MDedge Rheumatology

Prophylactic treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) in individuals at high genetic risk for Paget disease of the bone (PDB) can prevent the development or progression of the condition, according to a new study. The authors argued that the positive results from the trial suggest that individuals with a familial history of PDB should undergo genetic screening.

“If it’s positive, you should be able to have a bone scan and take it from there,” senior author Stuart Ralston, MBChB, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in an interview.

Dr. Ralston

PDB is a chronic skeletal growth disorder that affects an estimated 1-3 million people in the United States and is most prevalent in individuals over 65 years old. Symptoms of the disease may not present until later stages when there is already skeletal damage that cannot be resolved by medications. Earlier intervention in individuals who have not yet shown signs of the condition could potentially halt disease progression, Dr. Ralston said.

Genetics plays a substantial role in PDB, especially pathogenic variants of the gene SQSTM1. An estimated 40%-50% of people with a familial history of PDB have these variants, according to the study, which are associated with earlier PDB onset and more severe disease.

However, it was unclear if early interventions in these higher-risk individuals may result in better health outcomes.

In this new study, published on December 20, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers recruited participants through family members already diagnosed with PDB who received treatment at outpatient clinics. Over 1400 individuals with PDB underwent genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants. If they tested positive, their first-degree relatives — primarily children — were offered the same genetic test. In total, 350 relatives tested positive for these pathogenic SQSTM1 variants, and of these individuals, 222 agreed to participate in the trial.

At the beginning of the study, all participants received a radionuclide bone scan to screen for bone lesions. They also underwent testing for the bone resorption marker type I collagen C-terminal telopeptides (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP).

Participants were then randomized to receive either a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg of ZA or placebo treatment. Researchers followed up with participants annually for a median of 84 months (7 years), and then baseline assessments were repeated.

A total of 90 individuals in the ZA treatment group and 90 individuals in the placebo group completed the trial.

Participants were, on average, 50 years old at the beginning of the study. In the ZA group, nine individuals had lesions detected in bone scans at baseline, compared with just one at the study’s end. In the placebo group, 12 individuals had detectable lesions at baseline, compared with 11 individuals at the study’s end.

While the proportion of individuals with lesions was similar between the two groups, there were about twice as many lesions overall in the placebo group, compared with the ZA group (29 vs 15), which researchers said was by chance. All but two lesions disappeared in the ZA group, compared with 26 lesions remaining in the placebo group (P < .0001).

“The bone scan reversal of abnormalities was amazing,” said Ralston, where eight of nine patients with lesions in the ZA group “had their bone scan evidence completely wiped out,” he said. “That’s a very powerful result.”

Both CTX and P1NP concentrations fell in the ZA group at 12 months and remained significantly lower than the placebo group throughout the study (P < .0001 for each).

Overall, the researchers reported that eight individuals in the placebo group and no individuals in the ZA group had a poor outcome, defined as new bone lesions or lesions that were unchanged or progressed (odds ratio, 0.08; P = .003). Two individuals in the placebo group developed lesions during the study, compared with none in the ZA group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Importantly, there were no differences in adverse events between the two groups.

While only a small number of people in the study had legions — around 9% of participants — the effect of ZA is “dramatic,” Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, told this news organization.

While clinicians primarily diagnose PDB with X-rays or an alkaline phosphatase blood test, testing for SQSTM1 is a new way to understand if someone is at higher risk for the disease, she said.

“Now, it seems like [the test] is fairly easily available, so probably it’s something we can begin to incorporate into our armamentarium,” Dr. Russell said.

Individuals who test positive for pathogenic variants of SQSTM1 could then get a bone scan, while those who tested negative may not need any additional testing, she added.

Dr. Ralston and coauthors noted that the effect size shown in this study is similar to that of studies examining adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. That practice, they write, is now a part of the standard of care.

“We believe that a similar approach is now justified in people with a family history of PDB who test positive for SQSTM1 mutations,” they wrote.

