Adolescent Medicine

Results published from a systematic review and meta-analysis find an inverse association and a dose-response link between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores.

Kyla W. Taylor, PhD, with the Division of Translational Toxicology at the National Institutes of Health, Morrisville, North Carolina, led the multicountry study published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Two accompanying editorials offer two very different perspectives on how to interpret the researchers’ conclusions.
 

Study Results

The authors noted that, of the 74 studies included in the review (64 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies), most (45) were conducted in China. Other countries included were Canada (3), Denmark (1), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4), New Zealand (1), Pakistan (2), Spain (1), and Taiwan (1). “Fifty-two studies were rated high risk of bias, and 22 were rated low risk of bias,” the authors stated.

Researchers found that 64 of the 74 studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ scores. Their analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure showed an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). Of those 59 studies, encompassing 20,932 children, 47 had high risk for bias and 12 had low risk for bias.

In 31 studies that reported fluoride measurements in drinking water, a dose-response relationship was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.11; P < .001). That relationship remained inverse when exposed groups were limited to less than 4 mg fluoride/L and less than 2 mg/L. However, the association was not seen at less than 1.5 mg/L.

In 20 studies reporting fluoride measured in urine, there was an inverse dose-response association (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.07; P < .001). Those inverse relationships held at levels less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine.

For perspective, in the United States, the US Public Health Service in 2015 lowered the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water from a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the risk for dental fluorosis while keeping its protective effect against dental caries. 

When Taylor’s team analyzed 13 studies with individual-level measures, they found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points (95% CI, –2.33 to –0.93; P < .001) per 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. Among studies with a low risk for bias, they observed an IQ score decrease of 1.14 points (95% CI, –1.68 to –0.61; P < .001). The inverse relationship remained when stratified by factors including risk for bias, sex, age, country, outcome assessment type, exposure timing (prenatal or postnatal), and exposure matrix (urinary fluoride, intake and water fluoride), the authors wrote.

The authors conclude both that inverse relationships and a dose-response association between fluoride measured in urine and drinking water and children’s IQs were found across the literature examined but also that “there were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.”

The authors point out that, “To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population.”
 

Editorial: Time to Reassess Systemic Fluoride

Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH, with Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the lead author on an editorial that suggests these data point to the need to reassess systemic fluoride exposure.

“Their study is the largest and includes the most rigorous series of meta-analyses of fluoride ever conducted,” Lanphear and colleagues wrote. “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

Lanphear’s team says distinguishing between water fluoride and urinary fluoride levels is important in these results “because regulatory and public health agencies must consider total fluoride intake when assessing risks.”

Taylor and colleagues’ finding that there was no statistically significant association between water fluoride les than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis doesn’t mean fluoride is not a potential risk for lower IQ scores in fluoridated communities, they wrote. “Water fluoride concentration does not capture the amount of water ingested or other sources of ingested fluoride. In contrast, urinary fluoride is a biological measure of total fluoride exposure, including the dynamic interface between bone fluoride stores and blood fluoride.”
 

Editorial: Be Cautious About the Conclusions

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, cites “major areas of concern” in the meta-analysis in his editorial.

He points to the large majority of studies in the meta-analysis that were at “high risk of bias” (47 high risk vs 12 that were low risk). He also cited information from a further look at the low-risk-of-bias studies included in the supplement.

“The studies with lower risk of bias showed a negligible effect (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.19; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.04) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), and a majority of publications (8 of 12) did not show a negative association between fluoride and childhood IQ,” Levy wrote. 

“Taylor et al do not adequately justify selection or omission of studies or explain or justify the calculated individual effect sizes presented in the main analysis. Also, readers are not told which studies with lower risk of bias are included in the subanalyses for water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, less than 2.0 mg/L, and less than 4.0 mg/L; therefore, readers cannot independently consider important differences across these studies.”

Levy also states that the magnitudes of the possible IQ differences are unfairly inflated. For the United Staes and most of the world, he points out, the recommended community water fluoridation level is 0.7 mg/L. Therefore, the difference between a community with low fluoride levels (about 0.2 mg/L) and one with optimal levels is about 0.5 mg/L. 

“However, Taylor and colleagues use a difference of 1.0 mg/L in their calculations, artificially doubling the estimated impact on IQ,” Levy wrote.

The meta-analysis should not affect public policy on adding fluoride to community water systems “and the widespread use of fluoride for caries prevention should continue,” Levy concluded.
 

Concerns About Quality of Studies Included

Charlotte Lewis, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and part of Seattle Children’s Multidisciplinary Infant Nutrition and Feeding Team, Seattle, who was not involved in the meta-analysis or editorials, said that systemic fluoridation should not change based on these results, citing what she said are problems with methodology.

“There are many concerns about the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis,” Lewis said. “Although the authors claim to have separated out low-bias studies, it is important to note that many of these same studies have substantial methodological flaws.”

She said studies deemed low-bias and included in the meta-analysis “relied on multiple examiners for cognitive testing without consideration for inter-rater variation or reliability measures.” She added that “a number of the studies failed to account for maternal IQ scores, breastfeeding, lead exposure, or other factors that could affect cognitive development, further contributing to biased conclusions.”

Importantly, she said, many of the studies, including one by Rivka Green and colleagues published in JAMA Pediatrics, relied on maternal spot urinary fluoride to assess fetal exposure to fluoride. “This is not a valid way to assess fetal exposure to fluoride and including such studies in this meta-analysis has led to inappropriate conclusions because they are based on studies using a flawed exposure measure.” 

She pointed to recent longitudinal, population-based studies, including one by Jayant V Kumar and colleagues that have found no adverse impact on IQ, or other cognitive tests, of drinking water with low levels of fluoride present, comparable to US community water fluoridation standards. 

“Relative to the small convenience-sample, cross-sectional studies included in this meta-analysis, longitudinal, population-based studies are considered significantly more reliable for establishing cause and effect,” she said.
 

Fluoride Levels Different Globally

Lewis said in some parts of the world fluoride is present in the environment in much higher levels than in fluoridated water in the United States.

“There are known adverse health effects of high fluoride ingestion in these endemic regions found primarily in China, India, and Iran. This points to the importance of dose response. What is beneficial at low levels can be toxic at high levels and that appears to be the case, not surprisingly, for fluoride as well. However, at 0.7 ppm, the level of fluoride in community water fluoridation, we experience fluoride’s beneficial effects when we regularly drink optimally fluoridated water.”

“Water fluoridation is an important public health approach available and beneficial to all, even those unable to afford or access dental care,” she said. “Water fluoridation diminishes oral health disparities, and its removal threatens to worsen disparities and increased suffering from dental disease. I remain confident in the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation.”

Taylor and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Lanphear reported grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Canadian Institute for Health Research and having served as a nonretained and unpaid expert witness in a federal fluoride suit against the US EPA. Levy reported past grants from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research related to fluoride, dental caries, dental fluorosis, and bone development. He reported small grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to fluoride, dental caries, and fluorosis. He consults for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and serves on the National Fluoride Advisory Committee for the American Dental Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results published from a systematic review and meta-analysis find an inverse association and a dose-response link between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores.

Kyla W. Taylor, PhD, with the Division of Translational Toxicology at the National Institutes of Health, Morrisville, North Carolina, led the multicountry study published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Two accompanying editorials offer two very different perspectives on how to interpret the researchers’ conclusions.
 

Study Results

The authors noted that, of the 74 studies included in the review (64 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies), most (45) were conducted in China. Other countries included were Canada (3), Denmark (1), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4), New Zealand (1), Pakistan (2), Spain (1), and Taiwan (1). “Fifty-two studies were rated high risk of bias, and 22 were rated low risk of bias,” the authors stated.

Researchers found that 64 of the 74 studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ scores. Their analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure showed an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). Of those 59 studies, encompassing 20,932 children, 47 had high risk for bias and 12 had low risk for bias.

In 31 studies that reported fluoride measurements in drinking water, a dose-response relationship was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.11; P < .001). That relationship remained inverse when exposed groups were limited to less than 4 mg fluoride/L and less than 2 mg/L. However, the association was not seen at less than 1.5 mg/L.

In 20 studies reporting fluoride measured in urine, there was an inverse dose-response association (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.07; P < .001). Those inverse relationships held at levels less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine.

For perspective, in the United States, the US Public Health Service in 2015 lowered the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water from a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the risk for dental fluorosis while keeping its protective effect against dental caries. 

