Conference Coverage

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided an overview of what obesity medications are approved for in youth and how to determine which medications may be best for different patients.

“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”

Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.

“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”

Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
 

Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On

Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.

Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.

As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.

“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”

BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.

Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.

“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”

Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
 

Overview of the Medications

There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.

Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.

While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.

“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.

Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.

“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”

Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
 

Liraglutide and Semaglutide

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.

These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.

The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.

It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.

“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”

Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:

• Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
• Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
• Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.

Phentermine/Topiramate

Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.

Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.

A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.

“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”

Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.

Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.

Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
 

Phentermine

Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.

Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.

Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
 

What Else to Know

Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.

For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided an overview of what obesity medications are approved for in youth and how to determine which medications may be best for different patients.

“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”

Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.

“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”

Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
 

Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On

Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.

Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.

As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.

“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”

BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.

Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.

“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”

Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
 

Overview of the Medications

There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.

Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.

While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.

“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.

Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.

“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”

Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
 

Liraglutide and Semaglutide

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.

These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.

The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.

It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.

“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”

Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:

• Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
• Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
• Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.

Phentermine/Topiramate

Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.

Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.

A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.

“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”

Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.

Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.

Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
 

Phentermine

Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.

Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.

Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
 

What Else to Know

Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.

For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.

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

ORLANDO, FLORIDA — The rationale for using obesity medications in pediatric patients is that it’s using “a biological intervention to treat a biologically based disease,” according to Claudia Fox, MD, MPH, an associate professor of pediatrics and codirector of the Center for Pediatric Obesity Medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. At the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Fox provided an overview of what obesity medications are approved for in youth and how to determine which medications may be best for different patients.

“This field is changing so rapidly that even over the course of the last 3 or 4 months, the verbiage around what we should be calling these interventions has changed,” Fox noted. Instead of “anti-obesity” medications, “most of us are now using the term obesity medications to highlight or to reduce chances of stigma and bias that can come along with this topic.”

Jessica Ivers, MD, a pediatrician at Swedish Pediatrics in Seattle, Washington, said she found the session very informative, particularly because she doesn’t think many pediatricians currently feel very comfortable prescribing obesity medications.

“It answered questions that any general pediatrician would have, and it’s kind of a new field that people are learning about,” Ivers said. “I think we just need more education. It’s just too new, and people haven’t had the education and the support from colleagues to [use the medications].”

Fox first reminded attendees of precisely what obesity is: A chronic, relapsing, multifactorial, neurobehavioral disease that involves the accumulation and/or distribution of excess body fat that results in impaired health. AAP clinical practice guidelines currently advise that youth aged 12 years or older who have obesity be offered weight loss pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to lifestyle treatment, taking into consideration the indications, risks, and benefits of each medication.

That doesn’t necessarily mean every child aged 12 years or older with a body mass index (BMI) of at least the 95th percentile should be prescribed one of these medications, Fox said. But pediatricians should start becoming familiar with the options and recognize that part of reducing the stigma of this disease is emphasizing that these medications are prescribed not for “weight loss” but to treat the disease of obesity, Fox said. The guidelines advise “early, intensive care” and focusing on the whole child, “using a family-centered and nonstigmatizing approach that acknowledges obesity’s biologic, social, and structural drivers.”
 

Offer the Full Spectrum of Care Early On

Early intervention means starting obesity treatment at diagnosis, without watchful waiting or the previously recommended staged approach. Instead of trying lifestyle therapy for 3-6 months, then considering the addition of medication, and then considering bariatric surgery, “we should be offering the full spectrum of obesity care as appropriate for that individual patient,” Fox said.

Some children with severe obesity may need the combination of lifestyle therapy and pharmacotherapy right up front, whereas another might be able to try lifestyle therapy alone for a while first. “What we know is that, for most interventions, whether it is lifestyle therapy, a medication, or bariatric surgery, early response typically predicts longer-term response,” Fox said. A study conducted by her group, for example, found that a 3% BMI reduction after 1 month with lifestyle therapy was very predictive of clinically meaningful BMI reduction at 1 year.

As with any medical treatment, physicians need to weigh the risks of the medication — short-term side effects and unknown long-term risks (or benefits) — against the risks of not treating. Because obesity is a progressive disease, “if we don’t treat it, most will develop comorbid conditions, or worsening of their already present comorbid conditions, and this does indeed lead to shortened life expectancy,” Fox said. Those who should be treated with medication are obviously those in whom the benefits outweigh the risks, Fox said, which depends on their age, their comorbidities, the severity of obesity, and the safety and efficacy of medication options.

“If I have a patient who has maybe class 2 obesity but no other comorbid conditions, I may be less inclined to start an obesity medication than a kid who has class 1 obesity and obstructive sleep apnea, for instance,” Fox said. “Some of the medications are very, very potent and effective. If you have a kid who maybe has less severe forms of obesity, perhaps they don’t need something that’s so potent.”

BMI trajectory is also a factor to consider. She said she may not be too concerned about a 16-year-old who has always been at the 95th percentile and is otherwise healthy, but the situation is different for a 16-year-old who used to be in the 25th percentile and has rapidly progressed to the 50th and then 75th percentiles in a trajectory heading straight up.

Another factor that may come into play is the patient and family preferences, though Fox noted that weight bias and stigma often interfere here. If obesity medications are brought up, the family may bring up the need for more exercise and better meal prep at home.

“They have this sense that they just need to try harder, that if they did that, the obesity would somehow get better on its own,” Fox said. “That’s an internalized bias that it’s somehow their fault, rather than realizing that this is indeed a biological disorder.”

Finally, clinicians may want to consider the child’s response to lifestyle therapy and whether they have already had bariatric surgery because these medications can be prescribed in people who did not have an adequate response to surgery.
 

Overview of the Medications

There are currently six obesity medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in youth: Phentermine, orlistat, liraglutide, phentermine/topiramate, semaglutide, and setmelanotide.

Of these, orlistat is rarely used now because it results in the least amount of change in BMI (about a 3% loss change in BMI), has a lot of gastrointestinal side effects, often is not covered by insurance, and is expensive out of pocket. Setmelanotide is indicated only in those aged 6 years or older who have obesity because of Bardet-Biedl syndrome or one of three other rare genetic conditions: a POMC, LEPR, or PCSK1 deficiency. Fox therefore focused on the other medications besides these two.

While nearly all the currently available obesity medications are only approved in those aged 12 years or older, Fox noted that studies are ongoing at younger ages, so some of these medications may receive approval in younger populations in the future. The only one currently available for a younger age is liraglutide, which is approved down to 6 years old in children with type 2 diabetes.

“Very young kids who have very severe forms of obesity need intervention, and unfortunately, at this point, we really don’t have much to offer them,” Fox said.

Fox highlighted six key factors to consider in selecting a medication for those aged 12 years or older, though one of these, in the US healthcare system, can tend to trump all the others. Those factors are mechanism of action, side effect profile, effects on other diagnoses, patient/family preferences, provider comfort, and finally — the potentially overruling one — insurance coverage and access.

“These days, insurance coverage and access are really the No. 1 driver when I’m seeing a patient,” Fox said. “The first thing I do is look at their insurance and then also look at what kind of updates our pharmacist has given us about which medication is currently in stock.”

Each medication has different properties that should be considered with the child’s health profile. For example, topiramate is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor so likely shouldn’t be prescribed in a child who is taking any other carbonic anhydrase inhibitor. Fox said she probably wouldn’t prescribe phentermine in a child with severe anxiety because it might enhance the anxiety effect. But if a child has migraines, she may be more inclined to try phentermine/topiramate first because the topiramate may help with the migraines. Similarly, if a child has type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, she may lean toward one of the glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonist drugs.
 

Liraglutide and Semaglutide

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both GLP-1 receptor agonists administered subcutaneously to reduce appetite, increase satiety, slow gastric emptying, and reduce the food reward response in the brain. Liraglutide can result in up to 4.5%-5% change in BMI, and semaglutide, the most potent of all the medications, can result in up to a 17% change in BMI.

Liraglutide and semaglutide are both approved for patients aged 12 years or older who weigh at least 60 kg and have a BMI of at least the 95th percentile. Liraglutide is also approved for those aged 10 years or older with type 2 diabetes. Both are contraindicated in those with a family history of medullary thyroid cancer or multiple endocrine neoplasia II. The risks to watch for include pancreatitis and gallbladder disease. Also keep in mind if you have a patient with type 1 diabetes and insulin resistance; prescribing a GLP-1 agonist is appropriate, but their insulin needs will decrease, necessitating close monitoring of their blood glucose, Fox noted.

These GLP-1 medications can be considered for those who have insurance coverage for them, who have diabetes or prediabetes, who are comfortable with daily (liraglutide) or weekly (semaglutide) injections, who have food cravings, and who have poor satiety or satiation. Without insurance, these medications are very expensive.

The most common side effects include injection site reactions and nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, though all these usually fade and can be minimized with small portions and slower eating if needed. Less common possible side effects can include abdominal pain, constipation, headache, dizziness, fatigue, and hypoglycemia. If patients develop severe belly pain that radiates to their back, they should be assessed for pancreatitis.

It’s also important to demonstrate for patients how to do the injections, Fox said. Liraglutide dosing begins at 0.6 mg daily for a week, followed by a week at 1.2 mg, a week at 1.8 mg, a week at 2.4 mg, and then 3 mg daily. Semaglutide dosing starts at 0.25 mg weekly for 4 weeks, then going up each subsequent month as needed to 0.5 mg, then 1 mg, then 1.7 mg, and finally 2.4 mg. Though there’s no standard follow-up schedule for these medications, Fox suggested considering monthly visits for the first 3 months and then every 2-3 months to assess heart rate and blood pressure, the injection site, adherence, side effects, and the effect on BMI and eating.

“Are they getting appetite suppression, but not too much appetite suppression?” Fox said. “Just like in eating disorder treatment, we want our patients to eat regularly spaced meals. If their appetite is so suppressed that they are hardly eating anything, that’s a problem.”

Fox also offered the following additional pearls about these medications:

• Though manufacturers have struggled to keep up with demand, the shortages of these medications are improving. However, beware the compounding pharmacies filling the gap because compounded medications are not FDA approved, and quality control issues are a concern.
• Prior authorizations are usually needed, and common reasons for denial to anticipate include lack of documentation on not having contraindications, the patient not following a low-calorie diet or engaging in physical activity, and the patient not having seen a registered dietitian.
• Patients should expect gastrointestinal side effects, but ondansetron can be prescribed to lessen the intensity.

Phentermine/Topiramate

Phentermine/topiramate extended-release is a once-daily oral tablet, with the phentermine acting to reduce appetite (by simulating the release of norepinephrine) and the topiramate reducing caloric intake and food reward response (by increasing gamma-aminobutyric acid activity). It’s approved for those aged 12 years or older with a BMI of at least the 95th percentile and should be considered in those with strong hunger, low energy, binge eating disorder, or migraines, as well as those who have insurance coverage for it. It can result in up to a 10% change in BMI.