However, it is not clear if all individuals with pathogenic SQSTM1 should receive ZA treatment or if treatment should be given to only those with bone lesions.

“Future research to gather the views of people with a family history of PDB will help to inform the most appropriate way forward,” the authors wrote.

The UK Medical Research Council and Arthritis Research UK funded the trial. Zoledronic acid and a placebo were supplied by Novartis. Dr. Ralston reported funding to his institution from Kyowa Kirin, UCB, the Paget’s Association, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside the trial. Dr. Russell had no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prophylactic treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) in individuals at high genetic risk for Paget disease of the bone (PDB) can prevent the development or progression of the condition, according to a new study. The authors argued that the positive results from the trial suggest that individuals with a familial history of PDB should undergo genetic screening.

“If it’s positive, you should be able to have a bone scan and take it from there,” senior author Stuart Ralston, MBChB, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in an interview.

Dr. Ralston

PDB is a chronic skeletal growth disorder that affects an estimated 1-3 million people in the United States and is most prevalent in individuals over 65 years old. Symptoms of the disease may not present until later stages when there is already skeletal damage that cannot be resolved by medications. Earlier intervention in individuals who have not yet shown signs of the condition could potentially halt disease progression, Dr. Ralston said.

Genetics plays a substantial role in PDB, especially pathogenic variants of the gene SQSTM1. An estimated 40%-50% of people with a familial history of PDB have these variants, according to the study, which are associated with earlier PDB onset and more severe disease.

However, it was unclear if early interventions in these higher-risk individuals may result in better health outcomes.

In this new study, published on December 20, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers recruited participants through family members already diagnosed with PDB who received treatment at outpatient clinics. Over 1400 individuals with PDB underwent genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants. If they tested positive, their first-degree relatives — primarily children — were offered the same genetic test. In total, 350 relatives tested positive for these pathogenic SQSTM1 variants, and of these individuals, 222 agreed to participate in the trial.

At the beginning of the study, all participants received a radionuclide bone scan to screen for bone lesions. They also underwent testing for the bone resorption marker type I collagen C-terminal telopeptides (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP).

Participants were then randomized to receive either a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg of ZA or placebo treatment. Researchers followed up with participants annually for a median of 84 months (7 years), and then baseline assessments were repeated.

A total of 90 individuals in the ZA treatment group and 90 individuals in the placebo group completed the trial.

Participants were, on average, 50 years old at the beginning of the study. In the ZA group, nine individuals had lesions detected in bone scans at baseline, compared with just one at the study’s end. In the placebo group, 12 individuals had detectable lesions at baseline, compared with 11 individuals at the study’s end.

While the proportion of individuals with lesions was similar between the two groups, there were about twice as many lesions overall in the placebo group, compared with the ZA group (29 vs 15), which researchers said was by chance. All but two lesions disappeared in the ZA group, compared with 26 lesions remaining in the placebo group (P < .0001).

“The bone scan reversal of abnormalities was amazing,” said Ralston, where eight of nine patients with lesions in the ZA group “had their bone scan evidence completely wiped out,” he said. “That’s a very powerful result.”

Both CTX and P1NP concentrations fell in the ZA group at 12 months and remained significantly lower than the placebo group throughout the study (P < .0001 for each).

Overall, the researchers reported that eight individuals in the placebo group and no individuals in the ZA group had a poor outcome, defined as new bone lesions or lesions that were unchanged or progressed (odds ratio, 0.08; P = .003). Two individuals in the placebo group developed lesions during the study, compared with none in the ZA group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Importantly, there were no differences in adverse events between the two groups.

While only a small number of people in the study had legions — around 9% of participants — the effect of ZA is “dramatic,” Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, told this news organization.

While clinicians primarily diagnose PDB with X-rays or an alkaline phosphatase blood test, testing for SQSTM1 is a new way to understand if someone is at higher risk for the disease, she said.

“Now, it seems like [the test] is fairly easily available, so probably it’s something we can begin to incorporate into our armamentarium,” Dr. Russell said.