When Taylor’s team analyzed 13 studies with individual-level measures, they found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points (95% CI, –2.33 to –0.93; P < .001) per 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. Among studies with a low risk for bias, they observed an IQ score decrease of 1.14 points (95% CI, –1.68 to –0.61; P < .001). The inverse relationship remained when stratified by factors including risk for bias, sex, age, country, outcome assessment type, exposure timing (prenatal or postnatal), and exposure matrix (urinary fluoride, intake and water fluoride), the authors wrote.

The authors conclude both that inverse relationships and a dose-response association between fluoride measured in urine and drinking water and children’s IQs were found across the literature examined but also that “there were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.”

The authors point out that, “To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population.”
 

Editorial: Time to Reassess Systemic Fluoride

Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH, with Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the lead author on an editorial that suggests these data point to the need to reassess systemic fluoride exposure.

“Their study is the largest and includes the most rigorous series of meta-analyses of fluoride ever conducted,” Lanphear and colleagues wrote. “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

Lanphear’s team says distinguishing between water fluoride and urinary fluoride levels is important in these results “because regulatory and public health agencies must consider total fluoride intake when assessing risks.”

Taylor and colleagues’ finding that there was no statistically significant association between water fluoride les than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis doesn’t mean fluoride is not a potential risk for lower IQ scores in fluoridated communities, they wrote. “Water fluoride concentration does not capture the amount of water ingested or other sources of ingested fluoride. In contrast, urinary fluoride is a biological measure of total fluoride exposure, including the dynamic interface between bone fluoride stores and blood fluoride.”
 

Editorial: Be Cautious About the Conclusions

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, cites “major areas of concern” in the meta-analysis in his editorial.

He points to the large majority of studies in the meta-analysis that were at “high risk of bias” (47 high risk vs 12 that were low risk). He also cited information from a further look at the low-risk-of-bias studies included in the supplement.

“The studies with lower risk of bias showed a negligible effect (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.19; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.04) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), and a majority of publications (8 of 12) did not show a negative association between fluoride and childhood IQ,” Levy wrote. 

“Taylor et al do not adequately justify selection or omission of studies or explain or justify the calculated individual effect sizes presented in the main analysis. Also, readers are not told which studies with lower risk of bias are included in the subanalyses for water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, less than 2.0 mg/L, and less than 4.0 mg/L; therefore, readers cannot independently consider important differences across these studies.”

Levy also states that the magnitudes of the possible IQ differences are unfairly inflated. For the United Staes and most of the world, he points out, the recommended community water fluoridation level is 0.7 mg/L. Therefore, the difference between a community with low fluoride levels (about 0.2 mg/L) and one with optimal levels is about 0.5 mg/L. 

“However, Taylor and colleagues use a difference of 1.0 mg/L in their calculations, artificially doubling the estimated impact on IQ,” Levy wrote.

The meta-analysis should not affect public policy on adding fluoride to community water systems “and the widespread use of fluoride for caries prevention should continue,” Levy concluded.
 

Concerns About Quality of Studies Included

Charlotte Lewis, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and part of Seattle Children’s Multidisciplinary Infant Nutrition and Feeding Team, Seattle, who was not involved in the meta-analysis or editorials, said that systemic fluoridation should not change based on these results, citing what she said are problems with methodology.

“There are many concerns about the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis,” Lewis said. “Although the authors claim to have separated out low-bias studies, it is important to note that many of these same studies have substantial methodological flaws.”

She said studies deemed low-bias and included in the meta-analysis “relied on multiple examiners for cognitive testing without consideration for inter-rater variation or reliability measures.” She added that “a number of the studies failed to account for maternal IQ scores, breastfeeding, lead exposure, or other factors that could affect cognitive development, further contributing to biased conclusions.”

Importantly, she said, many of the studies, including one by Rivka Green and colleagues published in JAMA Pediatrics, relied on maternal spot urinary fluoride to assess fetal exposure to fluoride. “This is not a valid way to assess fetal exposure to fluoride and including such studies in this meta-analysis has led to inappropriate conclusions because they are based on studies using a flawed exposure measure.” 

She pointed to recent longitudinal, population-based studies, including one by Jayant V Kumar and colleagues that have found no adverse impact on IQ, or other cognitive tests, of drinking water with low levels of fluoride present, comparable to US community water fluoridation standards. 

“Relative to the small convenience-sample, cross-sectional studies included in this meta-analysis, longitudinal, population-based studies are considered significantly more reliable for establishing cause and effect,” she said.
 

Fluoride Levels Different Globally

Lewis said in some parts of the world fluoride is present in the environment in much higher levels than in fluoridated water in the United States.

“There are known adverse health effects of high fluoride ingestion in these endemic regions found primarily in China, India, and Iran. This points to the importance of dose response. What is beneficial at low levels can be toxic at high levels and that appears to be the case, not surprisingly, for fluoride as well. However, at 0.7 ppm, the level of fluoride in community water fluoridation, we experience fluoride’s beneficial effects when we regularly drink optimally fluoridated water.”

“Water fluoridation is an important public health approach available and beneficial to all, even those unable to afford or access dental care,” she said. “Water fluoridation diminishes oral health disparities, and its removal threatens to worsen disparities and increased suffering from dental disease. I remain confident in the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation.”

Taylor and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Lanphear reported grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Canadian Institute for Health Research and having served as a nonretained and unpaid expert witness in a federal fluoride suit against the US EPA. Levy reported past grants from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research related to fluoride, dental caries, dental fluorosis, and bone development. He reported small grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to fluoride, dental caries, and fluorosis. He consults for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and serves on the National Fluoride Advisory Committee for the American Dental Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results published from a systematic review and meta-analysis find an inverse association and a dose-response link between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores.

Kyla W. Taylor, PhD, with the Division of Translational Toxicology at the National Institutes of Health, Morrisville, North Carolina, led the multicountry study published online in JAMA Pediatrics.

Two accompanying editorials offer two very different perspectives on how to interpret the researchers’ conclusions.
 

Study Results

The authors noted that, of the 74 studies included in the review (64 cross-sectional and 10 cohort studies), most (45) were conducted in China. Other countries included were Canada (3), Denmark (1), India (12), Iran (4), Mexico (4), New Zealand (1), Pakistan (2), Spain (1), and Taiwan (1). “Fifty-two studies were rated high risk of bias, and 22 were rated low risk of bias,” the authors stated.

Researchers found that 64 of the 74 studies reported inverse associations between fluoride exposure measures and children’s IQ scores. Their analysis of 59 studies with group-level measures of fluoride in drinking water, dental fluorosis, or other measures of fluoride exposure showed an inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and IQ (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.45; 95% CI, −0.57 to −0.33; P < .001). Of those 59 studies, encompassing 20,932 children, 47 had high risk for bias and 12 had low risk for bias.

In 31 studies that reported fluoride measurements in drinking water, a dose-response relationship was found between exposed and reference groups (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.20 to –0.11; P < .001). That relationship remained inverse when exposed groups were limited to less than 4 mg fluoride/L and less than 2 mg/L. However, the association was not seen at less than 1.5 mg/L.

In 20 studies reporting fluoride measured in urine, there was an inverse dose-response association (SMD, –0.15; 95% CI, –0.23 to –0.07; P < .001). Those inverse relationships held at levels less than 4 mg/L, less than 2 mg/L, and less than 1.5 mg/L fluoride in urine.

For perspective, in the United States, the US Public Health Service in 2015 lowered the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water from a range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the risk for dental fluorosis while keeping its protective effect against dental caries. 

When Taylor’s team analyzed 13 studies with individual-level measures, they found an IQ score decrease of 1.63 points (95% CI, –2.33 to –0.93; P < .001) per 1-mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. Among studies with a low risk for bias, they observed an IQ score decrease of 1.14 points (95% CI, –1.68 to –0.61; P < .001). The inverse relationship remained when stratified by factors including risk for bias, sex, age, country, outcome assessment type, exposure timing (prenatal or postnatal), and exposure matrix (urinary fluoride, intake and water fluoride), the authors wrote.

The authors conclude both that inverse relationships and a dose-response association between fluoride measured in urine and drinking water and children’s IQs were found across the literature examined but also that “there were limited data and uncertainty in the dose-response association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ when fluoride exposure was estimated by drinking water alone at concentrations less than 1.5 mg/L.”

The authors point out that, “To our knowledge, no studies of fluoride exposure and children’s IQ have been performed in the United States and no nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are available, hindering application of these findings to the US population.”
 

Editorial: Time to Reassess Systemic Fluoride

Bruce P. Lanphear, MD, MPH, with Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, is the lead author on an editorial that suggests these data point to the need to reassess systemic fluoride exposure.