Contraindications include pregnancy, substance use, cardiovascular disease (though it’s okay in patients with controlled hypertension), hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, and monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) use. Fox emphasized the teratogenic effects, so patients capable of pregnancy need to be on reliable birth control. The most common side effects include paresthesia, dizziness, dysgeusia, insomnia, and constipation.

A risk of topiramate is kidney stones, so patients should drink a lot of water, especially in hot weather, Fox said. Other risks can include metabolic acidosis, suicidality, poor cognitive function, high blood pressure, and renal impairment.

“If your patient is struggling academically, I might use this medication a bit more cautiously, particularly when the dose gets above 100 mg a day,” Fox said. “That’s when the cognitive effects tend to emerge more strongly.”

Patients with congenital heart disease should meet with their cardiologist before starting this medication, and although patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) can take this, there is a potential increased risk for serotonin syndrome because phentermine has a little bit of serotonergic activity, she said.

Before prescribing, do an exam to ensure the patient doesn’t have a heart murmur, isn’t hypertensive, isn’t pregnant, has normal kidney function, and has bicarbonate in a reasonable range. Dosing begins with a daily 3.75/23-mg capsule for 2 weeks, followed by 2 weeks at 7.5 mg/46 mg. As with the GLP-1 drugs, Fox advises considering monthly follow-ups for the first 3 months and then visits every 2-3 months. Each visit should include the assessment of cardiovascular health, heart rate, blood pressure, side effects, pregnancy risk, and the medication’s effect on BMI and eating. If the patient is tolerating a dose of 7.5 mg/46 mg, it can be increased to 11.25 mg/69 mg for 2 weeks and then to 15 mg/92 mg. Bicarbonate and creatinine should be checked every 6-12 months; if bicarbonate < 18 mEq/L, the dose should be reduced and then bicarbonate should be checked again a month later.

Fox noted that this drug is expected to go off patent in late 2024 or in 2025, which will substantially reduce the cost. It’s also possible to prescribe phentermine and topiramate separately, which may reduce costs or help with insurance coverage and can allow for evening dosing of topiramate.
 

Phentermine

Phentermine alone is only approved for those older than 16 years who have a BMI of at least 30, or at least 27 with weight-related comorbidities, and it’s not approved for use longer than 12 weeks. It results in a BMI change of up to 5%. It should be considered in those with strong hunger and low energy and in those who don’t have adequate insurance coverage because out-of-pocket costs can be as little as $5/mo.

Contraindications are the same as those for the combined pill above: Substance use, cardiovascular disease, hyperthyroidism, glaucoma, MAOI use, and agitation. Again, take caution with patients who have hypertension, have congenital heart disease, or take SSRIs or insulin.

Side effects can include palpitations, tachycardia, dry mouth, headache, insomnia, and anxiety. The dose starts at 15 mg daily, and Fox advises following a similar follow-up as with the other medications, at which clinicians should assess BMI, the medication’s effect on eating, cardiovascular health, and side effects and have a discussion about off-label use. Off-label use refers to prescriptions lasting longer than 12 weeks, but it’s arguably safer than attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder stimulants because of the lower addiction potential, Fox said.
 

What Else to Know

Because obesity is a chronic disease, treatment will be ongoing, Fox noted. A lot of people will ask when or where the “off-ramp” for these medications is, but many people will need these medications long term just as someone with other chronic diseases requires lifetime pharmacotherapy. The treatment intensity will vary based on disease severity and individual characteristics, Fox said.

For those feeling overwhelmed by the options, Fox advises clinicians to start by picking one medication to learn and then spending the time to read the FDA package insert in full. Get samples and then closely follow patients to learn that medication well before moving on to learn another. She also noted the opportunity for pediatricians to see a pediatric obesity medicine fellowship.

No external funding was used for the presentation. Fox is a site principal investigator for clinical trials sponsored by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly. Ivers had no disclosures.

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

VIENNA — A diet high in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) increases the risk for clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) who are in remission, results of a new study suggested.

Certain subgroups of UPFs, specifically bread, pastries, and starch as well as oil and spreads, exhibited the strongest association with relapse risks of approximately threefold.

“In addition to treating active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we want to maintain remission for the long term,” Chen Sarbagili Shabat, PhD, clinical dietitian from Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel, said in an interview. “It’s highly important. We know environmental factors are associated with the disease, which is why we can treat active disease with diet. Likewise, we can manage CD in a remission state with diet.”

This is the first prospective study of this particular level of UPFs in people with Crohn’s disease who are in remission, noted Shabat, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Previously, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed that a diet high in UPFs is associated with a 70% increased risk for development of CD, and a longitudinal study showed that “Western” dietary patterns were associated with relapse risk in patients with IBD, Shabat reported.
 

Effect of High vs Low Intake of UPFs

The current single-center, prospective cohort study, followed 111 patients with CD every 3 months until relapse for up to 1 year.

Participants were aged 18-75 years (mean age, 38 years), with a median disease duration of 8.7 years. They were required to have maintained steroid-free clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), < 5) for 3 months or more. The median duration of clinical remission at recruitment was 3 years.

Data collection included HBI level, medication type and dosage to ensure constant therapy and full compliance, and a stool sample for fecal calprotectin measurement.

The primary outcome comprised a clinical relapse HBI ≥ 5 over the 12-month follow-up or a change in disease activity requiring a change in medication, hospitalization, or any IBD-related surgery.

Participants were asked to complete a processed food questionnaire to assess the intake of UPFs and a food frequency questionnaire to assess the total intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients. UPFs were divided into high and low intakes using a median cutoff of 3.6 servings/day.

The low intake group included 57 participants, and the high intake group included 54.

A total of 24 patients (21.6%) experienced a clinical relapse event, 7 in the low intake group vs 17 in the high intake group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% CI, 1.30-11.47; P = .015 after adjustments).

In a subset of 97 patients with baseline fecal calprotectin measurements, 6 (n = 50) in the low intake group experienced a clinical relapse vs 15 (n = 47) in the high intake group (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.73; P = .013 after adjustments).

Fecal calprotectin results were also suggestive of an association between high intake of UPFs and gut inflammation, Shabat reported.
 

Food Groups and Emulsifiers

UPFs were divided into subgroups: Bread, pastries, and starch; oils and spreads; ultraprocessed meat; sweet products and desserts; and ultraprocessed beverages.

The highest associations with relapse were in the subgroup of bread, pastries, and starch (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.25) and the subgroup of oils and spreads (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.02-7.45).

“The selection of healthy food is highly important, especially since we know that certain food ingredients can contribute to the pathogenesis of CD,” Shabat said. Patients can use partial enteral nutrition to provide 40%-50% of daily caloric intake in order to maintain remission, but she acknowledged it can be really difficult to adhere to.

She concluded by asserting that the study results, along with future research, should contribute to establishing nutritional guidelines to reduce UPF consumption in patients with CD in order to maintain remission.

Commenting on the study, Kevin Whelan, PhD, professor of dietetics and head of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London in England, said that he was intrigued by the subgroup analysis that showed breads, pastries, oils, and spreads as having the strongest association with relapse risk.

He also remarked that these foods almost ubiquitously contain emulsifiers, and so the association might have less to do with UPFs in general and more to do with emulsifiers.

Concurring, Shabat noted that, while emulsifiers can negatively influence the microbiota and the gut barrier function, as well as contribute to intestinal inflammation, further mechanistic studies are required to understand these effects.

We need to determine if all additives have the same effect on the inflammatory process and also need studies looking at UPFs alone, she added.

Shabat reported receiving personal fees from Nestle Health Science (Wolfson Medical Center IP) for consulting and speaking and from Takeda and Ferring for speaking. Whelan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA — A diet high in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) increases the risk for clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) who are in remission, results of a new study suggested.

Certain subgroups of UPFs, specifically bread, pastries, and starch as well as oil and spreads, exhibited the strongest association with relapse risks of approximately threefold.

“In addition to treating active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we want to maintain remission for the long term,” Chen Sarbagili Shabat, PhD, clinical dietitian from Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel, said in an interview. “It’s highly important. We know environmental factors are associated with the disease, which is why we can treat active disease with diet. Likewise, we can manage CD in a remission state with diet.”

This is the first prospective study of this particular level of UPFs in people with Crohn’s disease who are in remission, noted Shabat, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Previously, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed that a diet high in UPFs is associated with a 70% increased risk for development of CD, and a longitudinal study showed that “Western” dietary patterns were associated with relapse risk in patients with IBD, Shabat reported.
 

Effect of High vs Low Intake of UPFs

The current single-center, prospective cohort study, followed 111 patients with CD every 3 months until relapse for up to 1 year.

Participants were aged 18-75 years (mean age, 38 years), with a median disease duration of 8.7 years. They were required to have maintained steroid-free clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), < 5) for 3 months or more. The median duration of clinical remission at recruitment was 3 years.

Data collection included HBI level, medication type and dosage to ensure constant therapy and full compliance, and a stool sample for fecal calprotectin measurement.

The primary outcome comprised a clinical relapse HBI ≥ 5 over the 12-month follow-up or a change in disease activity requiring a change in medication, hospitalization, or any IBD-related surgery.

Participants were asked to complete a processed food questionnaire to assess the intake of UPFs and a food frequency questionnaire to assess the total intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients. UPFs were divided into high and low intakes using a median cutoff of 3.6 servings/day.

The low intake group included 57 participants, and the high intake group included 54.

A total of 24 patients (21.6%) experienced a clinical relapse event, 7 in the low intake group vs 17 in the high intake group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% CI, 1.30-11.47; P = .015 after adjustments).

In a subset of 97 patients with baseline fecal calprotectin measurements, 6 (n = 50) in the low intake group experienced a clinical relapse vs 15 (n = 47) in the high intake group (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.73; P = .013 after adjustments).

Fecal calprotectin results were also suggestive of an association between high intake of UPFs and gut inflammation, Shabat reported.
 

Food Groups and Emulsifiers

UPFs were divided into subgroups: Bread, pastries, and starch; oils and spreads; ultraprocessed meat; sweet products and desserts; and ultraprocessed beverages.

The highest associations with relapse were in the subgroup of bread, pastries, and starch (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.25) and the subgroup of oils and spreads (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.02-7.45).

“The selection of healthy food is highly important, especially since we know that certain food ingredients can contribute to the pathogenesis of CD,” Shabat said. Patients can use partial enteral nutrition to provide 40%-50% of daily caloric intake in order to maintain remission, but she acknowledged it can be really difficult to adhere to.

She concluded by asserting that the study results, along with future research, should contribute to establishing nutritional guidelines to reduce UPF consumption in patients with CD in order to maintain remission.

Commenting on the study, Kevin Whelan, PhD, professor of dietetics and head of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London in England, said that he was intrigued by the subgroup analysis that showed breads, pastries, oils, and spreads as having the strongest association with relapse risk.

