anemia.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Given the patient’s presentation and clinical history, the differential diagnosis included restless abdomen (which is a spectrum or a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome [RLS]) and its mimics, which include fibromyalgia and gastrointestinal tract diseases. We considered the characteristic symptoms of this case (ie, irresistible symptoms, lengthy duration of symptoms, and sleep problems) to better support the diagnosis of restless abdomen than its mimics.¹ In particular, abdominal discomfort that led to insomnia was characteristic of restless abdomen, helping to pinpoint the diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

RLS is a common sensorimotor disorder that is characterized by an unpleasant urge to move the legs.² RLS may manifest as an idiopathic condition, or it can be secondary to medical conditions such as iron deficiency and Parkinson disease.^3,4 Because the unpleasant symptom is exacerbated in the evenings, patients with RLS frequently complain of sleep disturbance.

Cases of RLS-like sensory disorders, with symptoms involving sites other than the lower extremities (eg, arms, mouth, trunk, and genitals) recently have been reported.^5-7 Among them is restless abdomen, a rare disorder that manifests with a restless abdominal sensation and worsens the quality of sleep and life.⁶

Continue to: Restless abdomen meets all...

Restless abdomen meets all other diagnostic criteria for RLS except for the affected anatomy.^6,8 In most cases of restless abdomen, the uncomfortable sensation involves the abdomen, as well as other parts of the body (eg, legs and arms). Cases in which the symptoms are confined to the abdomen are rare, with only 7 reported to date. ^6,8-10 All of these cases have involved patients older than 40 years. ^6,8-10

Treatment is straightforward, but consider iron supplementation, as well

Because RLS or its variants degrade the quality of life and sleep in patients,^3,4 appropriate therapy must be initiated early. Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—specifically, pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.^6,8-10

Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.

Previous clinical research has shown that patients with RLS have low levels of iron in the brain and may benefit from iron supplementation, even if they are not anemic.^3,4 Iron replacement is suggested for patients with RLS whose fasting serum ferritin level is ≤ 75 µg/L.⁴ It is not known to what extent iron deficiency is involved in the pathophysiology of restless abdomen, and further research is required to determine the optimal therapy for it.

Our patient was started on oral supplementation with sodium ferrous citrate (50 mg/d) based on an initial suspicion that iron deficiency was the cause of her restless abdomen. We also suggested that the patient undergo a fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, but she declined because of her advanced age.

After 2 months of iron supplementation, the patient’s serum ferritin levels improved (100 µg/L) and her insomnia and abdominal discomfort improved a bit. However, 3 months after starting on the iron supplementation, her symptoms flared again.

Continue to: We then prescribed...

We then prescribed pramipexole 0.25 mg/d. The patient’s symptoms subsequently resolved, and she no longer experienced insomnia. This favorable response to dopamine agonist therapy supported the diagnosis of restless abdomen. The patient continues to take the pramipexole to prevent a relapse.

THE TAKEAWAY

Insomnia is a common presenting complaint in primary care and sleeping pills may be prescribed without adequate investigation of the cause. However, some patients may have serious underlying diseases.¹¹

Although restless abdomen is a disorder that causes severe sleep disturbance and impairs the patient’s quality of sleep and life, it is not widely recognized by clinicians and may be misdiagnosed. When recognized, insomnia due to restless abdomen can be relieved by a simple therapy: oral dopamine agonists. Therefore, primary care physicians should consider restless abdomen as a potential cause of insomnia with abdominal symptoms.

CORRESPONDENCE
Hirohisa Fujikawa, MD, Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; [email protected]

THE CASE

An 85-year-old woman with hypertension presented to our hospital with a 10-month history of insomnia along with abdominal discomfort. Several months prior, the patient had undergone an esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the results of which were normal, and had received diagnoses of psychogenic insomnia and abdominal pain from her previous physician. At that time, she was prescribed eszopiclone, but her insomnia did not improve. She did not complain of any other gastrointestinal symptoms.

On examination at our hospital, the patient’s abdomen was soft and nontender. Laboratory results were unremarkable. Abdominal computed tomography was performed to exclude obvious malignancy and showed no remarkable findings.

Additional history taking and physical examination were performed. The patient reported that she could sleep for only about 2 hours per night due to persistent severe discomfort around the umbilicus, which she described as “itching.” The discomfort occurred along with an urge to move while she laid in a state of relaxed wakefulness. This discomfort occurred no matter what position she laid in and improved if she walked or tapped around the umbilicus for a while. She denied any unusual or uncomfortable sensations in her lower extremities.

Her symptoms were absent during the daytime and not related to diet. Furthermore, she did not have any symptoms of anxiety and/or depression; a detailed neurologic examination, including cognitive assessment and extrapyramidal system, yielded unremarkable findings. Additional laboratory tests showed a mild iron deficiency (ferritin, 52.6 µ g/L; iron, 10.7 µ mol/L) without anemia.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Given the patient’s presentation and clinical history, the differential diagnosis included restless abdomen (which is a spectrum or a phenotypic variant of restless legs syndrome [RLS]) and its mimics, which include fibromyalgia and gastrointestinal tract diseases. We considered the characteristic symptoms of this case (ie, irresistible symptoms, lengthy duration of symptoms, and sleep problems) to better support the diagnosis of restless abdomen than its mimics.¹ In particular, abdominal discomfort that led to insomnia was characteristic of restless abdomen, helping to pinpoint the diagnosis.

DISCUSSION

RLS is a common sensorimotor disorder that is characterized by an unpleasant urge to move the legs.² RLS may manifest as an idiopathic condition, or it can be secondary to medical conditions such as iron deficiency and Parkinson disease.^3,4 Because the unpleasant symptom is exacerbated in the evenings, patients with RLS frequently complain of sleep disturbance.