“Their study is the largest and includes the most rigorous series of meta-analyses of fluoride ever conducted,” Lanphear and colleagues wrote. “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”

Lanphear’s team says distinguishing between water fluoride and urinary fluoride levels is important in these results “because regulatory and public health agencies must consider total fluoride intake when assessing risks.”

Taylor and colleagues’ finding that there was no statistically significant association between water fluoride les than 1.5 mg/L and children’s IQ scores in the dose-response meta-analysis doesn’t mean fluoride is not a potential risk for lower IQ scores in fluoridated communities, they wrote. “Water fluoride concentration does not capture the amount of water ingested or other sources of ingested fluoride. In contrast, urinary fluoride is a biological measure of total fluoride exposure, including the dynamic interface between bone fluoride stores and blood fluoride.”
 

Editorial: Be Cautious About the Conclusions

Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, cites “major areas of concern” in the meta-analysis in his editorial.

He points to the large majority of studies in the meta-analysis that were at “high risk of bias” (47 high risk vs 12 that were low risk). He also cited information from a further look at the low-risk-of-bias studies included in the supplement.

“The studies with lower risk of bias showed a negligible effect (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.19; 95% CI, −0.35 to −0.04) with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 87%), and a majority of publications (8 of 12) did not show a negative association between fluoride and childhood IQ,” Levy wrote. 

“Taylor et al do not adequately justify selection or omission of studies or explain or justify the calculated individual effect sizes presented in the main analysis. Also, readers are not told which studies with lower risk of bias are included in the subanalyses for water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, less than 2.0 mg/L, and less than 4.0 mg/L; therefore, readers cannot independently consider important differences across these studies.”

Levy also states that the magnitudes of the possible IQ differences are unfairly inflated. For the United Staes and most of the world, he points out, the recommended community water fluoridation level is 0.7 mg/L. Therefore, the difference between a community with low fluoride levels (about 0.2 mg/L) and one with optimal levels is about 0.5 mg/L. 

“However, Taylor and colleagues use a difference of 1.0 mg/L in their calculations, artificially doubling the estimated impact on IQ,” Levy wrote.

The meta-analysis should not affect public policy on adding fluoride to community water systems “and the widespread use of fluoride for caries prevention should continue,” Levy concluded.
 

Concerns About Quality of Studies Included

Charlotte Lewis, MD, MPH, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and part of Seattle Children’s Multidisciplinary Infant Nutrition and Feeding Team, Seattle, who was not involved in the meta-analysis or editorials, said that systemic fluoridation should not change based on these results, citing what she said are problems with methodology.

“There are many concerns about the quality of studies included in this meta-analysis,” Lewis said. “Although the authors claim to have separated out low-bias studies, it is important to note that many of these same studies have substantial methodological flaws.”

She said studies deemed low-bias and included in the meta-analysis “relied on multiple examiners for cognitive testing without consideration for inter-rater variation or reliability measures.” She added that “a number of the studies failed to account for maternal IQ scores, breastfeeding, lead exposure, or other factors that could affect cognitive development, further contributing to biased conclusions.”

Importantly, she said, many of the studies, including one by Rivka Green and colleagues published in JAMA Pediatrics, relied on maternal spot urinary fluoride to assess fetal exposure to fluoride. “This is not a valid way to assess fetal exposure to fluoride and including such studies in this meta-analysis has led to inappropriate conclusions because they are based on studies using a flawed exposure measure.” 

She pointed to recent longitudinal, population-based studies, including one by Jayant V Kumar and colleagues that have found no adverse impact on IQ, or other cognitive tests, of drinking water with low levels of fluoride present, comparable to US community water fluoridation standards. 

“Relative to the small convenience-sample, cross-sectional studies included in this meta-analysis, longitudinal, population-based studies are considered significantly more reliable for establishing cause and effect,” she said.
 

Fluoride Levels Different Globally

Lewis said in some parts of the world fluoride is present in the environment in much higher levels than in fluoridated water in the United States.

“There are known adverse health effects of high fluoride ingestion in these endemic regions found primarily in China, India, and Iran. This points to the importance of dose response. What is beneficial at low levels can be toxic at high levels and that appears to be the case, not surprisingly, for fluoride as well. However, at 0.7 ppm, the level of fluoride in community water fluoridation, we experience fluoride’s beneficial effects when we regularly drink optimally fluoridated water.”

“Water fluoridation is an important public health approach available and beneficial to all, even those unable to afford or access dental care,” she said. “Water fluoridation diminishes oral health disparities, and its removal threatens to worsen disparities and increased suffering from dental disease. I remain confident in the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation.”

Taylor and colleagues reported no relevant financial relationships. Lanphear reported grants from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the Canadian Institute for Health Research and having served as a nonretained and unpaid expert witness in a federal fluoride suit against the US EPA. Levy reported past grants from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research related to fluoride, dental caries, dental fluorosis, and bone development. He reported small grant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention related to fluoride, dental caries, and fluorosis. He consults for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and serves on the National Fluoride Advisory Committee for the American Dental Association.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Guttmacher Institute reported that eight states enacted or proposed limits on contraceptive access. Currently, more than 19 million women aged 13-44 years in the United States live in “contraceptive deserts” or places that lack access to a full range of birth control methods. About 1.2 million of those women live in counties that don’t have a single health center that has complete birth control services.

Providing contraceptive care in primary care settings has long been deemed a best practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the percentage of primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribing contraception or offering contraceptive procedures is strikingly low.

 

Only Half of Family Physicians (FPs) Prescribe Contraceptives

Research by Candice Chen, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that while 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or vaginal ring; only 51% of FPs, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians did so. And while 92.8% of OB/GYNs provided intrauterine device (IUD) services, only 16.4% of FPs, 2.6% of internists, and 0.6% of pediatricians did so.

One reason primary care is positioned so well to fill contraception gaps is found in the sheer numbers of PCPs. Chen and colleagues found that while the percentage of FPs prescribing contraception was much smaller (51.4%) than the percentage of OB/GYN prescribers (72.6%), the numbers translate to 72,725 FPs prescribing contraceptives, which is nearly double the number of OB/GYNs prescribing them (36,887).

Access to contraception services took a big hit with the COVID-19 pandemic as did access to healthcare in general. And the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe V. Wade has shaken up the landscape for reproductive services with potential consequences for contraceptive access.

 

Why Aren’t More PCPs Offering Contraceptive Services?

Reasons for the relatively low numbers of PCPs prescribing contraceptives include lack of training in residency, health systems’ financial choices, insurance barriers, and expectation by some physicians and many patients that birth control belongs in the OB/GYN sector. Access, patient awareness that PCPs can provide the care, expectations, and options vary by states and regions.

Angeline Ti, MD, an FP who teaches in a residency program at Wellstar Douglasville Medical Center in Douglasville, Georgia, told this news organization that the awareness issue might be the easiest change for PCPs as many patients aren’t aware you can get contraceptive services in primary care.

 

Things PCPs ‘Could Do Tomorrow’

Those physicians who want to add those services might want to start with universal screening, Ti said — having conversations with patients about contraceptive needs and letting them know they don’t have to get those prescriptions from an OB/GYN. The conversations could center on laying out the options and counseling on risks and benefits of various options and providing referrals, if that is the best option. “There are definitely things that you could do tomorrow,” she said.

PCPs should be familiar with the CDC’s Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers and the federal Office of Population Affairs’ Quality Family Planning Recommendations for providers, which offer practice-level information, Ti said.

PCPs should not feel they need to be able to provide same-day contraceptive care to get started. Having nurses and medical assistants and practice managers on board who are passionate about adding the services can also help bring about change with a team approach, she said.

Even when the provider is enthusiastic about providing the care and is trained to do so, however, insurance barriers may exist, Ti acknowledged. For example, at her clinic a common IUD insertion requires prior authorization.

 

Including Other Providers

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a member of the core faculty at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity in Washington, DC, told this news organization that including other clinicians could help expand contraceptive services in primary care. Her research showed that the proportion of the contraception workforce that is made up of advanced practice clinicians and nurse practitioners is increasing, whereas the proportion that includes physicians is either static or declining.

A paper by her team found that although OB/GYNs and nurse-midwives were more likely to prescribe the pill, patch, or ring, the largest numbers of contraception prescribers were FPs (72,725) and advanced practice nurses (70,115).

“We also know that pharmacists can safely prescribe contraception, and some states have authorized this practice, but uptake is low and policies vary by state,” she said. “Some health systems have pharmacists embedded in their practice — for example in federally qualified health centers and others.”

It’s important, she said, not to frame the gaps in contraceptive care as a failure on the part of individual clinicians but rather as: “How can we change some of the system-level factors that have gotten us to this point?”