He also remarked that these foods almost ubiquitously contain emulsifiers, and so the association might have less to do with UPFs in general and more to do with emulsifiers.

Concurring, Shabat noted that, while emulsifiers can negatively influence the microbiota and the gut barrier function, as well as contribute to intestinal inflammation, further mechanistic studies are required to understand these effects.

We need to determine if all additives have the same effect on the inflammatory process and also need studies looking at UPFs alone, she added.

Shabat reported receiving personal fees from Nestle Health Science (Wolfson Medical Center IP) for consulting and speaking and from Takeda and Ferring for speaking. Whelan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA — A diet high in ultraprocessed foods (UPFs) increases the risk for clinical relapse in patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) who are in remission, results of a new study suggested.

Certain subgroups of UPFs, specifically bread, pastries, and starch as well as oil and spreads, exhibited the strongest association with relapse risks of approximately threefold.

“In addition to treating active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), we want to maintain remission for the long term,” Chen Sarbagili Shabat, PhD, clinical dietitian from Tel Aviv Medical Center in Israel, said in an interview. “It’s highly important. We know environmental factors are associated with the disease, which is why we can treat active disease with diet. Likewise, we can manage CD in a remission state with diet.”

This is the first prospective study of this particular level of UPFs in people with Crohn’s disease who are in remission, noted Shabat, who presented the findings at United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

Previously, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed that a diet high in UPFs is associated with a 70% increased risk for development of CD, and a longitudinal study showed that “Western” dietary patterns were associated with relapse risk in patients with IBD, Shabat reported.
 

Effect of High vs Low Intake of UPFs

The current single-center, prospective cohort study, followed 111 patients with CD every 3 months until relapse for up to 1 year.

Participants were aged 18-75 years (mean age, 38 years), with a median disease duration of 8.7 years. They were required to have maintained steroid-free clinical remission (Harvey-Bradshaw Index (HBI), < 5) for 3 months or more. The median duration of clinical remission at recruitment was 3 years.

Data collection included HBI level, medication type and dosage to ensure constant therapy and full compliance, and a stool sample for fecal calprotectin measurement.

The primary outcome comprised a clinical relapse HBI ≥ 5 over the 12-month follow-up or a change in disease activity requiring a change in medication, hospitalization, or any IBD-related surgery.

Participants were asked to complete a processed food questionnaire to assess the intake of UPFs and a food frequency questionnaire to assess the total intake of energy, macronutrients, and micronutrients. UPFs were divided into high and low intakes using a median cutoff of 3.6 servings/day.

The low intake group included 57 participants, and the high intake group included 54.

A total of 24 patients (21.6%) experienced a clinical relapse event, 7 in the low intake group vs 17 in the high intake group (hazard ratio [HR], 3.86; 95% CI, 1.30-11.47; P = .015 after adjustments).

In a subset of 97 patients with baseline fecal calprotectin measurements, 6 (n = 50) in the low intake group experienced a clinical relapse vs 15 (n = 47) in the high intake group (HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 1.36-13.73; P = .013 after adjustments).

Fecal calprotectin results were also suggestive of an association between high intake of UPFs and gut inflammation, Shabat reported.
 

Food Groups and Emulsifiers

UPFs were divided into subgroups: Bread, pastries, and starch; oils and spreads; ultraprocessed meat; sweet products and desserts; and ultraprocessed beverages.

The highest associations with relapse were in the subgroup of bread, pastries, and starch (HR, 3.37; 95% CI, 1.26-8.25) and the subgroup of oils and spreads (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.02-7.45).

“The selection of healthy food is highly important, especially since we know that certain food ingredients can contribute to the pathogenesis of CD,” Shabat said. Patients can use partial enteral nutrition to provide 40%-50% of daily caloric intake in order to maintain remission, but she acknowledged it can be really difficult to adhere to.

She concluded by asserting that the study results, along with future research, should contribute to establishing nutritional guidelines to reduce UPF consumption in patients with CD in order to maintain remission.

Commenting on the study, Kevin Whelan, PhD, professor of dietetics and head of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London in England, said that he was intrigued by the subgroup analysis that showed breads, pastries, oils, and spreads as having the strongest association with relapse risk.

He also remarked that these foods almost ubiquitously contain emulsifiers, and so the association might have less to do with UPFs in general and more to do with emulsifiers.

Concurring, Shabat noted that, while emulsifiers can negatively influence the microbiota and the gut barrier function, as well as contribute to intestinal inflammation, further mechanistic studies are required to understand these effects.

We need to determine if all additives have the same effect on the inflammatory process and also need studies looking at UPFs alone, she added.

Shabat reported receiving personal fees from Nestle Health Science (Wolfson Medical Center IP) for consulting and speaking and from Takeda and Ferring for speaking. Whelan reported no relevant disclosures.

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

VIENNA — Cendakimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL) 13, improved symptoms and reduced esophageal eosinophil counts in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
 

Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’

EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.

In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.

For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.

A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.

Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.

Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.

The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.

The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).

The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.

Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.

“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.

Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.

“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”

Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Cendakimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL) 13, improved symptoms and reduced esophageal eosinophil counts in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
 

Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’

EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.

In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.

For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.

A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.

Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.

Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.

The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.

The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).

The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.

Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.

“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.

Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.

“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”

Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — Cendakimab, a monoclonal antibody targeting interleukin (IL) 13, improved symptoms and reduced esophageal eosinophil counts in adult and adolescent patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), according to interim results of a pivotal phase 3 trial.

Treatment with cendakimab also improved key endoscopic and histologic features, even in patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to steroids, reported Alain Schoepfer, MD, gastroenterologist from Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois and University of Lausanne, in Switzerland.

The drug was generally safe and well tolerated up to 24 weeks of treatment, added Schoepfer, who presented the results during a presentation at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.
 

Targeting IL-13 Shows ‘Surprisingly Good Results’

EoE is a chronic, progressive, immune-mediated, inflammatory disease that is mainly driven by the cytokine, IL-13.

In a prior phase 2 study, cendakimab, which selectively binds to IL-13 and blocks its interaction with both the IL-13Ra1 and the IL-13Ra2 receptors, was shown to improve symptoms and endoscopic features of EoE.

For the current phase 3 trial, participants were required to have a peak eosinophil count (PEC) of ≥ 15 eosinophils (eos)/high power field (hpf) and 4 or more days of dysphagia over the 2 weeks prior to the start of the study. In addition, they had to have shown a complete lack of response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment for 8 weeks or more.

A total of 430 patients were randomized 1:1:1 to subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 48 weeks; subcutaneous cendakimab (360 mg) once weekly for 24 weeks, then once every 2 weeks for a further 24 weeks; or subcutaneous placebo once weekly for 48 weeks.

Patient characteristics were similar across randomization groups. The majority of participants were men, with a mean age of 35 years (range, 12-75 years); adolescents comprised 6%-11% of the total. The disease duration was around 5-6 years for all participants, of which 45% were on a stable PPI dosage and around 65% had steroid intolerance or an inadequate response. The endoscopic reference score was around 10 across all groups. The mean PEC was around 160 eos/hpf in the cendakimab arms vs 200 eos/hpf in the placebo arm.

Schoepfer reported results for the coprimary endpoints — the mean change from baseline in dysphagia days and the proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response (PEC ≤ 6 eos/hpf) — at week 24. At this point, a total of 286 patients had received treatment with 360 mg of cendakimab once weekly, and 143 had received placebo.

The change in dysphagia days was −6.1 in patients on cendakimab once weekly vs −4.2 in patients on placebo (P = .0005). The proportion of patients with eosinophil histologic response was 28.6% in the treatment arm vs 2.2% in the placebo arm.

The results were similar for patients who were classified as having had a steroid inadequate response. The change in dysphagia days was −6.3 in the cendakimab group vs −4.7 in the placebo group (P = .0156). The eosinophil histologic response was 29.5% in the treatment group vs 2.1% in the placebo group (P < .0001).

Endoscopic response, a key secondary endpoint, showed a change from baseline to week 24 in the endoscopic features of EoE. The total endoscopic reference scores were −5.2 for patients on cendakimab once weekly and −1.2 for patients on placebo (P < .0001).

The safety profile of cendakimab was “unspectacular,” Schoepfer said, with adverse events related to the study drug occurring in 30% of patients in the treatment arm vs 18.9% of those in the placebo arm. He noted that as the trial was conducted during the COVID pandemic, there were some infections.

Serious adverse events, which were assessed by investigators to not be related to the study drug, occurred in 1.8% and 2.8% of patients on cendakimab and placebo, respectively. Drug discontinuation occurred in 1.4% in the cendakimab group and 0.7% in the placebo group. There were no deaths.

“We really need drugs for this disease, given that there are very few alternatives to steroids and PPIs,” Co-moderator Ram Dickman, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel, said in an interview.

Right now, we have dupilumab, which targets two receptors: IL-4 and IL-13. But targeting IL-13 by itself “is showing surprisingly good results,” so cendakimab is a good candidate to be in “the first line of biologic treatments,” Dickman said.

“It’s safe and works rapidly,” he added. “Given this is a phase 3 study, I believe we’ll see it on the market.”

Schoepfer has served as a consultant for Regeneron/Sanofi, Adare/Ellodi, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, Dr. Falk Pharma, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Regeneron/Sanofi, Takeda, and Vifor; received grant/research support from Adare/Ellodi, Celgene/Receptos/Bristol Myers Squibb, GSK, and Regeneron/Sanofi. Dickman has declared no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel biomaterial developed by researchers at the University of California, San Diego, may help treat commonly overlooked menopausal vaginal changes and discomfort experienced by many women.

As many as 84% of menopausal women experience genitourinary syndrome of menopause, a condition that can cause vaginal dryness, irritation, and pain during intercourse and significantly affect quality of life. Current treatments, mainly estrogen creams, help with surface issues but don’t address deeper tissue problems.

Marianna Alperin, MD, and researchers at her lab created a gel-like material derived from pig vaginal tissue designed to mimic the natural environment of the vagina and stimulate the body’s own healing processes.

“We used porcine vaginal tissue that was minced, decellularized by detergent, lyophilized, milled into powder, and enzymatically digested,” said Alperin, professor and vice chair for translational research in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and professor of urology at the University of California, San Diego.

Using the vaginal extracellular matrix biomaterial on rats — which have vaginal tissue similar to that of humans — improved vaginal epithelial thickness and health of the vaginal lining.

Three days after administering the biomaterial, the treatment group exhibited a mean epithelial thickness of 32.37 ± 6.29 µm, compared with 19.00 ± 1.59 µm in the saline control group (P < .0001). Rats treated with vaginal extracellular matrix biomaterial also showed a mean smooth muscle layer thickness of 54.02 ± 10.56 µm, significantly thicker than the saline group’s 35.07 ± 7.80 µm (P < .05), the study found.

“While [the biomaterial] did not restore the epithelial thickness all the way to the level of the healthy, unperturbed animals, it certainly was superior to the other groups, especially at the higher dose,” she said.