Cases of RLS-like sensory disorders, with symptoms involving sites other than the lower extremities (eg, arms, mouth, trunk, and genitals) recently have been reported.^5-7 Among them is restless abdomen, a rare disorder that manifests with a restless abdominal sensation and worsens the quality of sleep and life.⁶

Continue to: Restless abdomen meets all...

Restless abdomen meets all other diagnostic criteria for RLS except for the affected anatomy.^6,8 In most cases of restless abdomen, the uncomfortable sensation involves the abdomen, as well as other parts of the body (eg, legs and arms). Cases in which the symptoms are confined to the abdomen are rare, with only 7 reported to date. ^6,8-10 All of these cases have involved patients older than 40 years. ^6,8-10

Treatment is straightforward, but consider iron supplementation, as well

Because RLS or its variants degrade the quality of life and sleep in patients,^3,4 appropriate therapy must be initiated early. Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—specifically, pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.^6,8-10

Although the optimal treatment strategy for restless abdomen is yet to be established, an oral dopamine agonist—pramipexole—has been used successfully in almost all cases.

Previous clinical research has shown that patients with RLS have low levels of iron in the brain and may benefit from iron supplementation, even if they are not anemic.^3,4 Iron replacement is suggested for patients with RLS whose fasting serum ferritin level is ≤ 75 µg/L.⁴ It is not known to what extent iron deficiency is involved in the pathophysiology of restless abdomen, and further research is required to determine the optimal therapy for it.

Our patient was started on oral supplementation with sodium ferrous citrate (50 mg/d) based on an initial suspicion that iron deficiency was the cause of her restless abdomen. We also suggested that the patient undergo a fecal occult blood test or colonoscopy, but she declined because of her advanced age.

After 2 months of iron supplementation, the patient’s serum ferritin levels improved (100 µg/L) and her insomnia and abdominal discomfort improved a bit. However, 3 months after starting on the iron supplementation, her symptoms flared again.

Continue to: We then prescribed...

We then prescribed pramipexole 0.25 mg/d. The patient’s symptoms subsequently resolved, and she no longer experienced insomnia. This favorable response to dopamine agonist therapy supported the diagnosis of restless abdomen. The patient continues to take the pramipexole to prevent a relapse.

THE TAKEAWAY

Insomnia is a common presenting complaint in primary care and sleeping pills may be prescribed without adequate investigation of the cause. However, some patients may have serious underlying diseases.¹¹

Although restless abdomen is a disorder that causes severe sleep disturbance and impairs the patient’s quality of sleep and life, it is not widely recognized by clinicians and may be misdiagnosed. When recognized, insomnia due to restless abdomen can be relieved by a simple therapy: oral dopamine agonists. Therefore, primary care physicians should consider restless abdomen as a potential cause of insomnia with abdominal symptoms.

CORRESPONDENCE
Hirohisa Fujikawa, MD, Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan; [email protected]

Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.

This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.

However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.

“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.

“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”

“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”

“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.

As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.

Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
 

Late effects of treatment

Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.

However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.

Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).

The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.

They  represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.

The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.

Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.

Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.

Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.

This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.

The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).

The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).

Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.

This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.

However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.

“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.

“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”

“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”

“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.

As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.

Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
 

Late effects of treatment

Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.

However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.

Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).

The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.

They  represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.

The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.

Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.

Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.

Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.

This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.

The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).

The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).

Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Although people who survive a childhood cancer are at an increased risk of developing and dying from subsequent cancers, as well as heart disease and stroke, they can reduce this risk by following a healthy lifestyle, say U.S. investigators.

This message comes from a retrospective analysis of more than 34,000 childhood cancer survivors, which found that 40 years after the initial cancer diagnosis, the cumulative all-cause mortality rate was 23.3%, compared with less than 5% in the general population.

However, following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality, independent of other factors, the analysis showed. This rose even further, up to a 30% reduction, among individuals who did not have hypertension or diabetes.

The study was published online  in The Lancet.

“We identified that long-term survivors of childhood cancer are experiencing a large number of deaths in excess of what would be expected for the general, aging population,” first author Stephanie Dixon, MD, MPH, oncology department, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tenn., said in a press release.

“These excess deaths are predominantly due to the same leading causes of death as in the general population,” including subsequent cancers, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease/stroke, chronic liver and kidney disease, and infectious diseases, she noted. However, in these childhood cancer survivors they are occurring “at a younger age and higher rate.”

“What was most exciting to see,” Dr. Dixon added, “was that, independent of prior treatment exposures and sociodemographic factors, a healthy lifestyle and absence of hypertension or diabetes were each associated with a reduced risk of health-related mortality.”

“This is important because our goal is to extend the life span of survivors and to improve their ‘health span’ as well,” said senior author Greg Armstrong, MD, MSCE, chair of the department of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude.

As such, “the study highlights the importance of encouraging survivors to practice healthy behaviors and maintain good control of cardiovascular disease risk factors,” emphasized coauthor Melissa M. Hudson, MD, director of the cancer survivorship division at St. Jude.

Future research should focus on interventions for modifiable lifestyle and cardiovascular risk factors that “may need to be specifically tailored to survivors, with the goal of reducing chronic disease development” and extending their lifespan, the researchers said.
 

Late effects of treatment

Childhood cancer has a tremendous success rate: In the United States, the 5-year survival rate is now more than 85%.

However, long-term survivors experience excess morbidity and late mortality compared with the general population, both of which are “attributable to late effects of treatment,” the team pointed out.

Their study focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with cancer before they were 21 years old and who had survived at least 5 years after the cancer diagnosis.

The median age at diagnosis was 6 years, and the most common diagnoses were acute lymphoblastic leukemia (36%), Hodgkin lymphoma (11%), astrocytoma (10%), and kidney tumors (8%).

The team identified 34,230 survivors who had been treated between Jan. 1, 1970, and Dec. 31, 1999, at 31 institutions in the United States and Canada.

They  represented approximately 20% of all childhood cancer survivors in the United States over the study period. The team noted that 56% of the survivors were male, and the majority (64%) were non-Hispanic White.