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, an FP and director of the Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said sometimes it’s the health center’s cost analysis that stands in the way. She gave an example from her own health system.

“The health system doesn’t want to pay for us to have the IUDs stored in our offices and provide that procedure because they feel it’s more cost effective if the OB/GYNs do it.” IUD insertions take more appointment time than the standard appointment, which also goes into the cost analysis. “Even though you’re trained to do it, you can’t necessarily do it when you get to the real world,” Jabbarpour said.

She said the thinking is that while OB/GYNs focus on women, FPs cover all ages and family members, so having the equipment and the storage space is best left to the OB/GYNs. She said that thinking may be short sighted.

“We have good data that the highest number of office visits in the United States actually happen in the family physician’s office,” she said. Not providing the services injects a barrier into the system as women are being referred for a simple procedure to a physician they’ve never seen. “That’s not very patient centered,” Jabbarpour noted.

In systems that refer contraceptive procedures to OB/GYNs, doctors also can’t practice skills they learned in residency and then may not feel comfortable performing the procedures when they enter a health system that offers the procedures in primary care.

 

Number of FPs Prescribing Long-Acting Contraception Growing

Jabbarpour said there has been some improvement in that area in terms of long-acting reversible contraception.

She pointed to a study of recertifying FPs that found that the percent of FPs who offer either IUDs or implants increased from 23.9% in 2018 to 30% in 2022. The share of FPs providing implant insertion increased from 12.9% to 20.8%; those providing IUDs also increased from 22.9% to 25.5% from 2018 to 2022.

FPs also have the advantage of being more widely distributed in rural and remote areas than OB/GYNs, she noted. “They are in almost every county in the United States.”

Jabbarpour said the education must start with health system leaders. If they deem it important to offer these services in primary care, then residency programs will see that their residents must be appropriately trained to provide it.

“Right now, it’s not an expectation of many of the employers that primary care physicians should do this,” she said.

Ti said that expectation should change. The value proposition for all PCPs and health systems, she said, is this: “Most of contraceptive care is well within the scope of primary care providers. This is care that we can do, and it’s care that we should be doing. So why aren’t we doing it?”

Ti, Strasser, and Jabbarpour reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Guttmacher Institute reported that eight states enacted or proposed limits on contraceptive access. Currently, more than 19 million women aged 13-44 years in the United States live in “contraceptive deserts” or places that lack access to a full range of birth control methods. About 1.2 million of those women live in counties that don’t have a single health center that has complete birth control services.

Providing contraceptive care in primary care settings has long been deemed a best practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the percentage of primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribing contraception or offering contraceptive procedures is strikingly low.

 

Only Half of Family Physicians (FPs) Prescribe Contraceptives

Research by Candice Chen, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that while 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or vaginal ring; only 51% of FPs, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians did so. And while 92.8% of OB/GYNs provided intrauterine device (IUD) services, only 16.4% of FPs, 2.6% of internists, and 0.6% of pediatricians did so.

One reason primary care is positioned so well to fill contraception gaps is found in the sheer numbers of PCPs. Chen and colleagues found that while the percentage of FPs prescribing contraception was much smaller (51.4%) than the percentage of OB/GYN prescribers (72.6%), the numbers translate to 72,725 FPs prescribing contraceptives, which is nearly double the number of OB/GYNs prescribing them (36,887).

Access to contraception services took a big hit with the COVID-19 pandemic as did access to healthcare in general. And the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe V. Wade has shaken up the landscape for reproductive services with potential consequences for contraceptive access.

 

Why Aren’t More PCPs Offering Contraceptive Services?

Reasons for the relatively low numbers of PCPs prescribing contraceptives include lack of training in residency, health systems’ financial choices, insurance barriers, and expectation by some physicians and many patients that birth control belongs in the OB/GYN sector. Access, patient awareness that PCPs can provide the care, expectations, and options vary by states and regions.

Angeline Ti, MD, an FP who teaches in a residency program at Wellstar Douglasville Medical Center in Douglasville, Georgia, told this news organization that the awareness issue might be the easiest change for PCPs as many patients aren’t aware you can get contraceptive services in primary care.

 

Things PCPs ‘Could Do Tomorrow’

Those physicians who want to add those services might want to start with universal screening, Ti said — having conversations with patients about contraceptive needs and letting them know they don’t have to get those prescriptions from an OB/GYN. The conversations could center on laying out the options and counseling on risks and benefits of various options and providing referrals, if that is the best option. “There are definitely things that you could do tomorrow,” she said.

PCPs should be familiar with the CDC’s Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers and the federal Office of Population Affairs’ Quality Family Planning Recommendations for providers, which offer practice-level information, Ti said.

PCPs should not feel they need to be able to provide same-day contraceptive care to get started. Having nurses and medical assistants and practice managers on board who are passionate about adding the services can also help bring about change with a team approach, she said.

Even when the provider is enthusiastic about providing the care and is trained to do so, however, insurance barriers may exist, Ti acknowledged. For example, at her clinic a common IUD insertion requires prior authorization.

 

Including Other Providers

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a member of the core faculty at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity in Washington, DC, told this news organization that including other clinicians could help expand contraceptive services in primary care. Her research showed that the proportion of the contraception workforce that is made up of advanced practice clinicians and nurse practitioners is increasing, whereas the proportion that includes physicians is either static or declining.

A paper by her team found that although OB/GYNs and nurse-midwives were more likely to prescribe the pill, patch, or ring, the largest numbers of contraception prescribers were FPs (72,725) and advanced practice nurses (70,115).

“We also know that pharmacists can safely prescribe contraception, and some states have authorized this practice, but uptake is low and policies vary by state,” she said. “Some health systems have pharmacists embedded in their practice — for example in federally qualified health centers and others.”

It’s important, she said, not to frame the gaps in contraceptive care as a failure on the part of individual clinicians but rather as: “How can we change some of the system-level factors that have gotten us to this point?”

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, an FP and director of the Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said sometimes it’s the health center’s cost analysis that stands in the way. She gave an example from her own health system.

“The health system doesn’t want to pay for us to have the IUDs stored in our offices and provide that procedure because they feel it’s more cost effective if the OB/GYNs do it.” IUD insertions take more appointment time than the standard appointment, which also goes into the cost analysis. “Even though you’re trained to do it, you can’t necessarily do it when you get to the real world,” Jabbarpour said.

She said the thinking is that while OB/GYNs focus on women, FPs cover all ages and family members, so having the equipment and the storage space is best left to the OB/GYNs. She said that thinking may be short sighted.

“We have good data that the highest number of office visits in the United States actually happen in the family physician’s office,” she said. Not providing the services injects a barrier into the system as women are being referred for a simple procedure to a physician they’ve never seen. “That’s not very patient centered,” Jabbarpour noted.

In systems that refer contraceptive procedures to OB/GYNs, doctors also can’t practice skills they learned in residency and then may not feel comfortable performing the procedures when they enter a health system that offers the procedures in primary care.

 

Number of FPs Prescribing Long-Acting Contraception Growing

Jabbarpour said there has been some improvement in that area in terms of long-acting reversible contraception.

She pointed to a study of recertifying FPs that found that the percent of FPs who offer either IUDs or implants increased from 23.9% in 2018 to 30% in 2022. The share of FPs providing implant insertion increased from 12.9% to 20.8%; those providing IUDs also increased from 22.9% to 25.5% from 2018 to 2022.

FPs also have the advantage of being more widely distributed in rural and remote areas than OB/GYNs, she noted. “They are in almost every county in the United States.”

Jabbarpour said the education must start with health system leaders. If they deem it important to offer these services in primary care, then residency programs will see that their residents must be appropriately trained to provide it.

“Right now, it’s not an expectation of many of the employers that primary care physicians should do this,” she said.

Ti said that expectation should change. The value proposition for all PCPs and health systems, she said, is this: “Most of contraceptive care is well within the scope of primary care providers. This is care that we can do, and it’s care that we should be doing. So why aren’t we doing it?”

Ti, Strasser, and Jabbarpour reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2024, the Guttmacher Institute reported that eight states enacted or proposed limits on contraceptive access. Currently, more than 19 million women aged 13-44 years in the United States live in “contraceptive deserts” or places that lack access to a full range of birth control methods. About 1.2 million of those women live in counties that don’t have a single health center that has complete birth control services.

Providing contraceptive care in primary care settings has long been deemed a best practice by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). But the percentage of primary care physicians (PCPs) prescribing contraception or offering contraceptive procedures is strikingly low.