Individuals who test positive for pathogenic variants of SQSTM1 could then get a bone scan, while those who tested negative may not need any additional testing, she added.

Dr. Ralston and coauthors noted that the effect size shown in this study is similar to that of studies examining adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. That practice, they write, is now a part of the standard of care.

“We believe that a similar approach is now justified in people with a family history of PDB who test positive for SQSTM1 mutations,” they wrote.

However, it is not clear if all individuals with pathogenic SQSTM1 should receive ZA treatment or if treatment should be given to only those with bone lesions.

“Future research to gather the views of people with a family history of PDB will help to inform the most appropriate way forward,” the authors wrote.

The UK Medical Research Council and Arthritis Research UK funded the trial. Zoledronic acid and a placebo were supplied by Novartis. Dr. Ralston reported funding to his institution from Kyowa Kirin, UCB, the Paget’s Association, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside the trial. Dr. Russell had no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prophylactic treatment with zoledronic acid (ZA) in individuals at high genetic risk for Paget disease of the bone (PDB) can prevent the development or progression of the condition, according to a new study. The authors argued that the positive results from the trial suggest that individuals with a familial history of PDB should undergo genetic screening.

“If it’s positive, you should be able to have a bone scan and take it from there,” senior author Stuart Ralston, MBChB, MD, professor of rheumatology at the University of Edinburgh (Scotland), said in an interview.

Dr. Ralston

PDB is a chronic skeletal growth disorder that affects an estimated 1-3 million people in the United States and is most prevalent in individuals over 65 years old. Symptoms of the disease may not present until later stages when there is already skeletal damage that cannot be resolved by medications. Earlier intervention in individuals who have not yet shown signs of the condition could potentially halt disease progression, Dr. Ralston said.

Genetics plays a substantial role in PDB, especially pathogenic variants of the gene SQSTM1. An estimated 40%-50% of people with a familial history of PDB have these variants, according to the study, which are associated with earlier PDB onset and more severe disease.

However, it was unclear if early interventions in these higher-risk individuals may result in better health outcomes.

In this new study, published on December 20, 2023, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, researchers recruited participants through family members already diagnosed with PDB who received treatment at outpatient clinics. Over 1400 individuals with PDB underwent genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants. If they tested positive, their first-degree relatives — primarily children — were offered the same genetic test. In total, 350 relatives tested positive for these pathogenic SQSTM1 variants, and of these individuals, 222 agreed to participate in the trial.

At the beginning of the study, all participants received a radionuclide bone scan to screen for bone lesions. They also underwent testing for the bone resorption marker type I collagen C-terminal telopeptides (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I amino-terminal propeptide (P1NP).

Participants were then randomized to receive either a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg of ZA or placebo treatment. Researchers followed up with participants annually for a median of 84 months (7 years), and then baseline assessments were repeated.

A total of 90 individuals in the ZA treatment group and 90 individuals in the placebo group completed the trial.

Participants were, on average, 50 years old at the beginning of the study. In the ZA group, nine individuals had lesions detected in bone scans at baseline, compared with just one at the study’s end. In the placebo group, 12 individuals had detectable lesions at baseline, compared with 11 individuals at the study’s end.

While the proportion of individuals with lesions was similar between the two groups, there were about twice as many lesions overall in the placebo group, compared with the ZA group (29 vs 15), which researchers said was by chance. All but two lesions disappeared in the ZA group, compared with 26 lesions remaining in the placebo group (P < .0001).

“The bone scan reversal of abnormalities was amazing,” said Ralston, where eight of nine patients with lesions in the ZA group “had their bone scan evidence completely wiped out,” he said. “That’s a very powerful result.”

Both CTX and P1NP concentrations fell in the ZA group at 12 months and remained significantly lower than the placebo group throughout the study (P < .0001 for each).