It also enhanced the underlying muscle layer, something current treatments don’t typically achieve, the researchers noted.

Alperin’s research was awarded best overall paper at the American Urogynecologic Society’s PFD Week conference in Washington, DC.

The material seems to work by interacting with immune cells to carry the healing material deeper into the vaginal tissues, potentially explaining its widespread effects.

“It looked like the cells are trafficking the biomaterial into the deeper tissues, which is very exciting,” said Alperin, adding that unlike existing treatments, this new approach may improve both the surface layer and deeper tissues of the vagina.

Also, the benefits appeared to increase with higher doses of the material, they found.

While the study shows promise, Alperin acknowledged that further research is needed, particularly in comparing their treatment with topical estrogen.

“We are repeating the experiment with the dose adjusted to the volume of the rat vagina,” Alperin said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel biomaterial developed by researchers at the University of California, San Diego, may help treat commonly overlooked menopausal vaginal changes and discomfort experienced by many women.

As many as 84% of menopausal women experience genitourinary syndrome of menopause, a condition that can cause vaginal dryness, irritation, and pain during intercourse and significantly affect quality of life. Current treatments, mainly estrogen creams, help with surface issues but don’t address deeper tissue problems.

Marianna Alperin, MD, and researchers at her lab created a gel-like material derived from pig vaginal tissue designed to mimic the natural environment of the vagina and stimulate the body’s own healing processes.

“We used porcine vaginal tissue that was minced, decellularized by detergent, lyophilized, milled into powder, and enzymatically digested,” said Alperin, professor and vice chair for translational research in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and professor of urology at the University of California, San Diego.

Using the vaginal extracellular matrix biomaterial on rats — which have vaginal tissue similar to that of humans — improved vaginal epithelial thickness and health of the vaginal lining.

Three days after administering the biomaterial, the treatment group exhibited a mean epithelial thickness of 32.37 ± 6.29 µm, compared with 19.00 ± 1.59 µm in the saline control group (P < .0001). Rats treated with vaginal extracellular matrix biomaterial also showed a mean smooth muscle layer thickness of 54.02 ± 10.56 µm, significantly thicker than the saline group’s 35.07 ± 7.80 µm (P < .05), the study found.

“While [the biomaterial] did not restore the epithelial thickness all the way to the level of the healthy, unperturbed animals, it certainly was superior to the other groups, especially at the higher dose,” she said.

It also enhanced the underlying muscle layer, something current treatments don’t typically achieve, the researchers noted.

Alperin’s research was awarded best overall paper at the American Urogynecologic Society’s PFD Week conference in Washington, DC.

The material seems to work by interacting with immune cells to carry the healing material deeper into the vaginal tissues, potentially explaining its widespread effects.

“It looked like the cells are trafficking the biomaterial into the deeper tissues, which is very exciting,” said Alperin, adding that unlike existing treatments, this new approach may improve both the surface layer and deeper tissues of the vagina.

Also, the benefits appeared to increase with higher doses of the material, they found.

While the study shows promise, Alperin acknowledged that further research is needed, particularly in comparing their treatment with topical estrogen.

“We are repeating the experiment with the dose adjusted to the volume of the rat vagina,” Alperin said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel biomaterial developed by researchers at the University of California, San Diego, may help treat commonly overlooked menopausal vaginal changes and discomfort experienced by many women.

As many as 84% of menopausal women experience genitourinary syndrome of menopause, a condition that can cause vaginal dryness, irritation, and pain during intercourse and significantly affect quality of life. Current treatments, mainly estrogen creams, help with surface issues but don’t address deeper tissue problems.

Marianna Alperin, MD, and researchers at her lab created a gel-like material derived from pig vaginal tissue designed to mimic the natural environment of the vagina and stimulate the body’s own healing processes.

“We used porcine vaginal tissue that was minced, decellularized by detergent, lyophilized, milled into powder, and enzymatically digested,” said Alperin, professor and vice chair for translational research in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and professor of urology at the University of California, San Diego.

Using the vaginal extracellular matrix biomaterial on rats — which have vaginal tissue similar to that of humans — improved vaginal epithelial thickness and health of the vaginal lining.

Three days after administering the biomaterial, the treatment group exhibited a mean epithelial thickness of 32.37 ± 6.29 µm, compared with 19.00 ± 1.59 µm in the saline control group (P < .0001). Rats treated with vaginal extracellular matrix biomaterial also showed a mean smooth muscle layer thickness of 54.02 ± 10.56 µm, significantly thicker than the saline group’s 35.07 ± 7.80 µm (P < .05), the study found.

“While [the biomaterial] did not restore the epithelial thickness all the way to the level of the healthy, unperturbed animals, it certainly was superior to the other groups, especially at the higher dose,” she said.

It also enhanced the underlying muscle layer, something current treatments don’t typically achieve, the researchers noted.

Alperin’s research was awarded best overall paper at the American Urogynecologic Society’s PFD Week conference in Washington, DC.

The material seems to work by interacting with immune cells to carry the healing material deeper into the vaginal tissues, potentially explaining its widespread effects.

“It looked like the cells are trafficking the biomaterial into the deeper tissues, which is very exciting,” said Alperin, adding that unlike existing treatments, this new approach may improve both the surface layer and deeper tissues of the vagina.

Also, the benefits appeared to increase with higher doses of the material, they found.

While the study shows promise, Alperin acknowledged that further research is needed, particularly in comparing their treatment with topical estrogen.

“We are repeating the experiment with the dose adjusted to the volume of the rat vagina,” Alperin said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

VIENNA — The effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps depends on the region of the colon examined, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In particular, the diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps showed significantly lower specificity in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for diagnosing polyps in the proximal colon until new, higher performing systems are developed specifically for these lesions,” said study lead Tommy Rizkala, MD, Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.

The “main strength” of the review is that the researchers contacted each study author for more specific information and were therefore able to divide the data into the proximal colon and the rectosigmoid colon, he explained.

“This is the first paper that has really collected these data. Most papers provide data for the entire colon or just for the rectosigmoid colon,” said Rizkala, who presented the findings at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

The study was also recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Optical diagnosis enables real-time histologic predictions of polyps 5 mm or smaller during colonoscopy, offering potential clinical and cost-saving benefits. Two optical diagnostic strategies are used for polyps in this size range based on location: A leave-in-situ strategy (applied only in the rectosigmoid colon when there is high confidence of non-neoplastic polyps) and a resect-and-discard strategy (applied only in the whole colon when there is high confidence of neoplastic polyps upon optical diagnosis).

Rizkala carried out a review of studies that evaluated the performance of real-time CADx alone — independent of endoscopist judgment — for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps 5 mm or smaller. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal colon (the portion extending from the descending colon to the cecum) and the distal colon (limited to the rectosigmoid region). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the CADx alone in the proximal colon and the distal colon.
 

Lower Specificity in the Proximal Colon

An analysis of data based on 7782 polyps ≤ 5 mm from 11 studies found specificity values of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions of the colon, respectively, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84), meaning that CADx accuracy was significantly lower in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“According to the optical diagnosis strategy, we can use the leave-in-situ approach for the distal colon because the performance is adequate, but for the rest of the colon, CADx requires further enhancement,” Rizkala said.

Sensitivity values were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions, respectively, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03).

Regarding the secondary outcomes, the NPV was 0.64 vs 0.93 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), and accuracy was 0.81 vs 0.86, with an RR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99).

With the higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, a lower NPV was observed in the proximal colon, Rizkala noted.

The PPV was 0.87 vs 0.76 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17), so the two parts of the colon were comparable, he reported.

In the future, CADx systems should focus on using lesions from the proximal colon to train more accurately because currently CADx systems are trained on the available endoscopic data in which most of those polyps are from the rectosigmoid colon, Rizkala said.

We would also “like manufacturers of CADx systems to provide public access to data balanced between the proximal and distal regions of the colon,” he added.
 

Diagnosis More Challenging Than Detection With CADx

Commenting on the study, comoderator David G. Graham, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at University College London Hospital in England, remarked: “The key questions here relate to why are these systems underperforming in the proximal colon, and how can we improve this?”

Are these results “due to the very different appearance of adenomas in the distal colon vs the proximal colon on CADx (which is not what we see as endoscopists but seems to be what the systems are seeing), or is it due to a different characterization of polyps,” that is, more sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, he asked.

Also commenting on the study was Raf Bisschops, MD, head of endoscopy at KU Leuven in Belgium. He remarked that the review underscores the fact that optical diagnosis by artificial intelligence is a more challenging task than detection.

It is “not entirely clear” what would explain the difference in performance of CADx between the distal colon and proximal colon, he said. It can’t be excluded that the inclusion of different CADx systems, some of which clearly underperformed, may account for the difference.

He went on to suggest that the differences might be down to location beyond proximal and distal.

“The difference in performance between the right and left colon is also interesting, since recent insights in the molecular and morphological features of hyperplastic polyps indicates that there are different classes with more goblet cell–rich hyperplastic polyps in the right colon, and more microvesicular hyperplastic polyps in the left.”

These have “distinct microscopic and endoscopic appearances” that could account for a difference in performance of a CADx system if not included in the training and validation sets, he explained.

Rizkala and Graham reported no relevant disclosures. Bisschops reported receiving research grants and speaker fees from Medtronic, Fujifilm, and Pentax.

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

VIENNA — The effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps depends on the region of the colon examined, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In particular, the diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps showed significantly lower specificity in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for diagnosing polyps in the proximal colon until new, higher performing systems are developed specifically for these lesions,” said study lead Tommy Rizkala, MD, Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.

The “main strength” of the review is that the researchers contacted each study author for more specific information and were therefore able to divide the data into the proximal colon and the rectosigmoid colon, he explained.

“This is the first paper that has really collected these data. Most papers provide data for the entire colon or just for the rectosigmoid colon,” said Rizkala, who presented the findings at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

The study was also recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Optical diagnosis enables real-time histologic predictions of polyps 5 mm or smaller during colonoscopy, offering potential clinical and cost-saving benefits. Two optical diagnostic strategies are used for polyps in this size range based on location: A leave-in-situ strategy (applied only in the rectosigmoid colon when there is high confidence of non-neoplastic polyps) and a resect-and-discard strategy (applied only in the whole colon when there is high confidence of neoplastic polyps upon optical diagnosis).

Rizkala carried out a review of studies that evaluated the performance of real-time CADx alone — independent of endoscopist judgment — for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps 5 mm or smaller. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal colon (the portion extending from the descending colon to the cecum) and the distal colon (limited to the rectosigmoid region). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the CADx alone in the proximal colon and the distal colon.
 

Lower Specificity in the Proximal Colon

An analysis of data based on 7782 polyps ≤ 5 mm from 11 studies found specificity values of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions of the colon, respectively, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84), meaning that CADx accuracy was significantly lower in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“According to the optical diagnosis strategy, we can use the leave-in-situ approach for the distal colon because the performance is adequate, but for the rest of the colon, CADx requires further enhancement,” Rizkala said.