 

Only Half of Family Physicians (FPs) Prescribe Contraceptives

Research by Candice Chen, MD, MPH, and colleagues found that while 73.1% of obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) and 72.6% of nurse-midwives prescribed the pill, patch, or vaginal ring; only 51% of FPs, 32.4% of pediatricians, and 19.8% of internal medicine physicians did so. And while 92.8% of OB/GYNs provided intrauterine device (IUD) services, only 16.4% of FPs, 2.6% of internists, and 0.6% of pediatricians did so.

One reason primary care is positioned so well to fill contraception gaps is found in the sheer numbers of PCPs. Chen and colleagues found that while the percentage of FPs prescribing contraception was much smaller (51.4%) than the percentage of OB/GYN prescribers (72.6%), the numbers translate to 72,725 FPs prescribing contraceptives, which is nearly double the number of OB/GYNs prescribing them (36,887).

Access to contraception services took a big hit with the COVID-19 pandemic as did access to healthcare in general. And the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Roe V. Wade has shaken up the landscape for reproductive services with potential consequences for contraceptive access.

 

Why Aren’t More PCPs Offering Contraceptive Services?

Reasons for the relatively low numbers of PCPs prescribing contraceptives include lack of training in residency, health systems’ financial choices, insurance barriers, and expectation by some physicians and many patients that birth control belongs in the OB/GYN sector. Access, patient awareness that PCPs can provide the care, expectations, and options vary by states and regions.

Angeline Ti, MD, an FP who teaches in a residency program at Wellstar Douglasville Medical Center in Douglasville, Georgia, told this news organization that the awareness issue might be the easiest change for PCPs as many patients aren’t aware you can get contraceptive services in primary care.

 

Things PCPs ‘Could Do Tomorrow’

Those physicians who want to add those services might want to start with universal screening, Ti said — having conversations with patients about contraceptive needs and letting them know they don’t have to get those prescriptions from an OB/GYN. The conversations could center on laying out the options and counseling on risks and benefits of various options and providing referrals, if that is the best option. “There are definitely things that you could do tomorrow,” she said.

PCPs should be familiar with the CDC’s Contraceptive Guidance for Health Care Providers and the federal Office of Population Affairs’ Quality Family Planning Recommendations for providers, which offer practice-level information, Ti said.

PCPs should not feel they need to be able to provide same-day contraceptive care to get started. Having nurses and medical assistants and practice managers on board who are passionate about adding the services can also help bring about change with a team approach, she said.

Even when the provider is enthusiastic about providing the care and is trained to do so, however, insurance barriers may exist, Ti acknowledged. For example, at her clinic a common IUD insertion requires prior authorization.

 

Including Other Providers

Julia Strasser, DrPH, MPH, a member of the core faculty at the Fitzhugh Mullan Institute for Health Workforce Equity in Washington, DC, told this news organization that including other clinicians could help expand contraceptive services in primary care. Her research showed that the proportion of the contraception workforce that is made up of advanced practice clinicians and nurse practitioners is increasing, whereas the proportion that includes physicians is either static or declining.

A paper by her team found that although OB/GYNs and nurse-midwives were more likely to prescribe the pill, patch, or ring, the largest numbers of contraception prescribers were FPs (72,725) and advanced practice nurses (70,115).

“We also know that pharmacists can safely prescribe contraception, and some states have authorized this practice, but uptake is low and policies vary by state,” she said. “Some health systems have pharmacists embedded in their practice — for example in federally qualified health centers and others.”

It’s important, she said, not to frame the gaps in contraceptive care as a failure on the part of individual clinicians but rather as: “How can we change some of the system-level factors that have gotten us to this point?”

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, an FP and director of the Robert Graham Center of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said sometimes it’s the health center’s cost analysis that stands in the way. She gave an example from her own health system.

“The health system doesn’t want to pay for us to have the IUDs stored in our offices and provide that procedure because they feel it’s more cost effective if the OB/GYNs do it.” IUD insertions take more appointment time than the standard appointment, which also goes into the cost analysis. “Even though you’re trained to do it, you can’t necessarily do it when you get to the real world,” Jabbarpour said.

She said the thinking is that while OB/GYNs focus on women, FPs cover all ages and family members, so having the equipment and the storage space is best left to the OB/GYNs. She said that thinking may be short sighted.

“We have good data that the highest number of office visits in the United States actually happen in the family physician’s office,” she said. Not providing the services injects a barrier into the system as women are being referred for a simple procedure to a physician they’ve never seen. “That’s not very patient centered,” Jabbarpour noted.

In systems that refer contraceptive procedures to OB/GYNs, doctors also can’t practice skills they learned in residency and then may not feel comfortable performing the procedures when they enter a health system that offers the procedures in primary care.

 

Number of FPs Prescribing Long-Acting Contraception Growing

Jabbarpour said there has been some improvement in that area in terms of long-acting reversible contraception.

She pointed to a study of recertifying FPs that found that the percent of FPs who offer either IUDs or implants increased from 23.9% in 2018 to 30% in 2022. The share of FPs providing implant insertion increased from 12.9% to 20.8%; those providing IUDs also increased from 22.9% to 25.5% from 2018 to 2022.

FPs also have the advantage of being more widely distributed in rural and remote areas than OB/GYNs, she noted. “They are in almost every county in the United States.”

Jabbarpour said the education must start with health system leaders. If they deem it important to offer these services in primary care, then residency programs will see that their residents must be appropriately trained to provide it.

“Right now, it’s not an expectation of many of the employers that primary care physicians should do this,” she said.

Ti said that expectation should change. The value proposition for all PCPs and health systems, she said, is this: “Most of contraceptive care is well within the scope of primary care providers. This is care that we can do, and it’s care that we should be doing. So why aren’t we doing it?”

Ti, Strasser, and Jabbarpour reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A widely accepted assumption in the addiction field is that neuroanatomical changes observed in young people who use alcohol or other substances are largely the consequence of exposure to these substances.

But a new study suggests that neuroanatomical features in children, including greater whole brain and cortical volumes, are evident before exposure to any substances.

The investigators, led by Alex P. Miller, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, noted that the findings add to a growing body of work that suggests individual brain structure, along with environmental exposure and genetic risk, may influence risk for substance use disorder. 

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Neuroanatomy a Predisposing Risk Factor?

Earlier research showed that substance use is associated with lower gray matter volume, thinner cortex, and less white matter integrity. While it has been widely thought that these changes were induced by the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, recent longitudinal and genetic studies suggest that the neuroanatomical changes may also be predisposing risk factors for substance use.

To better understand the issue, investigators analyzed data on 9804 children (mean baseline age, 9.9 years; 53% men; 76% White) at 22 US sites enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study that’s examining brain and behavioral development from middle childhood to young adulthood.

The researchers collected information on the use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and other illicit substances from in-person interviews at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3, as well as interim phone interviews at 6, 18, and 30 months. MRI scans provided extensive brain structural data, including global and regional cortical volume, thickness, surface area, sulcal depth, and subcortical volume.

Of the total, 3460 participants (35%) initiated substance use before age 15, with 90% reporting alcohol use initiation. There was considerable overlap between initiation of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis.

The researchers tested whether baseline neuroanatomical variability was associated with any substance use initiation before or up to 3 years following initial neuroimaging scans. Study covariates included baseline age, sex, pubertal status, familial relationship (eg, sibling or twin), and prenatal substance exposures. Researchers didn’t control for sociodemographic characteristics as these could influence associations.

 

Significant Brain Differences

Compared with no substance use initiation, any substance use initiation was associated with larger global neuroanatomical indices, including whole brain (beta = 0.05; P = 2.80 × 10^–8), total intracranial (beta = 0.04; P = 3.49 × 10⁻⁶), cortical (beta = 0.05; P = 4.31 × 10^–8), and subcortical volumes (beta = 0.05; P = 4.39 × 10^–8), as well as greater total cortical surface area (beta = 0.04; P = 6.05 × 10^–7).

The direction of associations between cortical thickness and substance use initiation was regionally specific; any substance use initiation was characterized by thinner cortex in all frontal regions (eg, rostral middle frontal gyrus, beta = −0.03; P = 6.99 × 10^–6), but thicker cortex in all other lobes. It was also associated with larger regional brain volumes, deeper regional sulci, and differences in regional cortical surface area.

The authors noted total cortical thickness peaks at age 1.7 years and steadily declines throughout life. By contrast, subcortical volumes peak at 14.4 years of age and generally remain stable before steep later life declines.

Secondary analyses compared initiation of the three most commonly used substances in early adolescence (alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis) with no substance use.

Findings for alcohol largely mirrored those for any substance use. However, the study uncovered additional significant associations, including greater left lateral occipital volume and bilateral para-hippocampal gyri cortical thickness and less bilateral superior frontal gyri cortical thickness.