The date and causes of death through December 2017 were obtained via linkage to the National Death Index, and cancer treatment information was collated for 21,418 survivors who provided consent. Lifestyle factors – including smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and unhealthy weight – were graded on a score of 0-4.

Over a median follow-up of 29.1 years, there were 5,916 deaths, with 34% attributable to the recurrence or progression of the primary cancer, and 51.2% attributable to other causes, such as subsequent neoplasms, and cardiac, pulmonary, and other health-related causes.

Overall, survivors were at an elevated risk of death compared with the general population, at a standardized mortality ratio of 5.6. This ratio peaked at 5-9 years after diagnosis at an 18.1-fold increased risk of death compared with the general population.

Forty years or more from the initial diagnosis, two-thirds of the 131 per 10,000 person-years excess deaths from health-related causes were due to the top three causes of health-related death in the general population, the team reported.

This included an absolute excess risk of death from cancer of 54 per 10,000 person-years, an excess risk of heart disease mortality of 27 per 10,000 person-years, and an excess risk of cerebrovascular disease mortality of 10 per 10,000 person-years.

The individual cases of death contributing the greatest excess risk were gastrointestinal cancers (11 per 10,000 person-years), cerebrovascular disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), ischemic heart disease (10 per 10,000 person-years), and valvular heart disease (9 per 10,000 person-years).

The good news is that following a healthy lifestyle was associated with a 20% reduction in health-related mortality versus an unhealthy lifestyle (P = .0020).

Moreover, following even a moderately healthy lifestyle was associated with a 10% reduction in health-related mortality, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital Cancer Center Support, and the American Lebanese-Syrian Associated Charities. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.

“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.

Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”

In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.

On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.

AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.

At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.

Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.

The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.

AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.

This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.

“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.

Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”

In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.

On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.

AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.

At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.

Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.

The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.

AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.

This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

BUENOS AIRES – Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has become a global concern. And while one issue to be addressed is the deficit in research and development for new antibiotics, efforts to tackle this public health threat also should be directed toward promoting more rational prescription practices and strengthening the ability to identify the microorganisms responsible for infections, according to the World Health Organization. This was the conclusion reached at the fourth meeting of the WHO AMR Surveillance and Quality Assessment Collaborating Centres Network, which was held in Buenos Aires.

“We have to provide assistance to countries to ensure that the drugs are being used responsibly. We can come up with new antibiotics, but the issue at hand is not simply one of innovation: If nothing is done to correct inappropriate prescription practices and to overcome the lack of diagnostic laboratories at the country level, we’re going to miss out on those drugs as soon as they become available,” Kitty van Weezenbeek, MD, PhD, MPH, director of the AMR Surveillance, Prevention, and Control (AMR/SPC) Department at the WHO’s headquarters in Geneva, told this news organization.

Dr. van Weezenbeek pointed out that although there are currently no shortages of antimicrobials, the development and launch of new drugs that fight multidrug-resistant infections – infections for which there are few therapeutic options – has proceeded slowly. “It takes 10 to 15 years to develop a new antibiotic,” she said, adding that “the majority of pharmaceutical companies that had been engaged in the development of antimicrobials have filed for bankruptcy.”

In 2019, more people died – 1.2 million – from AMR than from malaria, tuberculosis, and HIV combined. Why are there so few market incentives when there is such a great need for those drugs? “One reason is that the pharmaceutical industry makes more money with long-term treatments, such as those for cancer and respiratory diseases. The other problem is that people everywhere are told not to use antibiotics,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

“A course of antibiotics lasts a few days, especially because we’re promoting rational use. Therefore, the trend is for the total amount of antimicrobials being used to be lower. So, it’s not as profitable,” added Carmem Lucia Pessoa-Silva, MD, PhD, head of the Surveillance, Evidence, and Laboratory Strengthening Unit of the WHO’s AMR/SPC Department.

On that note, Dr. van Weezenbeek mentioned that member countries are working with pharmaceutical companies and universities to address this problem. The WHO, for its part, has responded by implementing a global mechanism with a public health approach to create a “healthy” and equitable market for these medicines.

AMR is one of the top 10 global threats to human health. But it also has an impact on animal production, agricultural production, and the environment. Strategies to tackle AMR based on the One Health approach should involve all actors, social sectors, and citizens, according to Eva Jané Llopis, PhD, the representative of the Pan American Health Organization/WHO in Argentina.

At the root of the AMR problem is the widespread use of these drugs as growth promoters in animal production – for which several countries have enacted regulations – as well as “misunderstandings” between patients and physicians when there is not sufficient, timely access to laboratory diagnostics, especially in low- and middle-income countries.

“People think that if they’re given broad-spectrum antibiotics, they’re being prescribed the best antibiotics; and doctors, because there are no laboratory services, prescribe broad-spectrum antibiotics because they want to help patients. But that ends up causing more resistance to drugs, and thus, those antibiotics aren’t good for the patients,” said Dr. van Weezenbeek.

The WHO Global AMR and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) was launched in 2015. Its 2022 report, which marked the end of the system’s early implementation period, noted that the reported AMR rates are often lower in countries, territories, and areas with better testing coverage for most pathogen-drug-infection site combinations. However, as Dr. Pessoa-Silva acknowledged, monitoring “has not yet generated representative data,” because in many cases, countries either do not have surveillance systems or have only recently started implementing them.

Even so, the indicators that are available paint an increasingly worrisome picture. “For example, in many countries, resistance rates to first-line antibiotics were around 10%-20% with respect to Escherichia coli urinary tract infections and bloodstream bacteriologically confirmed infections. So, the risk of treatment failure is very high,” explained Dr. Pessoa-Silva.

The latest estimates indicate that every 2 or 3 minutes, somewhere in the world, a child dies from AMR. And the situation is particularly “dramatic” in neonatal intensive care units, where outbreaks of multidrug-resistant infections have a mortality rate of 50%, said Pilar Ramón-Pardo, MD, PhD, lead of the Special Program on AMR at the Pan American Health Organization, the WHO Regional Office for the Americas.