Sensitivity values were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions, respectively, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03).

Regarding the secondary outcomes, the NPV was 0.64 vs 0.93 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), and accuracy was 0.81 vs 0.86, with an RR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99).

With the higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, a lower NPV was observed in the proximal colon, Rizkala noted.

The PPV was 0.87 vs 0.76 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17), so the two parts of the colon were comparable, he reported.

In the future, CADx systems should focus on using lesions from the proximal colon to train more accurately because currently CADx systems are trained on the available endoscopic data in which most of those polyps are from the rectosigmoid colon, Rizkala said.

We would also “like manufacturers of CADx systems to provide public access to data balanced between the proximal and distal regions of the colon,” he added.
 

Diagnosis More Challenging Than Detection With CADx

Commenting on the study, comoderator David G. Graham, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at University College London Hospital in England, remarked: “The key questions here relate to why are these systems underperforming in the proximal colon, and how can we improve this?”

Are these results “due to the very different appearance of adenomas in the distal colon vs the proximal colon on CADx (which is not what we see as endoscopists but seems to be what the systems are seeing), or is it due to a different characterization of polyps,” that is, more sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, he asked.

Also commenting on the study was Raf Bisschops, MD, head of endoscopy at KU Leuven in Belgium. He remarked that the review underscores the fact that optical diagnosis by artificial intelligence is a more challenging task than detection.

It is “not entirely clear” what would explain the difference in performance of CADx between the distal colon and proximal colon, he said. It can’t be excluded that the inclusion of different CADx systems, some of which clearly underperformed, may account for the difference.

He went on to suggest that the differences might be down to location beyond proximal and distal.

“The difference in performance between the right and left colon is also interesting, since recent insights in the molecular and morphological features of hyperplastic polyps indicates that there are different classes with more goblet cell–rich hyperplastic polyps in the right colon, and more microvesicular hyperplastic polyps in the left.”

These have “distinct microscopic and endoscopic appearances” that could account for a difference in performance of a CADx system if not included in the training and validation sets, he explained.

Rizkala and Graham reported no relevant disclosures. Bisschops reported receiving research grants and speaker fees from Medtronic, Fujifilm, and Pentax.

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

VIENNA — The effectiveness of computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) in differentiating neoplastic from non-neoplastic polyps depends on the region of the colon examined, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In particular, the diagnostic performance of CADx for polyps showed significantly lower specificity in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“While current CADx systems are suitable for use in the distal colon, they should not be employed for diagnosing polyps in the proximal colon until new, higher performing systems are developed specifically for these lesions,” said study lead Tommy Rizkala, MD, Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Rozzano, Italy.

The “main strength” of the review is that the researchers contacted each study author for more specific information and were therefore able to divide the data into the proximal colon and the rectosigmoid colon, he explained.

“This is the first paper that has really collected these data. Most papers provide data for the entire colon or just for the rectosigmoid colon,” said Rizkala, who presented the findings at the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Week 2024.

The study was also recently published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Optical diagnosis enables real-time histologic predictions of polyps 5 mm or smaller during colonoscopy, offering potential clinical and cost-saving benefits. Two optical diagnostic strategies are used for polyps in this size range based on location: A leave-in-situ strategy (applied only in the rectosigmoid colon when there is high confidence of non-neoplastic polyps) and a resect-and-discard strategy (applied only in the whole colon when there is high confidence of neoplastic polyps upon optical diagnosis).

Rizkala carried out a review of studies that evaluated the performance of real-time CADx alone — independent of endoscopist judgment — for predicting the histology of colorectal polyps 5 mm or smaller. The primary endpoints were CADx sensitivity and specificity in the proximal colon (the portion extending from the descending colon to the cecum) and the distal colon (limited to the rectosigmoid region). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value (NPV), positive predictive value (PPV), and accuracy of the CADx alone in the proximal colon and the distal colon.
 

Lower Specificity in the Proximal Colon

An analysis of data based on 7782 polyps ≤ 5 mm from 11 studies found specificity values of 0.62 (95% CI, 0.52-0.71) and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.75-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions of the colon, respectively, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84), meaning that CADx accuracy was significantly lower in the proximal colon than in the distal colon.

“According to the optical diagnosis strategy, we can use the leave-in-situ approach for the distal colon because the performance is adequate, but for the rest of the colon, CADx requires further enhancement,” Rizkala said.

Sensitivity values were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.83-0.93) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) for the proximal and distal regions, respectively, with an RR of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.97-1.03).

Regarding the secondary outcomes, the NPV was 0.64 vs 0.93 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.79), and accuracy was 0.81 vs 0.86, with an RR of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99).

With the higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, a lower NPV was observed in the proximal colon, Rizkala noted.

The PPV was 0.87 vs 0.76 for the proximal vs distal colon, with an RR of 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.17), so the two parts of the colon were comparable, he reported.

In the future, CADx systems should focus on using lesions from the proximal colon to train more accurately because currently CADx systems are trained on the available endoscopic data in which most of those polyps are from the rectosigmoid colon, Rizkala said.

We would also “like manufacturers of CADx systems to provide public access to data balanced between the proximal and distal regions of the colon,” he added.
 

Diagnosis More Challenging Than Detection With CADx

Commenting on the study, comoderator David G. Graham, MD, consultant gastroenterologist at University College London Hospital in England, remarked: “The key questions here relate to why are these systems underperforming in the proximal colon, and how can we improve this?”

Are these results “due to the very different appearance of adenomas in the distal colon vs the proximal colon on CADx (which is not what we see as endoscopists but seems to be what the systems are seeing), or is it due to a different characterization of polyps,” that is, more sessile serrated lesions in the proximal colon than in the distal colon, he asked.

Also commenting on the study was Raf Bisschops, MD, head of endoscopy at KU Leuven in Belgium. He remarked that the review underscores the fact that optical diagnosis by artificial intelligence is a more challenging task than detection.

It is “not entirely clear” what would explain the difference in performance of CADx between the distal colon and proximal colon, he said. It can’t be excluded that the inclusion of different CADx systems, some of which clearly underperformed, may account for the difference.

He went on to suggest that the differences might be down to location beyond proximal and distal.

“The difference in performance between the right and left colon is also interesting, since recent insights in the molecular and morphological features of hyperplastic polyps indicates that there are different classes with more goblet cell–rich hyperplastic polyps in the right colon, and more microvesicular hyperplastic polyps in the left.”

These have “distinct microscopic and endoscopic appearances” that could account for a difference in performance of a CADx system if not included in the training and validation sets, he explained.

Rizkala and Graham reported no relevant disclosures. Bisschops reported receiving research grants and speaker fees from Medtronic, Fujifilm, and Pentax.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Matthew F. Watto, MD: I’m here with my great friend and America’s primary care physician, Dr. Paul Nelson Williams. Paul, are you ready to talk about rhinitis?

Paul N. Williams, MD: I’m excited. It’s always the season to talk about rhinitis.

Watto: We had a great guest for this podcast, Rhinitis and Environmental Allergies with Dr. Olajumoke Fadugba from Penn Medicine. She’s an allergist and immunologist. One of her pet peeves is when people just call everything “allergic rhinitis” because we should be calling it “chronic rhinitis,” if it’s chronic. That’s an umbrella term, and there are many buckets underneath it that people could fall into.

When you’re taking a history, you have to figure out whether it’s perennial (meaning it happens year round) because certain things can cause that. Cat dander is around all the time, so people with cats might have sinus symptoms all year. Dust mites are another one, and it’s pretty hard to avoid those. Those are some perennial allergens. 

Then there is allergic vs nonallergic rhinitis, which is something I hadn’t really put too much thought into.

Williams: I didn’t realize exactly how nuanced it got. Nonallergic rhinitis can still be seasonal because changes in temperature and humidity can trigger the rhinitis. And it matters what medications you use for what.

Watto: Here are some ways you can try to figure out if rhinitis is allergic or nonallergic. Ask the patient if they have itchy eyes and are sneezing a lot. That can be more of an allergic rhinitis, but both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis have the congestion, the rhinorrhea, so you can’t figure it out based on that alone.

Dr. Fadugba said that one clue that it might be nonallergic rhinitis is the age of onset. If the symptoms are later in onset (older age), then 30%-40% of rhinitis is nonallergic. If the patient has never had allergies and now all of a sudden they have new chronic sinus symptoms, it’s probably nonallergic rhinitis. It’s a diagnosis of exclusion.

I guess they need allergy testing?

Williams: If you want to make a definitive diagnosis, you need to rule it out. I suspect that you might be able to get away with some empirical treatment. If they get better, you can feel like a winner because getting booked in for allergy testing can be a little bit of a challenge.

Watto: The main treatment difference is that the oral antihistamines do not really seem to work for nonallergic rhinitis, but they can help with allergic rhinitis. Weirdly, the nasal antihistamines and nasal steroids do seem to work for both allergic and nonallergic rhinitis.

I don’t understand the mechanism there, but if you think someone might have nonallergic rhinitis, I wouldn’t go with the oral antihistamines as your first-line treatment. I would go with a nasal spray; you pretty much can’t go wrong with either an antihistamine or a steroid nasal spray.

Williams: We typically start with the nasal sprays. That’s kind of first-line for almost everybody, allergic or nonallergic. You’re probably going to start with an intranasal steroid, and then it’s kind of dealer’s choice what the patient can tolerate and afford. Sometimes you can get them covered by insurance, at least in my experience. 

I will say that this is one of the medications — like nicotine patches and other things — where we as doctors don’t really counsel patients on how to use it appropriately. So with our expert, we revisited the idea of the patient pointing the nasal spray laterally, toward their ear basically, and not spraying toward their brain. There should not be a slurping sound afterward, because “if you taste it, you waste it,” as the allergists and immunologists say. It’s supposed to sit up there and not be swallowed immediately. 

If your patient is sensitive to the floral flavor of some of the fluticasones (which I don’t mind so much as a user myself), then you can try mometasone or the other formulations. They are all roughly equivalent. 

Speaking of medications, which medications can cause rhinitis? Any meds we commonly use in primary care?

Williams: Apparently the combined hormonal oral contraceptives can do it. Also the phosphodiesterase 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors. Drugs that cause vasodilation can also do it. Some of the antihypertensives. I’ve seen beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors listed specifically, and some of the medications for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). So there are a couple of medications that you can think about as a potential cause of rhinitis, although my suspicion is not going to be as high as for some of the other causes.

Watto: We mentioned medication treatments for patients who are really bothered by rhinorrhea, and maybe they are already on a steroid or an antihistamine.

You can try nasal ipratropium for people that have really prominent rhinorrhea. Dr. Fadugba said that can work well, and it’s usually taken three or four times a day. I’ve had good success prescribing it for my patients. Another one that I have never prescribed, but that Dr. Fadugba said is available over the counter, is intranasal cromolyn — a mast cell stabilizer. She said it can be beneficial.