Overall, the researchers reported that eight individuals in the placebo group and no individuals in the ZA group had a poor outcome, defined as new bone lesions or lesions that were unchanged or progressed (odds ratio, 0.08; P = .003). Two individuals in the placebo group developed lesions during the study, compared with none in the ZA group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Importantly, there were no differences in adverse events between the two groups.

While only a small number of people in the study had legions — around 9% of participants — the effect of ZA is “dramatic,” Linda A. Russell, MD, director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Health Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, told this news organization.

While clinicians primarily diagnose PDB with X-rays or an alkaline phosphatase blood test, testing for SQSTM1 is a new way to understand if someone is at higher risk for the disease, she said.

“Now, it seems like [the test] is fairly easily available, so probably it’s something we can begin to incorporate into our armamentarium,” Dr. Russell said.

Individuals who test positive for pathogenic variants of SQSTM1 could then get a bone scan, while those who tested negative may not need any additional testing, she added.

Dr. Ralston and coauthors noted that the effect size shown in this study is similar to that of studies examining adjuvant bisphosphonate therapy for postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. That practice, they write, is now a part of the standard of care.

“We believe that a similar approach is now justified in people with a family history of PDB who test positive for SQSTM1 mutations,” they wrote.

However, it is not clear if all individuals with pathogenic SQSTM1 should receive ZA treatment or if treatment should be given to only those with bone lesions.

“Future research to gather the views of people with a family history of PDB will help to inform the most appropriate way forward,” the authors wrote.

The UK Medical Research Council and Arthritis Research UK funded the trial. Zoledronic acid and a placebo were supplied by Novartis. Dr. Ralston reported funding to his institution from Kyowa Kirin, UCB, the Paget’s Association, and the Royal Osteoporosis Society. Some coauthors reported financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies outside the trial. Dr. Russell had no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An influential panel is seeking an increase in Medicare’s 2025 payments for clinicians, adding to pressure on Congress to reconsider how the largest US purchaser of health services pays for office visits and related care of the nation’s older citizens and those with disabilities.

The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a two-part recommendation on changes to the 2025 physician fee schedule:

• An increase in the base rate equal to half of the projected change in the Medicare Economic Index (MEI). Recent estimates have projected a 2.6% increase in MEI for 2025, which is intended to show how inflation affects the costs of running a medical practice.
• The creation of a safety-net add-on payment under the physician fee schedule to cover care of people with low incomes.

These recommendations echo the calls MedPAC made in a 2023 report to Congress. 

Lawmakers and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rely on MedPAC’s work in deciding how much to pay for services. About 1.3 million clinicians bill Medicare for their work, including about 670,000 physicians.

Thursday’s MedPAC vote comes amid continuing uncertainty about how much the federal government will actually pay clinicians this year through the physician fee schedule.

There are serious efforts underway to undo cuts already demanded by previously passed federal law. In an email, Rep. Larry Buchson, MD, (R-IN) said he remains committed to “eliminating the full 3.37% cut this year while also working toward a permanent solution to halt the downward spiral of physician reimbursement.”

“The Medicare payment cut to physicians will impede patients’ access to care and further accelerate the current path toward consolidation, physician burnout, and closure of medical practices,” Buchson told this news organization. “It’s past time that Congress provides much needed and deserved stability for America’s doctors.”

Congress this month is attempting to complete overdue budget legislation needed to fund federal operations for fiscal 2024, which began October 1, 2023. The pending expiration of a short-term stopgap continuing resolution could provide a vehicle that could also carry legislation that would address the physician fee schedule.

In a Thursday statement, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, commended MedPAC for its recommendations and urged lawmakers to act.

“Long-term reforms from Congress are overdue to close the unsustainable gap between what Medicare pays physicians and the actual costs of delivering high-quality care,” Dr. Ehrenfeld said. “When adjusted for inflation in practice costs, Medicare physician pay declined 26% from 2001 to 2023.”
 