AMR rates also got worse during the pandemic because of the inappropriate prescription of massive amounts of antibiotics to hospitalized patients – something that was not in compliance with guidelines or protocols. Silvia Bertagnolio, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and the head of the Control and Response Strategies Unit in the WHO’s AMR Division. She spoke about the global clinical platform data pertaining to more than 1,500,000 patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19. Since 2020, 85% received antimicrobial treatment, despite the fact that only 5% had a concomitant infection at admission. “It’s easier to give antibiotics than to make a proper diagnosis,” said Dr. Bertagnolio.

This article was translated from Medscape’s Spanish edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

A new federal rule seeks to reduce Medicare Advantage insurance plans’ prior authorization burdens on physicians while also ensuring that enrollees have the same access to necessary care that they would receive under traditional fee-for-service Medicare.

The prior authorization changes, announced this week, are part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ 2024 update of policy changes for Medicare Advantage and Part D pharmacy plans

Medicare Advantage plans’ business practices have raised significant concerns in recent years. More than 28 million Americans were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2022, which is nearly half of all Medicare enrollees, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Medicare pays a fixed amount per enrollee per year to these privately run managed care plans, in contrast to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare Advantage plans have been criticized for aggressive marketing, for overbilling the federal government for care, and for using prior authorization to inappropriately deny needed care to patients.

About 13% of prior authorization requests that are denied by Medicare Advantage plans actually met Medicare coverage rules and should have been approved, the Office of the Inspector General at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services reported in 2022.

The newly finalized rule now requires Medicare Advantage plans to do the following.

• Ensure that a prior authorization approval, once granted, remains valid for as long as medically necessary to avoid disruptions in care.
• Conduct an annual review of utilization management policies.
• Ensure that coverage denials based on medical necessity be reviewed by health care professionals with relevant expertise before a denial can be issued.

Physician groups welcomed the changes. In a statement, the American Medical Association said that an initial reading of the rule suggested CMS had “taken important steps toward right-sizing the prior authorization process.”

The Medical Group Management Association praised CMS in a statement for having limited “dangerous disruptions and delays to necessary patient care” resulting from the cumbersome processes of prior approval. With the new rules, CMS will provide greater consistency across Advantage plans as well as traditional Medicare, said Anders Gilberg, MGMA’s senior vice president of government affairs, in a statement.
 

Peer consideration

The final rule did disappoint physician groups in one key way. CMS rebuffed requests to have CMS require Advantage plans to use reviewers of the same specialty as treating physicians in handling disputes about prior authorization. CMS said it expects plans to exercise judgment in finding reviewers with “sufficient expertise to make an informed and supportable decision.”

“In some instances, we expect that plans will use a physician or other health care professional of the same specialty or subspecialty as the treating physician,” CMS said. “In other instances, we expect that plans will utilize a reviewer with specialized training, certification, or clinical experience in the applicable field of medicine.”
 

Medicare Advantage marketing ‘sowing confusion’

With this final rule, CMS also sought to protect consumers from “potentially misleading marketing practices” used in promoting Medicare Advantage and Part D prescription drug plans.

The agency said it had received complaints about people who have received official-looking promotional materials for Medicare that directed them not to government sources of information but to Medicare Advantage and Part D plans or their agents and brokers.

Ads now must mention a specific plan name, and they cannot use the Medicare name, CMS logo, Medicare card, or other government information in a misleading way, CMS said.

“CMS can see no value or purpose in a non-governmental entity’s use of the Medicare logo or HHS logo except for the express purpose of sowing confusion and misrepresenting itself as the government,” the agency said.

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

In this video Naresh Gunaratnam, MD, discusses the gastroenterology fellowship program that Huron Gastroenterology developed with Trinity Health in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Gunaratnam helped create the program because he and his colleagues felt that traditional fellowship programs don’t always provide information or guidance about non-academic career pathways in gastroenterology. Hear from Dr. Gunaratnam how the fellowship program at Huron Gastroenterology is training fellows to become excellent clinicians who care for patients in the community setting. He has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.

Vidyard Video

In this video Naresh Gunaratnam, MD, discusses the gastroenterology fellowship program that Huron Gastroenterology developed with Trinity Health in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Gunaratnam helped create the program because he and his colleagues felt that traditional fellowship programs don’t always provide information or guidance about non-academic career pathways in gastroenterology. Hear from Dr. Gunaratnam how the fellowship program at Huron Gastroenterology is training fellows to become excellent clinicians who care for patients in the community setting. He has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.

Vidyard Video

In this video Naresh Gunaratnam, MD, discusses the gastroenterology fellowship program that Huron Gastroenterology developed with Trinity Health in Ann Arbor, Mich. Dr. Gunaratnam helped create the program because he and his colleagues felt that traditional fellowship programs don’t always provide information or guidance about non-academic career pathways in gastroenterology. Hear from Dr. Gunaratnam how the fellowship program at Huron Gastroenterology is training fellows to become excellent clinicians who care for patients in the community setting. He has no financial conflicts relative to the topics in this video.

Vidyard Video

With more than 306 million views, #hormonebalance and #hormonebalancing are among the latest hacks to take over the social media platform TikTok, on which users post short videos. Influencers offer advice such as eating raw carrots for “happy hormones,” eating protein followed by fat for breakfast to regulate blood glucose, or taking vitamin B2 supplements for thyroid health.

Have you ever wondered if you were asleep during the lecture on “hormone balancing” in medical school? No, you weren’t. It was never a class for good reason, and you didn’t fail to read any such breakthrough studies in The New England Journal of Medicine either.

Although the sound bites no doubt garner attention among TikTok users, “hormone balancing” is a fictional term that is practically meaningless.