Let’s say I had a cat allergy and I was going to visit Paul. I could use the intranasal cromolyn ahead of time to reduce rhinitis when I’m around the cats.

Paul, what about montelukast? I never know what to do with that one.

Williams: I’ve seen it prescribed as a last-ditch attempt to fix chronic rhinitis. Dr. Fadugba said she only ever prescribes it for patients who have rhinitis symptoms and asthma and never just for chronic rhinitis because it doesn’t work. And also, there have been some new black-box warnings from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So unless there’s a solid indication for it, montelukast is not something you should just prescribe to try to see if it will work. That’s probably not the right approach for this.

But if the patient has challenging control asthma, and as a component, challenging nasal symptoms as well, it might be a reasonable medication to try. 

Watto: And finally, Paul, how does climate change possibly have anything to do with rhinitis?

Williams: I feel like I’m just seeing more and more of the stuff every year. I don’t know if I’m more sensitive to it or because I’m having more symptoms myself, but it turns out the prevalence actually is going up.

We’re seeing more of it in part because it’s getting hotter outside, which is in turn worsening the production of allergens and increasing the allergen exposure and the severity of the symptoms that go along with it. More people are having more severe disease because the world is changing as a result of the stuff that we do. So fix that. But also be mindful and expect to see even more of these problems as you move forward in your careers. 

Watto: Dr. Fadugba gave us so many great tips. You can listen to the full podcast episode here.

Dr. Watto, Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at University of Pennsylvania; Internist, Department of Medicine, Hospital Medicine Section, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Williams, Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine, Department of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine; Staff Physician, Department of General Internal Medicine, Temple Internal Medicine Associates, Philadelphia, disclosed ties with The Curbsiders.

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

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ABU DHABI, UAE — The long-standing debate as to when to start anticoagulation in patients with an acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (AF) looks as though it’s settled.

Results of the OPTIMAS trial, the largest trial to address this question, showed that initiation of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) within 4 days after ischemic stroke associated with AF was noninferior to delayed initiation (7-14 days) for the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Importantly, early DOAC initiation was safe with a low rate of symptomatic hemorrhage, regardless of stroke severity.

In addition, a new meta-analysis, known as CATALYST, which included all four randomized trials now available on this issue, showed a clear benefit of earlier initiation (within 4 days) versus later (5 days and up) on its primary endpoint of new ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage, and unclassified stroke at 30 days.

The results of the OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were both presented at the 16th World Stroke Congress (WSC) 2024. The OPTIMAS trial was also simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

“Our findings do not support the guideline recommended practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischemic stroke with AF regardless of clinical stroke severity, reperfusion or prior anticoagulation,” said OPTIMAS investigator David Werring, PhD, University College London in England.

Presenting the meta-analysis, Signild Åsberg, MD, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, said his group’s findings “support the early start of DOACs (within 4 days) in clinical practice.”

Werring pointed out that starting anticoagulation early also had important logistical advantages.

“This means we can start anticoagulation before patients are discharged from hospital, thus ensuring that this important secondary prevention medication is always prescribed, when appropriate. That’s going to be a key benefit in the real world.”
 

Clinical Dilemma

Werring noted that AF accounts for 20%-30% of ischemic strokes, which tend to be more severe than other stroke types. The pivotal trials of DOACs did not include patients within 30 days of an acute ischemic stroke, creating a clinical dilemma on when to start this treatment.

“On the one hand, we wish to start anticoagulation early to reduce early recurrence of ischemic stroke. But on the other hand, there are concerns that if we start anticoagulation early, it could cause intracranial bleeding, including hemorrhagic transformation of the acute infarct. Guidelines on this issue are inconsistent and have called for randomized control trials in this area,” he noted.

So far, three randomized trials on DOAC timing have been conducted, which Werring said suggested early DOAC treatment is safe. However, these trials have provided limited data on moderate to severe stroke, patients with hemorrhagic transformation, or those already taking oral anticoagulants — subgroups in which there are particular concerns about early oral anticoagulation.

The OPTIMAS trial included a broad population of patients with acute ischemic stroke associated with AF including these critical subgroups.

The trial, conducted at 100 hospitals in the United Kingdom, included 3648 patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke who were randomly assigned to early (≤ 4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (7-14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC.

There was no restriction on stroke severity, and patients with hemorrhagic transformation were allowed, with the exception of parenchymal hematoma type 2, a rare and severe type of hemorrhagic transformation.

Approximately 35% of patients had been taking an oral anticoagulant, mainly DOACs, prior to their stroke, and about 30% had revascularization with thrombolysis, thrombectomy, or both. Nearly 900 participants (25%) had moderate to severe stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≥ 11).

The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days. The initial analysis aimed to show noninferiority of early DOAC initiation, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority.

Results showed that the primary outcome occurred in 3.3% of both groups (adjusted risk difference, 0.000; 95% CI, −0.011 to 0.012), with noninferiority criteria fulfilled. Superiority was not achieved.

Symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of patients in the early DOAC initiation group vs 0.7% of those in the delayed group — a nonsignificant difference.
 

Applicable to Real-World Practice

A time-to-event analysis of the primary outcome showed that there were fewer outcomes in the first 30 days in the early DOAC initiation group, but the curves subsequently came together.

Subgroup analysis showed consistent results across all whole trial population, with no modification of the effect of early DOAC initiation according to stroke severity, reperfusion treatment, or previous anticoagulation.

Werring said that strengths of the OPTIMAS trial included a large sample size, a broad population with generalizability to real-world practice, and the inclusion of patients at higher bleeding risk than included in previous studies.

During the discussion, it was noted that the trial included few (about 3%) patients — about 3% — with very severe stroke (NIHSS score > 21), with the question of whether the findings could be applied to this group.

Werring noted that there was no evidence of heterogeneity, and if anything, patients with more severe strokes may have had a slightly greater benefit with early DOAC initiation. “So my feeling is probably these results do generalize to the more severe patients,” he said.

In a commentary accompanying The Lancet publication of the OPTIMAS trial, Else Charlotte Sandset, MD, University of Oslo, in Norway, and Diana Aguiar de Sousa, MD, Central Lisbon University Hospital Centre, Lisbon, Portugal, noted that the “increasing body of evidence strongly supports the message that initiating anticoagulation early for patients with ischaemic stroke is safe. The consistent absence of heterogeneity in safety outcomes suggests that the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage is not a major concern, even in patients with large infarcts.”

Regardless of the size of the treatment effect, initiating early anticoagulation makes sense when it can be done safely, as it helps prevent recurrent ischemic strokes and other embolic events. Early intervention reduces embolization risk, particularly in high-risk patients, and allows secondary prevention measures to begin while patients are still hospitalized, they added.
 

CATALYST Findings

The CATALYST meta-analysis included four trials, namely, TIMING, ELAN, OPTIMAS, and START, of early versus later DOAC administration in a total of 5411 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF. In this meta-analysis, early was defined as within 4 days of stroke and later as 5 days or more.

The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, symptomatic, intracerebral hemorrhage, or unclassified stroke at 30 days. This was significantly reduced in the early group (2.12%) versus 3.02% in the later group, giving an odds ratio of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50-0.98; P =.04).

The results were consistent across all subgroups, all suggesting an advantage for early DOAC.

Further analysis showed a clear benefit of early DOAC initiation in ischemic stroke with the curves separating early.

The rate of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage was low in both groups (0.45% in the early group and 0.40% in the later group) as was extracranial hemorrhage (0.45% vs 0.55%).

At 90 days, there were still lower event rates in the early group than the later one, but the difference was no longer statistically significant.
 

‘Practice Changing’ Results

Commenting on both studies, chair of the WSC session where the results of both OPTIMAS trial and the meta-analysis were presented, Craig Anderson, MD, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney, Australia, described these latest results as “practice changing.”

“When to start anticoagulation in acute ischemic stroke patients with AF has been uncertain for a long time. The dogma has always been that we should wait. Over the years, we’ve become a little bit more confident, but now we’ve got good data from randomized trials showing that early initiation is safe, with the meta-analysis showing benefit,” he said.

“These new data from OPTIMAS will reassure clinicians that there’s no excessive harm and, more importantly, no excessive harm across all patient groups. And the meta-analysis clearly showed an upfront benefit of starting anticoagulation early. That’s a very convincing result,” he added.

Anderson cautioned that there still may be concerns about starting DOACs early in some groups, including Asian populations that have a higher bleeding risk (these trials included predominantly White patients) and people who are older or frail, who may have extensive small vessel disease.

During the discussion, several questions centered on the lack of imaging data available on the patients in the studies. Anderson said imaging data would help reassure clinicians on the safety of early anticoagulation in patients with large infarcts.

“Stroke clinicians make decisions on the basis of the patient and on the basis of the brain, and we only have the patient information at the moment. We don’t have information on the brain — that comes from imaging.”

Regardless, he believes these new data will lead to a shift in practice. “But maybe, it won’t be as dramatic as we would hope because I think some clinicians may still hesitate to apply these results to patients at high risk of bleeding. With imaging data from the studies that might change.”

The OPTIMAS trial was funded by University College London and the British Heart Foundation. Werring reported consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and Alnylam; payments or speaker honoraria from Novo Nordisk, Bayer, and AstraZeneca/Alexion; participation on a data safety monitoring board for the OXHARP trial; and participation as steering committee chair for the MACE-ICH and PLINTH trials. Åsberg received institutional research grants and lecture fees to her institution from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Institut Produits Synthése. Sandset and de Sousa were both steering committee members of the ELAN trial. Anderson reported grant funding from Penumbra and Takeda China.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

US veterans were nearly three times more likely to develop skin cancer than the general population, according to a large cross-sectional analysis of recent national data.

“US veterans are known to have increased risk of cancers and cancer morbidity compared to the general US population,” one of the study authors, Sepideh Ashrafzadeh, MD, a third-year dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where the results were presented. “There have been several studies that have shown that US veterans have an increased prevalence of melanoma compared to nonveterans,” she said, noting, however, that no study has investigated the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), which include basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, compared with the general population.

Dr. Ashrafzadeh

To address this knowledge gap, the researchers performed a national cross-sectional study of adults aged 18 years or older from the 2019-2023 National Health Interview Surveys to examine the prevalence of melanoma and NMSCs among veterans compared with the general US population. They aggregated and tabulated the data by veteran status, defined as having served at any point in the US armed forces, reserves, or national guard, and by demographic and socioeconomic status variables. Next, they performed multivariate logistic regression for skin cancer risk adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, urbanicity, and disability status.

The study population consisted of 14,301 veterans and 209,936 nonveterans. Compared with nonveterans, veterans were more likely to have been diagnosed with skin cancer at some point in their lives (7% vs 2.4%; P < .001); had a higher mean age of skin cancer diagnosis (61.1 vs 55.8 years; P < .001); were more likely to have been diagnosed with melanoma (2.8% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with NMSC (4.4% vs 1.6%; P < .001).