Continual Struggles

Congress has struggled for years in its attempts to set Medicare payments for office visits and other services covered by the physician fee schedule. A 1990s budget law set the stage for what proved to be untenable reductions in payment through the sustainable growth rate mechanism.

Between 2003 through April 2014, lawmakers passed “doc-fix” legislation 17 times to block the slated cuts, according to the Congressional Research Service. In 2015, Congress passed an intended overhaul of the physician fee schedule through the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). As part of this law, Congress eliminated a base automatic inflation adjuster for the physician fee schedule.

In recent years, Congress has acted repeatedly to address MACRA’s mandates for flat base pay. MedPAC and members of both parties in Congress have called for a broad new look at how Medicare pays physicians. 

At Thursday’s meeting, MedPAC member Lawrence Casalino, MD, PhD, MPH, noted that the struggles to keep up with inflation and the “unpredictability of what the payment rates are going to be from year to year really do affect physician morale.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults using medical cannabis for chronic pain, especially those with cancer or cardiometabolic disease, have a slightly elevated risk of developing arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
• They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
• Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
• The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
• Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.

“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults using medical cannabis for chronic pain, especially those with cancer or cardiometabolic disease, have a slightly elevated risk of developing arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
• They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
• Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
• The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
• Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.

“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adults using medical cannabis for chronic pain, especially those with cancer or cardiometabolic disease, have a slightly elevated risk of developing arrhythmia, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.

METHODOLOGY:

• To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
• They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.

TAKEAWAY:

• Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
• Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
• The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
• Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.

IN PRACTICE:

“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.

“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Infection with COVID-19 conferred a nearly twofold risk of developing alopecia areata (AA), results from a large analysis of Korean patients demonstrated.

“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”

To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.

The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.

Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.

“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.

Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.

“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.

The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) via daily use of plastics is a major contributor to the overall disease burden in the United States and the associated costs to society amount to more than 1% of the gross domestic product, revealed a large-scale analysis.

The research, published in the Journal of the Endocrine Society, indicated that taken together, the disease burden attributable to EDCs used in the manufacture of plastics added up to almost $250 billion in 2018 alone.

“The diseases due to plastics run the entire life course from preterm birth to obesity, heart disease, and cancers,” commented lead author Leonardo Trasande, MD, MPP, Jim G. Hendrick, MD Professor of Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, in a release.

“Our study drives home the need to address chemicals used in plastic materials” through global treaties and other policy initiatives, he said, so as to “reduce these costs” in line with reductions in exposure to the chemicals.

Co-author Michael Belliveau, Executive Director at Defend Our Health in Portland, ME, agreed, saying: “We can reduce these health costs and the prevalence of chronic endocrine diseases such as diabetes and obesity if governments and companies enact policies that minimize exposure to EDCs to protect public health and the environment.”

Plastics may contain any one of a number of EDCs, such as polybrominated diphenylethers in flame retardant additives, phthalates in food packaging, bisphenols in can linings, and perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in nonstick cooking utensils.

These chemicals have been shown to leach and disturb the body’s hormone systems, increasing the risk for cancer, diabetes, reproductive disorders, neurological impairments in developing fetuses and children, and even death.

In March 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly committed to a global plastics treaty to “end plastic pollution and forge an international legally binding agreement by 2024” that “addresses the full life cycle of plastic, including its production, design and disposal.”

Minimizing EDC Exposure

But what can doctors tell their patients today to help them reduce their exposure to EDCs?

“There are safe and simple steps that people can take to limit their exposure to the chemicals of greatest concern,” Dr. Trasande told this news organization.

This can be partly achieved by reducing plastic use down to its essentials. “To use an example, when you are flying, fill up a stainless steel container after clearing security. At home, use glass or stainless steel” rather than plastic bottles or containers.

In particular, “avoiding microwaving plastic is important,” Dr. Trasande said, “even if a container says it’s microwave-safe.”

He warned that “many chemicals used in plastic are not covalently bound, and heat facilitates leaching into food. Microscopic contaminants can also get into food when you microwave plastic.”