Nicotine use was associated with lower right superior frontal gyrus volume and deeper left lateral orbitofrontal cortex sulci. And cannabis use was associated with thinner left precentral gyrus and lower right inferior parietal gyrus and right caudate volumes.

The authors noted results for nicotine and cannabis may not have had adequate statistical power, and small effects suggest these findings aren’t clinically informative for individuals. However, they wrote, “They do inform and challenge current theoretical models of addiction.”

 

Associations Precede Substance Use

A post hoc analysis further challenges current models of addiction. When researchers looked only at the 1203 youth who initiated substance use after the baseline neuroimaging session, they found most associations preceded substance use.

“That regional associations may precede substance use initiation, including less cortical thickness in the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, challenges predominant interpretations that these associations arise largely due to neurotoxic consequences of exposure and increases the plausibility that these features may, at least partially, reflect markers of predispositional risk,” wrote the authors.

A study limitation was that unmeasured confounders and undetected systemic differences in missing data may have influenced associations. Sociodemographic, environmental, and genetic variables that were not included as covariates are likely associated with both neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation and may moderate associations between them, said the authors.

The ABCD Study provides “a robust and large database of longitudinal data” that goes beyond previous neuroimaging research “to understand the bidirectional relationship between brain structure and substance use,” Miller said in a press release.

“The hope is that these types of studies, in conjunction with other data on environmental exposures and genetic risk, could help change how we think about the development of substance use disorders and inform more accurate models of addiction moving forward,” Miller said.

 

Reevaluating Causal Assumptions

In an accompanying editorial, Felix Pichardo, MA, and Sylia Wilson, PhD, from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that it may be time to “reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction” and the mechanisms by which it develops, persists, and becomes harmful.

Neurotoxic effects of substances are central to current brain disease models of addiction, wrote Pichardo and Wilson. “Substance exposure is thought to affect cortical and subcortical regions that support interrelated systems, resulting in desensitization of reward-related processing, increased stress that prompts cravings, negative emotions when cravings are unsated, and weakening of cognitive control abilities that leads to repeated returns to use.”

The editorial writers praised the ABCD Study for its large sample size for providing a level of precision, statistical accuracy, and ability to identify both larger and smaller effects, which are critical for addiction research.

Unlike most addiction research that relies on cross-sectional designs, the current study used longitudinal assessments, which is another of its strengths, they noted.

“Longitudinal study designs like in the ABCD Study are fundamental for establishing temporal ordering across constructs, which is important because establishing temporal precedence is a key step in determining causal links and underlying mechanisms.”

The inclusion of several genetically informative components, such as the family study design, nested twin subsamples, and DNA collection, “allows researchers to extend beyond temporal precedence toward increased causal inference and identification of mechanisms,” they added.

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A widely accepted assumption in the addiction field is that neuroanatomical changes observed in young people who use alcohol or other substances are largely the consequence of exposure to these substances.

But a new study suggests that neuroanatomical features in children, including greater whole brain and cortical volumes, are evident before exposure to any substances.

The investigators, led by Alex P. Miller, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, noted that the findings add to a growing body of work that suggests individual brain structure, along with environmental exposure and genetic risk, may influence risk for substance use disorder. 

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Neuroanatomy a Predisposing Risk Factor?

Earlier research showed that substance use is associated with lower gray matter volume, thinner cortex, and less white matter integrity. While it has been widely thought that these changes were induced by the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, recent longitudinal and genetic studies suggest that the neuroanatomical changes may also be predisposing risk factors for substance use.

To better understand the issue, investigators analyzed data on 9804 children (mean baseline age, 9.9 years; 53% men; 76% White) at 22 US sites enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study that’s examining brain and behavioral development from middle childhood to young adulthood.

The researchers collected information on the use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and other illicit substances from in-person interviews at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3, as well as interim phone interviews at 6, 18, and 30 months. MRI scans provided extensive brain structural data, including global and regional cortical volume, thickness, surface area, sulcal depth, and subcortical volume.

Of the total, 3460 participants (35%) initiated substance use before age 15, with 90% reporting alcohol use initiation. There was considerable overlap between initiation of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis.

The researchers tested whether baseline neuroanatomical variability was associated with any substance use initiation before or up to 3 years following initial neuroimaging scans. Study covariates included baseline age, sex, pubertal status, familial relationship (eg, sibling or twin), and prenatal substance exposures. Researchers didn’t control for sociodemographic characteristics as these could influence associations.

 

Significant Brain Differences

Compared with no substance use initiation, any substance use initiation was associated with larger global neuroanatomical indices, including whole brain (beta = 0.05; P = 2.80 × 10^–8), total intracranial (beta = 0.04; P = 3.49 × 10⁻⁶), cortical (beta = 0.05; P = 4.31 × 10^–8), and subcortical volumes (beta = 0.05; P = 4.39 × 10^–8), as well as greater total cortical surface area (beta = 0.04; P = 6.05 × 10^–7).

The direction of associations between cortical thickness and substance use initiation was regionally specific; any substance use initiation was characterized by thinner cortex in all frontal regions (eg, rostral middle frontal gyrus, beta = −0.03; P = 6.99 × 10^–6), but thicker cortex in all other lobes. It was also associated with larger regional brain volumes, deeper regional sulci, and differences in regional cortical surface area.

The authors noted total cortical thickness peaks at age 1.7 years and steadily declines throughout life. By contrast, subcortical volumes peak at 14.4 years of age and generally remain stable before steep later life declines.

Secondary analyses compared initiation of the three most commonly used substances in early adolescence (alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis) with no substance use.

Findings for alcohol largely mirrored those for any substance use. However, the study uncovered additional significant associations, including greater left lateral occipital volume and bilateral para-hippocampal gyri cortical thickness and less bilateral superior frontal gyri cortical thickness.

Nicotine use was associated with lower right superior frontal gyrus volume and deeper left lateral orbitofrontal cortex sulci. And cannabis use was associated with thinner left precentral gyrus and lower right inferior parietal gyrus and right caudate volumes.

The authors noted results for nicotine and cannabis may not have had adequate statistical power, and small effects suggest these findings aren’t clinically informative for individuals. However, they wrote, “They do inform and challenge current theoretical models of addiction.”

 

Associations Precede Substance Use

A post hoc analysis further challenges current models of addiction. When researchers looked only at the 1203 youth who initiated substance use after the baseline neuroimaging session, they found most associations preceded substance use.

“That regional associations may precede substance use initiation, including less cortical thickness in the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, challenges predominant interpretations that these associations arise largely due to neurotoxic consequences of exposure and increases the plausibility that these features may, at least partially, reflect markers of predispositional risk,” wrote the authors.

A study limitation was that unmeasured confounders and undetected systemic differences in missing data may have influenced associations. Sociodemographic, environmental, and genetic variables that were not included as covariates are likely associated with both neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation and may moderate associations between them, said the authors.

The ABCD Study provides “a robust and large database of longitudinal data” that goes beyond previous neuroimaging research “to understand the bidirectional relationship between brain structure and substance use,” Miller said in a press release.

“The hope is that these types of studies, in conjunction with other data on environmental exposures and genetic risk, could help change how we think about the development of substance use disorders and inform more accurate models of addiction moving forward,” Miller said.

 

Reevaluating Causal Assumptions

In an accompanying editorial, Felix Pichardo, MA, and Sylia Wilson, PhD, from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that it may be time to “reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction” and the mechanisms by which it develops, persists, and becomes harmful.

Neurotoxic effects of substances are central to current brain disease models of addiction, wrote Pichardo and Wilson. “Substance exposure is thought to affect cortical and subcortical regions that support interrelated systems, resulting in desensitization of reward-related processing, increased stress that prompts cravings, negative emotions when cravings are unsated, and weakening of cognitive control abilities that leads to repeated returns to use.”

The editorial writers praised the ABCD Study for its large sample size for providing a level of precision, statistical accuracy, and ability to identify both larger and smaller effects, which are critical for addiction research.

Unlike most addiction research that relies on cross-sectional designs, the current study used longitudinal assessments, which is another of its strengths, they noted.

“Longitudinal study designs like in the ABCD Study are fundamental for establishing temporal ordering across constructs, which is important because establishing temporal precedence is a key step in determining causal links and underlying mechanisms.”

The inclusion of several genetically informative components, such as the family study design, nested twin subsamples, and DNA collection, “allows researchers to extend beyond temporal precedence toward increased causal inference and identification of mechanisms,” they added.