There are over 50 different hormones produced by humans and animals, regulating sleep, growth, metabolism and reproduction, among many other biological processes, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution to ensure these are all working in perfect harmony.

When someone mentions “hormone balancing,” my mind wanders to the last time I took my car to have my tires rotated and balanced. If only it were as simple to balance hormones in real life. The best we can hope for is to get a specific hormone within the ideal physiologic range for that person’s age.

The term “hormone” can mean many things to different people. When a woman comes in with a hormone question, for example, it is often related to estrogen, followed by thyroid hormones. A wealth of misinformation exists in popular literature regarding these hormones alone.

Estrogen can be replaced, but not everyone needs it replaced. It depends on variables including age, underlying medical conditions, the time of day a test was drawn, and concomitant medications. Having low levels of a given hormone does not necessarily call for replacement either.

Insulin is another example of a hormone that can never completely be replaced in people with diabetes in a way that exactly mimics the normal physiologic release.

There are many lesser-known hormones that are measurable and replaceable but are also more difficult to reset to original manufacturer specifications.

A Google search for “hormone balancing” often sends you to “naturopaths” or “integrative medicine” practitioners, who often propose similar solutions to the TikTok influencers. Users are told that their hormones are out of whack and that restoring this “balance” can be achieved by purchasing whatever “natural products” or concoction they are selling.

These TikTok videos and online “experts” are the home-brewed versions of the strip-mall hormone specialists. TikTok videos claiming to help “balance hormones” typically don’t name a specific hormone either, or the end organs that each would have an impact on. Rather, they lump all hormones into a monolithic entity, implying that there is a single solution for all health problems. And personal testimonials extolling the benefits of a TikTok intervention don’t constitute proof of efficacy no matter how many “likes” they get. These influencers assume that viewers can “sense” their hormones are out of tune and no lab tests can convince them otherwise.

In these inflationary times, the cost of seeking medical care from conventional channels is increasingly prohibitive. It’s easy to understand the appeal of getting free advice from TikTok or some other Internet site. At best, following the advice will not have much impact; at worst, it could be harmful.
 

Don’t try this at home

There are some things that should never be tried at home, and do-it-yourself hormone replacement or remediation both fall under this umbrella.

Generally, the body does a good job of balancing its own hormones. Most patients don’t need to be worried if they’re in good health. If they’re in doubt, they should seek advice from a doctor, ideally an endocrinologist, but an ob.gyn. or general practitioner are also good options.

One of the first questions to ask a patient is “Which hormone are you worried about?” or “What health issue is it specifically that is bothering you?” Narrowing the focus to a single thing, if possible, will lead to a more efficient evaluation.

Often, patients arrive with multiple concerns written on little pieces of paper. These ubiquitous pieces of paper are the red flag for the flood of questions to follow.

Ordering the appropriate tests for the conditions they are concerned about can help put their minds at ease. If there are any specific deficiencies, or excesses in any hormones, then appropriate solutions can be discussed.

TikTok hormone-balancing solutions are simply the 21st-century version of the snake oil sold on late-night cable TV in the 1990s.

Needless to say, you should gently encourage your patients to stay away from these non–FDA-approved products, without making them feel stupid. Off-label use of hormones when these are not indicated is also to be avoided, unless a medical practitioner feels it is warranted.

Dr. de la Rosa is an endocrinologist in Englewood, Fla. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

With more than 306 million views, #hormonebalance and #hormonebalancing are among the latest hacks to take over the social media platform TikTok, on which users post short videos. Influencers offer advice such as eating raw carrots for “happy hormones,” eating protein followed by fat for breakfast to regulate blood glucose, or taking vitamin B2 supplements for thyroid health.

Have you ever wondered if you were asleep during the lecture on “hormone balancing” in medical school? No, you weren’t. It was never a class for good reason, and you didn’t fail to read any such breakthrough studies in The New England Journal of Medicine either.

Although the sound bites no doubt garner attention among TikTok users, “hormone balancing” is a fictional term that is practically meaningless.

There are over 50 different hormones produced by humans and animals, regulating sleep, growth, metabolism and reproduction, among many other biological processes, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution to ensure these are all working in perfect harmony.

When someone mentions “hormone balancing,” my mind wanders to the last time I took my car to have my tires rotated and balanced. If only it were as simple to balance hormones in real life. The best we can hope for is to get a specific hormone within the ideal physiologic range for that person’s age.

The term “hormone” can mean many things to different people. When a woman comes in with a hormone question, for example, it is often related to estrogen, followed by thyroid hormones. A wealth of misinformation exists in popular literature regarding these hormones alone.

Estrogen can be replaced, but not everyone needs it replaced. It depends on variables including age, underlying medical conditions, the time of day a test was drawn, and concomitant medications. Having low levels of a given hormone does not necessarily call for replacement either.

Insulin is another example of a hormone that can never completely be replaced in people with diabetes in a way that exactly mimics the normal physiologic release.

There are many lesser-known hormones that are measurable and replaceable but are also more difficult to reset to original manufacturer specifications.

A Google search for “hormone balancing” often sends you to “naturopaths” or “integrative medicine” practitioners, who often propose similar solutions to the TikTok influencers. Users are told that their hormones are out of whack and that restoring this “balance” can be achieved by purchasing whatever “natural products” or concoction they are selling.

These TikTok videos and online “experts” are the home-brewed versions of the strip-mall hormone specialists. TikTok videos claiming to help “balance hormones” typically don’t name a specific hormone either, or the end organs that each would have an impact on. Rather, they lump all hormones into a monolithic entity, implying that there is a single solution for all health problems. And personal testimonials extolling the benefits of a TikTok intervention don’t constitute proof of efficacy no matter how many “likes” they get. These influencers assume that viewers can “sense” their hormones are out of tune and no lab tests can convince them otherwise.

In these inflationary times, the cost of seeking medical care from conventional channels is increasingly prohibitive. It’s easy to understand the appeal of getting free advice from TikTok or some other Internet site. At best, following the advice will not have much impact; at worst, it could be harmful.
 