Dr. Trasande also suggests limiting canned food consumption and avoiding cleaning plastic food containers in machine dishwashers.

Calculating the Disease Burden

To accurately assess the “the tradeoffs involved in the ongoing reliance on plastic production as a source of economic productivity,” the current researchers calculated the attributable disease burden and cost related to EDCs used in plastic materials in the United States in 2018.

Building on previously published analyses, they used industry reports, publications by national and international governing bodies, and peer-reviewed publications to determine the usage of each type of EDC and its attributable disease and disability burden.

This plastic-related fraction (PRF) of disease burden was then used to calculate an updated cost estimate for each EDC, based on the assumption that the disease burden is directly proportional to its exposure.

They found that for bisphenol A, 97.5% of its use, and therefore its estimated PRF of disease burden, was related to the manufacture of plastics, while this figure was 98%-100% for phthalates. For PDBE, 98% of its use was in plastics vs 93% for PFAS.

The researchers then estimated that the total plastic-attributable disease burden in the United States in 2018 cost the nation $249 billion, or 1.22% of the gross domestic product. Of this, $159 billion was linked to PDBE exposure, which is associated with diseases such as cancer.

Moreover, $1.02 billion plastic-attributable disease burden was associated with bisphenol A exposure, which can have potentially harmful health effects on the immune system; followed by $66.7 billion due to phthalates, which are linked to preterm birth, reduced sperm count, and childhood obesity; and $22.4 billion due to PFAS, which are associated with kidney failure and gestational diabetes.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Passport Foundation.

Dr. Trasande declared relationships with Audible, Houghton Mifflin, Paidos, and Kobunsha, none of which relate to the present manuscript.

No other financial relationships were declared.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Two doses of the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) are effective against herpes zoster (HZ) for 4 years after vaccination, according to a new study published in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Findings from the prospective cohort study showed that people who received two doses of the vaccine, regardless of when they received their second dose, experienced 79% vaccine effectiveness (VE) during the first year, with effectiveness decreasing to 73% by year 4. By contrast, the rate of effectiveness during the first year was 70% for people who received a single dose, falling to 52% effectiveness by year 4.

The findings also showed that the rate of effectiveness was 65% for those taking corticosteroids.

The study was conducted between 2018 and 2022 using data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, a collaboration between the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and nine healthcare systems across the country.

Researchers evaluated the incidence of HZ, as determined by a diagnosis and prescription for antiviral medication within 7 days of diagnosis, and monitored RZV status over time.

The findings may quell fears that waiting too long for the second dose reduces the effectiveness of the herpes vaccine, according to Nicola Klein, MD, PhD, director of the Vaccine Study Center at Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, who led the study.

The long-term efficacy of the vaccine is especially important because older adults are now living much longer than in previous years, according to Alexandra Tien, MD, a family physician at Medical Associates of Rhode Island in Providence.

“People live these days into their 80s and even 90s,” Dr. Tien said. “That’s a large number of years to need protection for, so it’s really important to have a long-lasting vaccine.”

The CDC currently recommends two doses of RZV separated by 2-6 months for patients aged 50 years and older. Adults older than 19 years who are immunocompromised should receive two doses of RZV separated by 1-2 months, the agency said.

According to Dr. Klein, research does not show whether VE for RZV wanes after 4 years. But interim findings from another study following people in clinical trials found VE levels remained high after 7 years.

The risk for HZ increases with age, reaching a lifetime risk of 50% among adults aged 85 years. Complications like postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) — characterized by long-term tingling, numbness, and disabling pain at the site of the rash — can interfere with the quality of life and ability to function in older adults. The CDC estimates that up to 18% of people with shingles experience PHN, and the risk increases with age.

Just like with any other vaccine, patients sometimes have concerns about the potential side effects of RZV, said Dr. Tien. But those effects, such as muscle pain, nausea, and fever, are mild compared to shingles.

“I always tell patients, with any vaccine, immunization is one of the biggest bangs for your buck in healthcare because you’re preventing a problem,” Dr. Tien said.