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A widely accepted assumption in the addiction field is that neuroanatomical changes observed in young people who use alcohol or other substances are largely the consequence of exposure to these substances.

But a new study suggests that neuroanatomical features in children, including greater whole brain and cortical volumes, are evident before exposure to any substances.

The investigators, led by Alex P. Miller, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, noted that the findings add to a growing body of work that suggests individual brain structure, along with environmental exposure and genetic risk, may influence risk for substance use disorder. 

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Neuroanatomy a Predisposing Risk Factor?

Earlier research showed that substance use is associated with lower gray matter volume, thinner cortex, and less white matter integrity. While it has been widely thought that these changes were induced by the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, recent longitudinal and genetic studies suggest that the neuroanatomical changes may also be predisposing risk factors for substance use.

To better understand the issue, investigators analyzed data on 9804 children (mean baseline age, 9.9 years; 53% men; 76% White) at 22 US sites enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study that’s examining brain and behavioral development from middle childhood to young adulthood.

The researchers collected information on the use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and other illicit substances from in-person interviews at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3, as well as interim phone interviews at 6, 18, and 30 months. MRI scans provided extensive brain structural data, including global and regional cortical volume, thickness, surface area, sulcal depth, and subcortical volume.

Of the total, 3460 participants (35%) initiated substance use before age 15, with 90% reporting alcohol use initiation. There was considerable overlap between initiation of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis.

The researchers tested whether baseline neuroanatomical variability was associated with any substance use initiation before or up to 3 years following initial neuroimaging scans. Study covariates included baseline age, sex, pubertal status, familial relationship (eg, sibling or twin), and prenatal substance exposures. Researchers didn’t control for sociodemographic characteristics as these could influence associations.

 

Significant Brain Differences

Compared with no substance use initiation, any substance use initiation was associated with larger global neuroanatomical indices, including whole brain (beta = 0.05; P = 2.80 × 10^–8), total intracranial (beta = 0.04; P = 3.49 × 10⁻⁶), cortical (beta = 0.05; P = 4.31 × 10^–8), and subcortical volumes (beta = 0.05; P = 4.39 × 10^–8), as well as greater total cortical surface area (beta = 0.04; P = 6.05 × 10^–7).

The direction of associations between cortical thickness and substance use initiation was regionally specific; any substance use initiation was characterized by thinner cortex in all frontal regions (eg, rostral middle frontal gyrus, beta = −0.03; P = 6.99 × 10^–6), but thicker cortex in all other lobes. It was also associated with larger regional brain volumes, deeper regional sulci, and differences in regional cortical surface area.

The authors noted total cortical thickness peaks at age 1.7 years and steadily declines throughout life. By contrast, subcortical volumes peak at 14.4 years of age and generally remain stable before steep later life declines.

Secondary analyses compared initiation of the three most commonly used substances in early adolescence (alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis) with no substance use.

Findings for alcohol largely mirrored those for any substance use. However, the study uncovered additional significant associations, including greater left lateral occipital volume and bilateral para-hippocampal gyri cortical thickness and less bilateral superior frontal gyri cortical thickness.

Nicotine use was associated with lower right superior frontal gyrus volume and deeper left lateral orbitofrontal cortex sulci. And cannabis use was associated with thinner left precentral gyrus and lower right inferior parietal gyrus and right caudate volumes.

The authors noted results for nicotine and cannabis may not have had adequate statistical power, and small effects suggest these findings aren’t clinically informative for individuals. However, they wrote, “They do inform and challenge current theoretical models of addiction.”

 

Associations Precede Substance Use

A post hoc analysis further challenges current models of addiction. When researchers looked only at the 1203 youth who initiated substance use after the baseline neuroimaging session, they found most associations preceded substance use.

“That regional associations may precede substance use initiation, including less cortical thickness in the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, challenges predominant interpretations that these associations arise largely due to neurotoxic consequences of exposure and increases the plausibility that these features may, at least partially, reflect markers of predispositional risk,” wrote the authors.

A study limitation was that unmeasured confounders and undetected systemic differences in missing data may have influenced associations. Sociodemographic, environmental, and genetic variables that were not included as covariates are likely associated with both neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation and may moderate associations between them, said the authors.

The ABCD Study provides “a robust and large database of longitudinal data” that goes beyond previous neuroimaging research “to understand the bidirectional relationship between brain structure and substance use,” Miller said in a press release.

“The hope is that these types of studies, in conjunction with other data on environmental exposures and genetic risk, could help change how we think about the development of substance use disorders and inform more accurate models of addiction moving forward,” Miller said.

 

Reevaluating Causal Assumptions

In an accompanying editorial, Felix Pichardo, MA, and Sylia Wilson, PhD, from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that it may be time to “reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction” and the mechanisms by which it develops, persists, and becomes harmful.

Neurotoxic effects of substances are central to current brain disease models of addiction, wrote Pichardo and Wilson. “Substance exposure is thought to affect cortical and subcortical regions that support interrelated systems, resulting in desensitization of reward-related processing, increased stress that prompts cravings, negative emotions when cravings are unsated, and weakening of cognitive control abilities that leads to repeated returns to use.”

The editorial writers praised the ABCD Study for its large sample size for providing a level of precision, statistical accuracy, and ability to identify both larger and smaller effects, which are critical for addiction research.

Unlike most addiction research that relies on cross-sectional designs, the current study used longitudinal assessments, which is another of its strengths, they noted.

“Longitudinal study designs like in the ABCD Study are fundamental for establishing temporal ordering across constructs, which is important because establishing temporal precedence is a key step in determining causal links and underlying mechanisms.”

The inclusion of several genetically informative components, such as the family study design, nested twin subsamples, and DNA collection, “allows researchers to extend beyond temporal precedence toward increased causal inference and identification of mechanisms,” they added.

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved nemolizumab for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled with topical therapies in patients aged 12 years and older, according to a press release from the manufacturer, Galderma. 

Nemolizumab (Nemluvio), a monoclonal antibody administered subcutaneously, targets the interleukin (IL)–31 receptor. IL-31 is known to promote itching and inflammation in atopic dermatitis, according to the company. 

Approval was based on data from the phase 3 ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2 clinical trials, recently published in The Lancet, which included 1728 patients aged 12 years and older with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and pruritus who had an inadequate response to topical steroids. 

At week 16, significantly more patients randomized to nemolizumab every 4 weeks met the co-primary endpoints, compared with those taking placebo. The co-primary endpoints were an Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear skin) or 1 (almost clear skin), with an improvement of at least 2 points from baseline to 16 weeks, and an improvement of at least 75% on the Eczema Area and Severity Index score from baseline to 16 weeks (EASI-75 response). All patients in both trials also received background treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors.

At 16 weeks, 36% and 38% of patients taking nemolizumab met the IGA criteria in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, compared with 25% and 26% of those taking placebo. Similarly, 44% and 42% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, achieved EASI-75, compared with 29% and 30% of those taking placebo. Differences between treatment and placebo groups were significant in both studies. 

In addition, patients reported significant improvement in all key secondary endpoints, including itch, as early as week 1, and improvement in sleep by week 16, according to the study findings.

Safety profiles were similar between the treatment and placebo groups in both studies; the most common adverse reactions (reported by at least 1% of patients in each group) were headache (5% vs 4%), followed by arthralgia, urticaria, and myalgia (2% or less). In ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, 50% and 41% of patients taking nemolizumab reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, similar to the placebo groups (45% and 44%, respectively). 

Serious treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 1% and 3% of those taking nemolizumab in ARCADIA 1 and ARCADIA 2, respectively, and 1% in the placebo groups in both studies. Ten serious treatment-emergent adverse events potentially related to nemolizumab were reported in five patients in ARCADIA 2. No deaths were reported in either study.

According to the prescribing information, safety profiles were similar between treatment and placebo groups in the subset of adolescents aged 12-17 years.

In August 2024, the FDA approved nemolizumab for the treatment of prurigo nodularis in adults. Authorization applications for nemolizumab for atopic dermatitis and prurigo nodularis are under review by regulatory authorities in Australia, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, Brazil, and South Korea, according to Galderma.

ARCADIA is funded by Galderma.

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

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Indoor tanning exposure was not associated with tumor mutational burden (TMB) in patients with cutaneous melanoma, in a retrospective cohort study. Higher TMB was linked to older age, head and neck tumors, and a history of nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC).

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary care cancer center between 2013 and 2022.
• A total of 617 patients (median age at diagnosis, 61 years; 62.9% men) with melanoma who had next-generation sequencing data and indoor tanning bed exposure history available were included.
• Analysis involved multivariable modeling to evaluate the association between tanning bed use and TMB.
• Patients’ demographics, pathologic staging, TMB, and dermatologic history, including Fitzpatrick skin type, history of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light, indoor tanning, NMSC, atypical nevi, and blistering sunburns, were considered for the analysis.