The researchers found that older age, White race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, and veteran status were all associated with higher odds of developing NMSCs, even after adjusting for relevant covariates. Specifically, veterans had 1.23 higher odds of developing NMSC than the general population, while two factors were protective for developing NMSCs: Living in a rural setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78) and receiving supplemental security income or disability income (aOR, 0.69).

In another part of the study, the researchers evaluated demographic and socioeconomic variables associated with developing melanoma among veterans. These included the following: Male (aOR, 1.16), older age (50-64 years: aOR, 6.82; 65-74 years: aOR, 12.55; and 75 years or older: aOR, 16.16), White race (aOR, 9.24), and non-Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 7.15).

“Veterans may have occupational risks such as sun and chemical exposure, as well as behavioral habits for sun protection, that may contribute to their elevated risk of melanoma and NMSCs,” Ashrafzadeh said. “Therefore, US veterans would benefit from targeted and regular skin cancer screenings, sun protective preventative resources such as hats and sunscreen, and access to medical and surgical care for diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that a key strength of the study is that it drew from a nationally representative sample. “A limitation is that skin cancer was self-reported rather than based on documented medical histories,” Ko said. “The study confirms that skin cancer risk is higher in older individuals (> 75 as compared to < 50) and in individuals of self-reported white race and non-Hispanic ethnicity,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Ko reported having relevant disclosures.
 

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

US veterans were nearly three times more likely to develop skin cancer than the general population, according to a large cross-sectional analysis of recent national data.

“US veterans are known to have increased risk of cancers and cancer morbidity compared to the general US population,” one of the study authors, Sepideh Ashrafzadeh, MD, a third-year dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where the results were presented. “There have been several studies that have shown that US veterans have an increased prevalence of melanoma compared to nonveterans,” she said, noting, however, that no study has investigated the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), which include basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, compared with the general population.

Dr. Ashrafzadeh

To address this knowledge gap, the researchers performed a national cross-sectional study of adults aged 18 years or older from the 2019-2023 National Health Interview Surveys to examine the prevalence of melanoma and NMSCs among veterans compared with the general US population. They aggregated and tabulated the data by veteran status, defined as having served at any point in the US armed forces, reserves, or national guard, and by demographic and socioeconomic status variables. Next, they performed multivariate logistic regression for skin cancer risk adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, urbanicity, and disability status.

The study population consisted of 14,301 veterans and 209,936 nonveterans. Compared with nonveterans, veterans were more likely to have been diagnosed with skin cancer at some point in their lives (7% vs 2.4%; P < .001); had a higher mean age of skin cancer diagnosis (61.1 vs 55.8 years; P < .001); were more likely to have been diagnosed with melanoma (2.8% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with NMSC (4.4% vs 1.6%; P < .001).

The researchers found that older age, White race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, and veteran status were all associated with higher odds of developing NMSCs, even after adjusting for relevant covariates. Specifically, veterans had 1.23 higher odds of developing NMSC than the general population, while two factors were protective for developing NMSCs: Living in a rural setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78) and receiving supplemental security income or disability income (aOR, 0.69).

In another part of the study, the researchers evaluated demographic and socioeconomic variables associated with developing melanoma among veterans. These included the following: Male (aOR, 1.16), older age (50-64 years: aOR, 6.82; 65-74 years: aOR, 12.55; and 75 years or older: aOR, 16.16), White race (aOR, 9.24), and non-Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 7.15).

“Veterans may have occupational risks such as sun and chemical exposure, as well as behavioral habits for sun protection, that may contribute to their elevated risk of melanoma and NMSCs,” Ashrafzadeh said. “Therefore, US veterans would benefit from targeted and regular skin cancer screenings, sun protective preventative resources such as hats and sunscreen, and access to medical and surgical care for diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that a key strength of the study is that it drew from a nationally representative sample. “A limitation is that skin cancer was self-reported rather than based on documented medical histories,” Ko said. “The study confirms that skin cancer risk is higher in older individuals (> 75 as compared to < 50) and in individuals of self-reported white race and non-Hispanic ethnicity,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Ko reported having relevant disclosures.
 

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

US veterans were nearly three times more likely to develop skin cancer than the general population, according to a large cross-sectional analysis of recent national data.

“US veterans are known to have increased risk of cancers and cancer morbidity compared to the general US population,” one of the study authors, Sepideh Ashrafzadeh, MD, a third-year dermatology resident at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where the results were presented. “There have been several studies that have shown that US veterans have an increased prevalence of melanoma compared to nonveterans,” she said, noting, however, that no study has investigated the prevalence of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs), which include basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas, compared with the general population.

Dr. Ashrafzadeh

To address this knowledge gap, the researchers performed a national cross-sectional study of adults aged 18 years or older from the 2019-2023 National Health Interview Surveys to examine the prevalence of melanoma and NMSCs among veterans compared with the general US population. They aggregated and tabulated the data by veteran status, defined as having served at any point in the US armed forces, reserves, or national guard, and by demographic and socioeconomic status variables. Next, they performed multivariate logistic regression for skin cancer risk adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, urbanicity, and disability status.

The study population consisted of 14,301 veterans and 209,936 nonveterans. Compared with nonveterans, veterans were more likely to have been diagnosed with skin cancer at some point in their lives (7% vs 2.4%; P < .001); had a higher mean age of skin cancer diagnosis (61.1 vs 55.8 years; P < .001); were more likely to have been diagnosed with melanoma (2.8% vs 0.9%; P < .001), and were more likely to have been diagnosed with NMSC (4.4% vs 1.6%; P < .001).

The researchers found that older age, White race, non-Hispanic ethnicity, and veteran status were all associated with higher odds of developing NMSCs, even after adjusting for relevant covariates. Specifically, veterans had 1.23 higher odds of developing NMSC than the general population, while two factors were protective for developing NMSCs: Living in a rural setting (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78) and receiving supplemental security income or disability income (aOR, 0.69).

In another part of the study, the researchers evaluated demographic and socioeconomic variables associated with developing melanoma among veterans. These included the following: Male (aOR, 1.16), older age (50-64 years: aOR, 6.82; 65-74 years: aOR, 12.55; and 75 years or older: aOR, 16.16), White race (aOR, 9.24), and non-Hispanic ethnicity (aOR, 7.15).

“Veterans may have occupational risks such as sun and chemical exposure, as well as behavioral habits for sun protection, that may contribute to their elevated risk of melanoma and NMSCs,” Ashrafzadeh said. “Therefore, US veterans would benefit from targeted and regular skin cancer screenings, sun protective preventative resources such as hats and sunscreen, and access to medical and surgical care for diagnosis and treatment of skin cancers.”

Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that a key strength of the study is that it drew from a nationally representative sample. “A limitation is that skin cancer was self-reported rather than based on documented medical histories,” Ko said. “The study confirms that skin cancer risk is higher in older individuals (> 75 as compared to < 50) and in individuals of self-reported white race and non-Hispanic ethnicity,” she added.

Neither the researchers nor Ko reported having relevant disclosures.
 

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

SAN FRANCISCO — While the physical toll of cancer is well documented, the financial toll can also be severe and lasting.

Overall, patients with cancer tend to face higher rates of debt collection, medical collections, and bankruptcies, as well as lower credit scores, according to two new studies presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress 2024.

“These are the first studies to provide numerical evidence of financial toxicity among cancer survivors,” Benjamin C. James, MD, with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts, who worked on both studies, said in a statement. “Previous data on this topic largely relies on subjective survey reviews.”

In one study, researchers used the Massachusetts Cancer Registry to identify 99,175 patients diagnosed with cancer between 2010 and 2019 and matched them with 188,875 control individuals without cancer. Researchers then assessed financial toxicity using Experian credit bureau data for participants.

Overall, patients with cancer faced a range of financial challenges that often lasted years following their diagnosis.

Patients were nearly five times more likely to experience bankruptcy and had average credit scores nearly 80 points lower than control individuals without cancer. The drop in credit scores was more pronounced for survivors of bladder, liver, lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) and persisted for up to 9.5 years.

For certain cancer types, in particular, “we are looking years after a diagnosis, and we see that the credit score goes down and it never comes back up,” James said.

The other study, which used a sample of 7227 patients with CRC from Massachusetts, identified several factors that correlated with lower credit scores.

Compared with patients who only had surgery, peers who underwent radiation only experienced a 62-point drop in their credit score after their diagnosis, while those who had chemotherapy alone had just over a 14-point drop in their credit score. Among patients who had combination treatments, those who underwent both surgery and radiation experienced a nearly 16-point drop in their credit score and those who had surgery and chemoradiation actually experienced a 2.59 bump, compared with those who had surgery alone.

Financial toxicity was worse for patients younger than 62 years, those identifying as Black or Hispanic individuals, unmarried individuals, those with an annual income below $52,000, and those living in deprived areas.

The studies add to findings from the 2015 North American Thyroid Cancer Survivorship Study, which reported that 50% of thyroid cancer survivors encountered financial toxicity because of their diagnosis.

James said the persistent financial strain of cancer care, even in a state like Massachusetts, which mandates universal healthcare, underscores the need for “broader policy changes and reforms, including reconsidering debt collection practices.”

“Financial security should be a priority in cancer care,” he added.

The studies had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant conflict of interest.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The mortality rate of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) has increased considerably across the United States over the past 2 decades, with the effects most pronounced in those aged 20-44 years, according to a new analysis of the two largest US mortality databases. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases provide yet more evidence of the increasing prevalence of EO-CRC, which is defined as a diagnosis of CRC in patients younger than age 50 years. 

Furthermore, the researchers reported that increased mortality occurred across all patients included in the study (aged 20-54) regardless of tumor stage at diagnosis.

These findings “prompt tailoring further efforts toward raising awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms and keeping a low clinical suspicion in younger patients presenting with anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or change in bowel habits,” Yazan Abboud, MD, internal medicine PGY-3, assistant chief resident, and chair of resident research at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in an interview.

Abboud presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Analyzing NCHS and SEER 

Rising rates of EO-CRC had prompted US medical societies to recommend reducing the screening age to 45 years. The US Preventive Services Task Force officially lowered it to this age in 2021. This shift is supported by real-world evidence, which shows that earlier screening leads to a significantly reduced risk for colorectal cancer. However, because colorectal cancer cases are decreasing overall in older adults, there is considerable interest in discovering why young adults are experiencing a paradoxical uptick in EO-CRC, and what impact this is having on associated mortality.

Abboud and colleagues collected age-adjusted mortality rates for EO-CRC between 2000 and 2022 from the NCHS database. In addition, stage-specific incidence-based mortality rates between 2004-2020 were obtained from the SEER 22 database. The NCHS database covers approximately 100% of the US population, whereas the SEER 22 database, which is included within the NCHS, covers 42%. 