This study was funded by the CDC through contracts with participating sites. Study authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Tien reported no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dermatomyositis (DM) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular comorbidities, including chronic kidney disease, a new study found.

METHODOLOGY:

• DM is associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD), but US-based data studies on CVD comorbidities in patients with DM are lacking.
• In a cross-sectional analysis of participants in the All of Us research program aged 18 years and older with at least 1 year of electronic health record (EHR) data, researchers identified DM cases and controls with nearest neighbor propensity score matching by age, sex, race/ethnicity, EHR duration, and healthcare visit quantity.
• They used the Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, unpaired t-test, or Mann-Whitney U test to compare clinical characteristics and traditional CV comorbidities.
• Multivariable conditional logistic regression was used with backward elimination of comorbidities with P > .1 or evidence of collinearity.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among 235,161 All of Us participants, researchers identified 206 DM cases and 824 matched controls with largely similar demographic characteristics, including smoking status, obesity, and indicators of socioeconomic status.
• Participants with DM were more likely to have a history of atrial fibrillation (10.1% vs 16.0%, respectively), chronic kidney disease (15.2% vs 29.1%), congestive heart failure (9.6% vs 18.0%), coronary artery disease (CAD) (18.2% vs 34.0%), hypertension (52.5% vs 60.7%), myocardial infarction (7.4% vs 15.0), type 2 diabetes (27.3% vs 47.6%), and valvular heart disease (8.7% vs 16.5%) than matched controls.
• In a multivariable analysis that adjusted for potential confounders, three comorbidities remained associated with DM: CAD (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .001), type 2 diabetes (OR, 2.2; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (OR, 1.7; P = .015).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings are important both for prognosis and clinical care, suggesting DM patients should be screened for CVD risk factors to potentially reduce the increased risk for cardiovascular events and CVD-related mortality in DM,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alisa N. Femia, MD, of the department of dermatology at NYU Grossman School of Medicine, led the research. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

How DM treatments might influence CVD development was not addressed. EHRs may have diagnostic inaccuracies and omissions and lack data on clinical features and severity.

DISCLOSURES:

The project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health. Dr. Femia reported consulting fees from Octagon Therapeutics, Timber Pharmaceuticals, and Guidepoint. Study author Michael S. Garshick, MD, reported consulting fees from AbbVie and Horizon Therapeutics. The remaining authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

An intensive weight loss program is safe for individuals with gout and obesity but does not ease gout symptoms compared with a “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

METHODOLOGY:

• Weight loss is recommended as a gout management strategy, despite little clinical evidence.
• Researchers recruited 61 patients with gout and obesity to participate in a 16-week, randomized, nonblinded, parallel-group trial in Denmark.
• A total of 29 participants were assigned to an intensive, low-calorie diet with provided meal replacements.
• Another 32 participants were assigned to the “control diet” with basic nutritional counseling.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients in the intensive group lost more weight (−15.4 kg/34 lbs) than those the control group (−7.7 kg/17 lbs).
• There were no differences in pain, fatigue, or gout flares between the two groups.
• Weight loss was associated with reduction in serum urate (SU).
• Patients in the intervention group had a numerically larger mean SU change (−0.6 mg/dL) than the control group (−0.3 mg/dL), but this difference was not statistically significant.

IN PRACTICE:

Weight loss can lower SU levels, but this did not translate to improved gout symptoms.

SOURCE:

Robin Christensen, PhD, and Kristian Zobbe, MD, PhD, of the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen, Denmark, were co-first authors of the study, published on January 2, 2024, in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a relatively small sample size and short-term intervention period, which may have made it difficult to detect differences between the intervention and control groups. Patients in the control group lost a significant amount of weight, which also affected comparisons between the two groups.

DISCLOSURES:

Several of the authors disclosed financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies. The Parker Institute, which funded the study, is supported by grants from the Oak Foundation and the Danish Rheumatism Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.