Don’t try this at home

There are some things that should never be tried at home, and do-it-yourself hormone replacement or remediation both fall under this umbrella.

Generally, the body does a good job of balancing its own hormones. Most patients don’t need to be worried if they’re in good health. If they’re in doubt, they should seek advice from a doctor, ideally an endocrinologist, but an ob.gyn. or general practitioner are also good options.

One of the first questions to ask a patient is “Which hormone are you worried about?” or “What health issue is it specifically that is bothering you?” Narrowing the focus to a single thing, if possible, will lead to a more efficient evaluation.

Often, patients arrive with multiple concerns written on little pieces of paper. These ubiquitous pieces of paper are the red flag for the flood of questions to follow.

Ordering the appropriate tests for the conditions they are concerned about can help put their minds at ease. If there are any specific deficiencies, or excesses in any hormones, then appropriate solutions can be discussed.

TikTok hormone-balancing solutions are simply the 21st-century version of the snake oil sold on late-night cable TV in the 1990s.

Needless to say, you should gently encourage your patients to stay away from these non–FDA-approved products, without making them feel stupid. Off-label use of hormones when these are not indicated is also to be avoided, unless a medical practitioner feels it is warranted.

Dr. de la Rosa is an endocrinologist in Englewood, Fla. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

With more than 306 million views, #hormonebalance and #hormonebalancing are among the latest hacks to take over the social media platform TikTok, on which users post short videos. Influencers offer advice such as eating raw carrots for “happy hormones,” eating protein followed by fat for breakfast to regulate blood glucose, or taking vitamin B2 supplements for thyroid health.

Have you ever wondered if you were asleep during the lecture on “hormone balancing” in medical school? No, you weren’t. It was never a class for good reason, and you didn’t fail to read any such breakthrough studies in The New England Journal of Medicine either.

Although the sound bites no doubt garner attention among TikTok users, “hormone balancing” is a fictional term that is practically meaningless.

There are over 50 different hormones produced by humans and animals, regulating sleep, growth, metabolism and reproduction, among many other biological processes, so there is certainly no one-size-fits-all solution to ensure these are all working in perfect harmony.

When someone mentions “hormone balancing,” my mind wanders to the last time I took my car to have my tires rotated and balanced. If only it were as simple to balance hormones in real life. The best we can hope for is to get a specific hormone within the ideal physiologic range for that person’s age.

The term “hormone” can mean many things to different people. When a woman comes in with a hormone question, for example, it is often related to estrogen, followed by thyroid hormones. A wealth of misinformation exists in popular literature regarding these hormones alone.

Estrogen can be replaced, but not everyone needs it replaced. It depends on variables including age, underlying medical conditions, the time of day a test was drawn, and concomitant medications. Having low levels of a given hormone does not necessarily call for replacement either.

Insulin is another example of a hormone that can never completely be replaced in people with diabetes in a way that exactly mimics the normal physiologic release.

There are many lesser-known hormones that are measurable and replaceable but are also more difficult to reset to original manufacturer specifications.

A Google search for “hormone balancing” often sends you to “naturopaths” or “integrative medicine” practitioners, who often propose similar solutions to the TikTok influencers. Users are told that their hormones are out of whack and that restoring this “balance” can be achieved by purchasing whatever “natural products” or concoction they are selling.

These TikTok videos and online “experts” are the home-brewed versions of the strip-mall hormone specialists. TikTok videos claiming to help “balance hormones” typically don’t name a specific hormone either, or the end organs that each would have an impact on. Rather, they lump all hormones into a monolithic entity, implying that there is a single solution for all health problems. And personal testimonials extolling the benefits of a TikTok intervention don’t constitute proof of efficacy no matter how many “likes” they get. These influencers assume that viewers can “sense” their hormones are out of tune and no lab tests can convince them otherwise.

In these inflationary times, the cost of seeking medical care from conventional channels is increasingly prohibitive. It’s easy to understand the appeal of getting free advice from TikTok or some other Internet site. At best, following the advice will not have much impact; at worst, it could be harmful.
 

Don’t try this at home

There are some things that should never be tried at home, and do-it-yourself hormone replacement or remediation both fall under this umbrella.

Generally, the body does a good job of balancing its own hormones. Most patients don’t need to be worried if they’re in good health. If they’re in doubt, they should seek advice from a doctor, ideally an endocrinologist, but an ob.gyn. or general practitioner are also good options.

One of the first questions to ask a patient is “Which hormone are you worried about?” or “What health issue is it specifically that is bothering you?” Narrowing the focus to a single thing, if possible, will lead to a more efficient evaluation.

Often, patients arrive with multiple concerns written on little pieces of paper. These ubiquitous pieces of paper are the red flag for the flood of questions to follow.

Ordering the appropriate tests for the conditions they are concerned about can help put their minds at ease. If there are any specific deficiencies, or excesses in any hormones, then appropriate solutions can be discussed.

TikTok hormone-balancing solutions are simply the 21st-century version of the snake oil sold on late-night cable TV in the 1990s.

Needless to say, you should gently encourage your patients to stay away from these non–FDA-approved products, without making them feel stupid. Off-label use of hormones when these are not indicated is also to be avoided, unless a medical practitioner feels it is warranted.

Dr. de la Rosa is an endocrinologist in Englewood, Fla. He disclosed no conflicts of interest.

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

PARIS – Exercise has a variable impact on the onset of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. The mechanisms at play are complex and seldom studied. Frank Zerbib, MD, head of the department of gastroenterology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, broke them down during a session dedicated to exercise, which was the common theme of the JFHOD 2023, a French-speaking hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology conference held this year in Paris.

A contributing factor

Several factors can affect how exercise causes gastroesophageal reflux.