The researchers divided patients into two cohorts based on age (20-44 years and 45-54 years) and tumor stage at diagnosis (early stage and late stage), and compared the annual percentage change (APC) and the average APC between the two groups. They also assessed trends for the entire cohort of patients aged 20-54 years. 

In the NCHS database, there were 147,026 deaths in total across all ages studied resulting from EO-CRC, of which 27% (39,746) occurred in those 20-44 years of age. Although associated mortality rates decreased between 2000-2005 in all ages studied (APC, –1.56), they increased from 2005-2022 (APC, 0.87). 

In the cohort aged 45-54 years, mortality decreased between 2000-2005 and increased thereafter, whereas in the cohort aged 20-44 years mortality increased steadily for the entire follow-up duration of 2000 to 2022 (APC, 0.93). A comparison of the age cohorts confirmed that those aged 20-44 years had a greater increase in mortality (average APC, 0.85; P < .001).

In the SEER 22 database, there were 4652 deaths in those with early-stage tumors across all age groups studied (average APC, 12.17). Mortality increased in patients aged 45-54 years (average APC, 11.52) with early-stage tumors, but there were insufficient numbers in those aged 20-44 years to determine this outcome. 

There were 42,120 deaths in those with late-stage tumors across all age groups (average APC, 10.05) in the SEER 22 database. And increased mortality was observed in those with late-stage tumors in both age cohorts: 45-54 years (average APC, 9.58) and 20-44 years (average APC, 11.06).

“When evaluating the SEER database and stratifying the tumors by stage at diagnosis, we demonstrated increasing mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer in both early- and late-stage tumors on average over the study period,” Abboud said. 
 

Identifying At-Risk Patients

In a comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine in Norfolk, said the findings speak to the need for evidence-based means of identifying younger individuals at a higher risk of EO-CRC.

“I suspect many of younger patients with CRC had their cancer detected when it was more advanced due to delayed presentation and diagnostic testing,” said Johnson, who was not involved in the study. 

But it would be interesting to evaluate if the cancers in the cohort aged 20-44 years were more aggressive biologically or if these patients were dismissive of early signs or symptoms, he said. 

Younger patients may dismiss “alarm” features that indicate CRC testing, said Johnson. “In particular, overt bleeding and iron deficiency need a focused evaluation in these younger cohorts.”

“Future research is needed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in younger patients with early-stage colorectal cancer and evaluate patients’ outcomes,” Abboud added. 

The study had no specific funding. Abboud reported no relevant financial relationships. Johnson reported serving as an adviser to ISOTHRIVE. He is also on the Medscape Gastroenterology editorial board.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The mortality rate of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) has increased considerably across the United States over the past 2 decades, with the effects most pronounced in those aged 20-44 years, according to a new analysis of the two largest US mortality databases. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases provide yet more evidence of the increasing prevalence of EO-CRC, which is defined as a diagnosis of CRC in patients younger than age 50 years. 

Furthermore, the researchers reported that increased mortality occurred across all patients included in the study (aged 20-54) regardless of tumor stage at diagnosis.

These findings “prompt tailoring further efforts toward raising awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms and keeping a low clinical suspicion in younger patients presenting with anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or change in bowel habits,” Yazan Abboud, MD, internal medicine PGY-3, assistant chief resident, and chair of resident research at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in an interview.

Abboud presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Analyzing NCHS and SEER 

Rising rates of EO-CRC had prompted US medical societies to recommend reducing the screening age to 45 years. The US Preventive Services Task Force officially lowered it to this age in 2021. This shift is supported by real-world evidence, which shows that earlier screening leads to a significantly reduced risk for colorectal cancer. However, because colorectal cancer cases are decreasing overall in older adults, there is considerable interest in discovering why young adults are experiencing a paradoxical uptick in EO-CRC, and what impact this is having on associated mortality.

Abboud and colleagues collected age-adjusted mortality rates for EO-CRC between 2000 and 2022 from the NCHS database. In addition, stage-specific incidence-based mortality rates between 2004-2020 were obtained from the SEER 22 database. The NCHS database covers approximately 100% of the US population, whereas the SEER 22 database, which is included within the NCHS, covers 42%. 

The researchers divided patients into two cohorts based on age (20-44 years and 45-54 years) and tumor stage at diagnosis (early stage and late stage), and compared the annual percentage change (APC) and the average APC between the two groups. They also assessed trends for the entire cohort of patients aged 20-54 years. 

In the NCHS database, there were 147,026 deaths in total across all ages studied resulting from EO-CRC, of which 27% (39,746) occurred in those 20-44 years of age. Although associated mortality rates decreased between 2000-2005 in all ages studied (APC, –1.56), they increased from 2005-2022 (APC, 0.87). 

In the cohort aged 45-54 years, mortality decreased between 2000-2005 and increased thereafter, whereas in the cohort aged 20-44 years mortality increased steadily for the entire follow-up duration of 2000 to 2022 (APC, 0.93). A comparison of the age cohorts confirmed that those aged 20-44 years had a greater increase in mortality (average APC, 0.85; P < .001).

In the SEER 22 database, there were 4652 deaths in those with early-stage tumors across all age groups studied (average APC, 12.17). Mortality increased in patients aged 45-54 years (average APC, 11.52) with early-stage tumors, but there were insufficient numbers in those aged 20-44 years to determine this outcome. 

There were 42,120 deaths in those with late-stage tumors across all age groups (average APC, 10.05) in the SEER 22 database. And increased mortality was observed in those with late-stage tumors in both age cohorts: 45-54 years (average APC, 9.58) and 20-44 years (average APC, 11.06).

“When evaluating the SEER database and stratifying the tumors by stage at diagnosis, we demonstrated increasing mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer in both early- and late-stage tumors on average over the study period,” Abboud said. 
 

Identifying At-Risk Patients

In a comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine in Norfolk, said the findings speak to the need for evidence-based means of identifying younger individuals at a higher risk of EO-CRC.

“I suspect many of younger patients with CRC had their cancer detected when it was more advanced due to delayed presentation and diagnostic testing,” said Johnson, who was not involved in the study. 

But it would be interesting to evaluate if the cancers in the cohort aged 20-44 years were more aggressive biologically or if these patients were dismissive of early signs or symptoms, he said. 

Younger patients may dismiss “alarm” features that indicate CRC testing, said Johnson. “In particular, overt bleeding and iron deficiency need a focused evaluation in these younger cohorts.”

“Future research is needed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in younger patients with early-stage colorectal cancer and evaluate patients’ outcomes,” Abboud added. 

The study had no specific funding. Abboud reported no relevant financial relationships. Johnson reported serving as an adviser to ISOTHRIVE. He is also on the Medscape Gastroenterology editorial board.

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

PHILADELPHIA — The mortality rate of early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC) has increased considerably across the United States over the past 2 decades, with the effects most pronounced in those aged 20-44 years, according to a new analysis of the two largest US mortality databases. 

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center of Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) databases provide yet more evidence of the increasing prevalence of EO-CRC, which is defined as a diagnosis of CRC in patients younger than age 50 years. 

Furthermore, the researchers reported that increased mortality occurred across all patients included in the study (aged 20-54) regardless of tumor stage at diagnosis.

These findings “prompt tailoring further efforts toward raising awareness of colorectal cancer symptoms and keeping a low clinical suspicion in younger patients presenting with anemia, gastrointestinal bleeding, or change in bowel habits,” Yazan Abboud, MD, internal medicine PGY-3, assistant chief resident, and chair of resident research at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said in an interview.

Abboud presented the findings at the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting. 
 

Analyzing NCHS and SEER 

Rising rates of EO-CRC had prompted US medical societies to recommend reducing the screening age to 45 years. The US Preventive Services Task Force officially lowered it to this age in 2021. This shift is supported by real-world evidence, which shows that earlier screening leads to a significantly reduced risk for colorectal cancer. However, because colorectal cancer cases are decreasing overall in older adults, there is considerable interest in discovering why young adults are experiencing a paradoxical uptick in EO-CRC, and what impact this is having on associated mortality.

Abboud and colleagues collected age-adjusted mortality rates for EO-CRC between 2000 and 2022 from the NCHS database. In addition, stage-specific incidence-based mortality rates between 2004-2020 were obtained from the SEER 22 database. The NCHS database covers approximately 100% of the US population, whereas the SEER 22 database, which is included within the NCHS, covers 42%. 

The researchers divided patients into two cohorts based on age (20-44 years and 45-54 years) and tumor stage at diagnosis (early stage and late stage), and compared the annual percentage change (APC) and the average APC between the two groups. They also assessed trends for the entire cohort of patients aged 20-54 years. 

In the NCHS database, there were 147,026 deaths in total across all ages studied resulting from EO-CRC, of which 27% (39,746) occurred in those 20-44 years of age. Although associated mortality rates decreased between 2000-2005 in all ages studied (APC, –1.56), they increased from 2005-2022 (APC, 0.87). 

In the cohort aged 45-54 years, mortality decreased between 2000-2005 and increased thereafter, whereas in the cohort aged 20-44 years mortality increased steadily for the entire follow-up duration of 2000 to 2022 (APC, 0.93). A comparison of the age cohorts confirmed that those aged 20-44 years had a greater increase in mortality (average APC, 0.85; P < .001).

In the SEER 22 database, there were 4652 deaths in those with early-stage tumors across all age groups studied (average APC, 12.17). Mortality increased in patients aged 45-54 years (average APC, 11.52) with early-stage tumors, but there were insufficient numbers in those aged 20-44 years to determine this outcome. 

There were 42,120 deaths in those with late-stage tumors across all age groups (average APC, 10.05) in the SEER 22 database. And increased mortality was observed in those with late-stage tumors in both age cohorts: 45-54 years (average APC, 9.58) and 20-44 years (average APC, 11.06).

“When evaluating the SEER database and stratifying the tumors by stage at diagnosis, we demonstrated increasing mortality of early-onset colorectal cancer in both early- and late-stage tumors on average over the study period,” Abboud said. 
 

Identifying At-Risk Patients

In a comment, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine in Norfolk, said the findings speak to the need for evidence-based means of identifying younger individuals at a higher risk of EO-CRC.

“I suspect many of younger patients with CRC had their cancer detected when it was more advanced due to delayed presentation and diagnostic testing,” said Johnson, who was not involved in the study. 

But it would be interesting to evaluate if the cancers in the cohort aged 20-44 years were more aggressive biologically or if these patients were dismissive of early signs or symptoms, he said. 

Younger patients may dismiss “alarm” features that indicate CRC testing, said Johnson. “In particular, overt bleeding and iron deficiency need a focused evaluation in these younger cohorts.”

“Future research is needed to investigate the role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in younger patients with early-stage colorectal cancer and evaluate patients’ outcomes,” Abboud added. 

The study had no specific funding. Abboud reported no relevant financial relationships. Johnson reported serving as an adviser to ISOTHRIVE. He is also on the Medscape Gastroenterology editorial board.

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