“Vigorous,” or mainly sports-related, exercise has a detrimental effect on GERD. Approximately 60% of athletes are said to report GERD symptoms connected to an increase in abdominal pressure. This is not because of obesity, but because of the abdominal contraction that occurs during exercise.

Other pathophysiological factors at the root of exercise-induced GERD can be involved in this phenomenon, namely a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and esophageal motility, in addition to phases of dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, which is when most GERD episodes occur.

In such contexts, “it would appear that sports-related exercise has a relatively detrimental effect on the gastroesophageal junction and anti-GERD mechanisms,” said Dr. Zerbib. Meta-analyses provide answers to some questions, but not all; the situation is much less clear when it comes to non–sports-related exercise.”
 

Not so simple

“Taking into account only patients whose GERD has been confirmed through esophageal pH monitoring, exercise does not appear to significantly impact GERD symptoms or the characteristics seen on pH monitoring,” said Dr. Zerbib.

These results come from a study of 100 patients whose exercise level was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and expressed using the standard metric of metabolic rate by minutes of performance during a week (METs-minute/week).

This questionnaire is used for most studies that assess exercise and separates patients into three groups (low, moderate, or high) based on their level of exercise. In essence, it considers the duration of exercise but not the type (that is, professional, recreational, and so on) or intensity, resulting in a key methodological issue to consider during the analysis, for example, of the results of a large meta-analysis on the topic.

The meta-analysis in question included 78,000 patients, of whom 10,000 had GERD symptoms.

Based on the results, exercise decreases the risk of GERD by about one-third, after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). “This last point is important,” Dr. Zerbib noted, “since adjusting for BMI without providing the nonadjusted data fails to identify whether exercise decreases the risk of GERD because of the effect on the BMI.* What’s more, when it comes to complications of GERD, like Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma, the data are far fewer and less robust, with negative case-control studies for the most part.”

One of these two studies, which concerned non–sports-related exercise and the onset of Barrett’s esophagus, reported no association (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73).

“Exercise considered vigorous (sports-related) contributes to GERD by altering the antireflux barrier (LES/diaphragm dissociation) and increasing constraints on the esophageal junction (abdominal pressure). In the general population, regular exercise likely decreases the risk of pathological GERD. When it comes to complications of GERD, the data are not very robust, mostly because the studies omitted several exercise-related (healthy lifestyle) factors,” said Dr. Zerbib.
 

Several confounding factors

It’s difficult to issue an opinion under these conditions. There are several confounding factors that studies rarely address. Although the studies always included factors such as age, sex, or BMI, other parameters related to a healthy lifestyle, whether directly or indirectly connected to exercise, were never mentioned. Indeed, diet (such as high calorie or high fat) is known to lead to an increased incidence of GERD. The same goes for alcohol use. Occupation also likely plays a role, but the studies do not mention this.

“So, it’s easy to imagine that a patient who regularly exercises likely eats healthier than a sedentary patient, which comes with the likelihood of a lower risk of developing GERD symptoms,” said Dr. Zerbib. “Overall, evaluating the impact of exercise on GERD is no small feat. It can be said with relative certainty that exercise contributes to GERD through a proven pathophysiology. In the general population, however, exercise likely reduces the risk of GERD but not of its complications. Other than the impact on weight and abdominal obesity, the reality is that a lack of exercise is associated with a less healthy lifestyle and, therefore, behaviors that contribute to GERD.”

Dr. Zerbib reported no conflicts of interest connected to this presentation.

* From a pathophysiological standpoint, the evidence is clear that a high BMI increases the gastroesophageal pressure gradient and dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, whether temporarily or permanently, as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Abdominal obesity increases constraints on the gastroesophageal junction and results in a two- to threefold increase in the risk of GERD and its complications.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Exercise has a variable impact on the onset of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. The mechanisms at play are complex and seldom studied. Frank Zerbib, MD, head of the department of gastroenterology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, broke them down during a session dedicated to exercise, which was the common theme of the JFHOD 2023, a French-speaking hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology conference held this year in Paris.

A contributing factor

Several factors can affect how exercise causes gastroesophageal reflux.

“Vigorous,” or mainly sports-related, exercise has a detrimental effect on GERD. Approximately 60% of athletes are said to report GERD symptoms connected to an increase in abdominal pressure. This is not because of obesity, but because of the abdominal contraction that occurs during exercise.

Other pathophysiological factors at the root of exercise-induced GERD can be involved in this phenomenon, namely a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and esophageal motility, in addition to phases of dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, which is when most GERD episodes occur.

In such contexts, “it would appear that sports-related exercise has a relatively detrimental effect on the gastroesophageal junction and anti-GERD mechanisms,” said Dr. Zerbib. Meta-analyses provide answers to some questions, but not all; the situation is much less clear when it comes to non–sports-related exercise.”
 

Not so simple

“Taking into account only patients whose GERD has been confirmed through esophageal pH monitoring, exercise does not appear to significantly impact GERD symptoms or the characteristics seen on pH monitoring,” said Dr. Zerbib.

These results come from a study of 100 patients whose exercise level was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and expressed using the standard metric of metabolic rate by minutes of performance during a week (METs-minute/week).

This questionnaire is used for most studies that assess exercise and separates patients into three groups (low, moderate, or high) based on their level of exercise. In essence, it considers the duration of exercise but not the type (that is, professional, recreational, and so on) or intensity, resulting in a key methodological issue to consider during the analysis, for example, of the results of a large meta-analysis on the topic.

The meta-analysis in question included 78,000 patients, of whom 10,000 had GERD symptoms.

Based on the results, exercise decreases the risk of GERD by about one-third, after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). “This last point is important,” Dr. Zerbib noted, “since adjusting for BMI without providing the nonadjusted data fails to identify whether exercise decreases the risk of GERD because of the effect on the BMI.* What’s more, when it comes to complications of GERD, like Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma, the data are far fewer and less robust, with negative case-control studies for the most part.”

One of these two studies, which concerned non–sports-related exercise and the onset of Barrett’s esophagus, reported no association (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73).

“Exercise considered vigorous (sports-related) contributes to GERD by altering the antireflux barrier (LES/diaphragm dissociation) and increasing constraints on the esophageal junction (abdominal pressure). In the general population, regular exercise likely decreases the risk of pathological GERD. When it comes to complications of GERD, the data are not very robust, mostly because the studies omitted several exercise-related (healthy lifestyle) factors,” said Dr. Zerbib.
 

Several confounding factors

It’s difficult to issue an opinion under these conditions. There are several confounding factors that studies rarely address. Although the studies always included factors such as age, sex, or BMI, other parameters related to a healthy lifestyle, whether directly or indirectly connected to exercise, were never mentioned. Indeed, diet (such as high calorie or high fat) is known to lead to an increased incidence of GERD. The same goes for alcohol use. Occupation also likely plays a role, but the studies do not mention this.

“So, it’s easy to imagine that a patient who regularly exercises likely eats healthier than a sedentary patient, which comes with the likelihood of a lower risk of developing GERD symptoms,” said Dr. Zerbib. “Overall, evaluating the impact of exercise on GERD is no small feat. It can be said with relative certainty that exercise contributes to GERD through a proven pathophysiology. In the general population, however, exercise likely reduces the risk of GERD but not of its complications. Other than the impact on weight and abdominal obesity, the reality is that a lack of exercise is associated with a less healthy lifestyle and, therefore, behaviors that contribute to GERD.”

Dr. Zerbib reported no conflicts of interest connected to this presentation.

* From a pathophysiological standpoint, the evidence is clear that a high BMI increases the gastroesophageal pressure gradient and dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, whether temporarily or permanently, as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Abdominal obesity increases constraints on the gastroesophageal junction and results in a two- to threefold increase in the risk of GERD and its complications.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Exercise has a variable impact on the onset of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. The mechanisms at play are complex and seldom studied. Frank Zerbib, MD, head of the department of gastroenterology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, broke them down during a session dedicated to exercise, which was the common theme of the JFHOD 2023, a French-speaking hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology conference held this year in Paris.

A contributing factor

Several factors can affect how exercise causes gastroesophageal reflux.

“Vigorous,” or mainly sports-related, exercise has a detrimental effect on GERD. Approximately 60% of athletes are said to report GERD symptoms connected to an increase in abdominal pressure. This is not because of obesity, but because of the abdominal contraction that occurs during exercise.

Other pathophysiological factors at the root of exercise-induced GERD can be involved in this phenomenon, namely a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and esophageal motility, in addition to phases of dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, which is when most GERD episodes occur.

In such contexts, “it would appear that sports-related exercise has a relatively detrimental effect on the gastroesophageal junction and anti-GERD mechanisms,” said Dr. Zerbib. Meta-analyses provide answers to some questions, but not all; the situation is much less clear when it comes to non–sports-related exercise.”
 

Not so simple

“Taking into account only patients whose GERD has been confirmed through esophageal pH monitoring, exercise does not appear to significantly impact GERD symptoms or the characteristics seen on pH monitoring,” said Dr. Zerbib.

These results come from a study of 100 patients whose exercise level was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and expressed using the standard metric of metabolic rate by minutes of performance during a week (METs-minute/week).

This questionnaire is used for most studies that assess exercise and separates patients into three groups (low, moderate, or high) based on their level of exercise. In essence, it considers the duration of exercise but not the type (that is, professional, recreational, and so on) or intensity, resulting in a key methodological issue to consider during the analysis, for example, of the results of a large meta-analysis on the topic.

The meta-analysis in question included 78,000 patients, of whom 10,000 had GERD symptoms.

Based on the results, exercise decreases the risk of GERD by about one-third, after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). “This last point is important,” Dr. Zerbib noted, “since adjusting for BMI without providing the nonadjusted data fails to identify whether exercise decreases the risk of GERD because of the effect on the BMI.* What’s more, when it comes to complications of GERD, like Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma, the data are far fewer and less robust, with negative case-control studies for the most part.”

One of these two studies, which concerned non–sports-related exercise and the onset of Barrett’s esophagus, reported no association (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73).

“Exercise considered vigorous (sports-related) contributes to GERD by altering the antireflux barrier (LES/diaphragm dissociation) and increasing constraints on the esophageal junction (abdominal pressure). In the general population, regular exercise likely decreases the risk of pathological GERD. When it comes to complications of GERD, the data are not very robust, mostly because the studies omitted several exercise-related (healthy lifestyle) factors,” said Dr. Zerbib.
 

Several confounding factors

It’s difficult to issue an opinion under these conditions. There are several confounding factors that studies rarely address. Although the studies always included factors such as age, sex, or BMI, other parameters related to a healthy lifestyle, whether directly or indirectly connected to exercise, were never mentioned. Indeed, diet (such as high calorie or high fat) is known to lead to an increased incidence of GERD. The same goes for alcohol use. Occupation also likely plays a role, but the studies do not mention this.

“So, it’s easy to imagine that a patient who regularly exercises likely eats healthier than a sedentary patient, which comes with the likelihood of a lower risk of developing GERD symptoms,” said Dr. Zerbib. “Overall, evaluating the impact of exercise on GERD is no small feat. It can be said with relative certainty that exercise contributes to GERD through a proven pathophysiology. In the general population, however, exercise likely reduces the risk of GERD but not of its complications. Other than the impact on weight and abdominal obesity, the reality is that a lack of exercise is associated with a less healthy lifestyle and, therefore, behaviors that contribute to GERD.”

Dr. Zerbib reported no conflicts of interest connected to this presentation.

* From a pathophysiological standpoint, the evidence is clear that a high BMI increases the gastroesophageal pressure gradient and dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, whether temporarily or permanently, as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Abdominal obesity increases constraints on the gastroesophageal junction and results in a two- to threefold increase in the risk of GERD and its complications.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.