TAKEAWAY:

• About 22% of participants had an indoor tanning history. Indoor tanning exposure showed no association with TMB after adjustment for all possible predictors.
• A significant association was found between TMB and age at diagnosis, primary melanoma site, and history of NMSC (P < .001 for all).
• Patients with a history of atypical nevi demonstrated a significantly lower TMB than those without (log2 TMB, 3.89 vs 4.15; P = .01).
• Tumors of the head and neck exhibited a significantly higher TMB than those occurring in other primary sites, while skin-localized melanomas at diagnosis showed a significantly higher TMB than node-positive or metastatic stage III or IV tumors (log2 TMB, 3.88 vs 3.48; P = .005).

IN PRACTICE:

“Despite the known association between indoor tanning and melanoma risk,” the study did not find an association between indoor tanning and melanoma TMB, which “suggests that cumulative lifetime sun exposure may be a greater primary driver of TMB than intermittent radiation during indoor tanning,” the authors of the study wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Grace B. Hanrahan, BA, of the Center for Melanoma Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, and was published online on December 11 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center, potentially representing a higher-risk subset with more advanced disease than the broader population. Additionally, the retrospective collection of UV exposure history, including indoor tanning and blistering sunburns, may have introduced recall bias.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors did not disclose any funding information. No conflicts of interest were reported.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LAS VEGAS — For clinicians who rely on generic tretinoin 0.5% as their go-to treatment for patients with acne, Shanna Miranti, MPAS, PA-C, offers some straightforward advice: You can do better.

“Friends don’t let friends write generic tretinoin only because there are so many better options out there,” Miranti, who practices dermatology in Naples, Florida, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference. “Don’t get lazy; your patients deserve better.”

 

In her wide-ranging presentation, Miranti described the four pillars of acne pathogenesis as increased sebum production caused by androgens, follicular hyperkeratinization in the pilosebaceous unit, colonization by Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Proprionibacterium acnes), and inflammation. Acne “starts with androgens, but this is a cascade, so you have to find treatment options that hit as many of these four pillars as possible,” Miranti explained. “If you’re only using generic tretinoin, you’re only hitting maybe two of the four pillars at best.”

She then discussed the best treatment options for each pillar:

Follicular plugging and hyperkeratinization. Topical retinoids, including tretinoin, adapalene, tazarotene, and trifarotene, are highly effective for this issue. Systemic isotretinoin is also a strong option. For patients who are pregnant or trying to conceive, azelaic acid is a helpful alternative.

Excessive sebum production and androgens. “This may be the genesis of when acne begins — during puberty,” Miranti said. “With rising androgens comes rising amounts of sebum.” The only topical treatment that specifically targets this is clascoterone (Winlevi), which should be applied twice daily. For systemic management of excessive sebum, isotretinoin is highly effective. In women, spironolactone (50 mg daily, or split into two doses) and oral contraceptives are also options.

Inflammation. Topical options include retinoids, antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical dapsone, azelaic acid, and clascoterone. Systemic options include isotretinoin; the antibiotics doxycycline, minocycline, and sarecycline; spironolactone; and oral contraceptives. “So, when you see patients with intense inflammation, and they’re starting to get post-inflammatory erythema or post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, you need something to address this inflammatory problem,” she noted.

C acnes. Topical treatment options include BPO and antibiotics. However, topical antibiotics should never be used alone, Miranti said; they must always be combined with BPO to prevent bacterial resistance. Oral options include sarecycline, “which has a low propensity for antibiotic resistance and spares the gut microbiome to some degree,” and the “old-school” antibiotics doxycycline, minocycline, and tetracycline. “But all oral antibiotics should be used concomitantly with BPO,” she added.

Regardless of which treatment is chosen for any pillar, Miranti emphasized that monotherapy with a single agent is often insufficient. “Historically, we have combined therapies to treat the multiple causes of acne,” she said. “The average number of acne products used per patient is 2.53, but that’s also the average number of copays. We have to be conscious of that. If you are a mom with four kids who are on acne medication, you want to minimize your copay burden. So, if you can find a topical medication that hits three out of the four pillars of acne pathogenesis, that would be fantastic.” The only topical that targets excess sebum is clascoterone, she noted, and the only medication that hits all four pillars is isotretinoin.

In October 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved a once-daily topical gel for patients aged 12 years or older that contains clindamycin 1.2%, adapalene 0.15%, and BPO 3.1%. The first-ever triple combination therapy, known as Cabtreo, was released to pharmacies in March 2024. In a phase 2 trial, researchers randomized 394 patients aged 9 years or older with moderate to severe acne to once-daily IDP-126, one of three dyad combination gels, or vehicle gel for 12 weeks. Patients in the Cabtreo arm achieved significantly greater lesion reductions than those in the vehicle arm (inflammatory: 78.3% vs 45.1%; noninflammatory: 70.0% vs 37.6%; P < .001 for both). They also experienced lesion reductions that were 9.2%-16.6% greater than those observed with any of the dyad combination gels. Miranti characterized the study results as “pretty phenomenal,” noting that the ease of use makes Cabtreo stand out as a treatment option. “Simplicity drives compliance, and compliance drives results,” she said. “This is one product to apply once a day. Any of you who have a teenage son like me, you know it is hard to get them to brush their teeth twice a day, let alone take medicine before they leave the house in the morning. This can be a home run for a lot of patients, and not just our teenagers. Adult females have done very well with this medication.”

In a network meta-analysis, researchers reviewed 221 randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic treatment for acne. The most effective treatment in reducing inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions was oral isotretinoin, followed by Cabtreo.

Miranti disclosed being a speaker, consultant, and/or an advisory board member for Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bausch Health, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Sun Pharma, Swift USA, and Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

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

LAS VEGAS — For clinicians who rely on generic tretinoin 0.5% as their go-to treatment for patients with acne, Shanna Miranti, MPAS, PA-C, offers some straightforward advice: You can do better.

“Friends don’t let friends write generic tretinoin only because there are so many better options out there,” Miranti, who practices dermatology in Naples, Florida, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference. “Don’t get lazy; your patients deserve better.”

 

In her wide-ranging presentation, Miranti described the four pillars of acne pathogenesis as increased sebum production caused by androgens, follicular hyperkeratinization in the pilosebaceous unit, colonization by Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Proprionibacterium acnes), and inflammation. Acne “starts with androgens, but this is a cascade, so you have to find treatment options that hit as many of these four pillars as possible,” Miranti explained. “If you’re only using generic tretinoin, you’re only hitting maybe two of the four pillars at best.”

She then discussed the best treatment options for each pillar:

Follicular plugging and hyperkeratinization. Topical retinoids, including tretinoin, adapalene, tazarotene, and trifarotene, are highly effective for this issue. Systemic isotretinoin is also a strong option. For patients who are pregnant or trying to conceive, azelaic acid is a helpful alternative.

Excessive sebum production and androgens. “This may be the genesis of when acne begins — during puberty,” Miranti said. “With rising androgens comes rising amounts of sebum.” The only topical treatment that specifically targets this is clascoterone (Winlevi), which should be applied twice daily. For systemic management of excessive sebum, isotretinoin is highly effective. In women, spironolactone (50 mg daily, or split into two doses) and oral contraceptives are also options.

Inflammation. Topical options include retinoids, antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical dapsone, azelaic acid, and clascoterone. Systemic options include isotretinoin; the antibiotics doxycycline, minocycline, and sarecycline; spironolactone; and oral contraceptives. “So, when you see patients with intense inflammation, and they’re starting to get post-inflammatory erythema or post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, you need something to address this inflammatory problem,” she noted.

C acnes. Topical treatment options include BPO and antibiotics. However, topical antibiotics should never be used alone, Miranti said; they must always be combined with BPO to prevent bacterial resistance. Oral options include sarecycline, “which has a low propensity for antibiotic resistance and spares the gut microbiome to some degree,” and the “old-school” antibiotics doxycycline, minocycline, and tetracycline. “But all oral antibiotics should be used concomitantly with BPO,” she added.

Regardless of which treatment is chosen for any pillar, Miranti emphasized that monotherapy with a single agent is often insufficient. “Historically, we have combined therapies to treat the multiple causes of acne,” she said. “The average number of acne products used per patient is 2.53, but that’s also the average number of copays. We have to be conscious of that. If you are a mom with four kids who are on acne medication, you want to minimize your copay burden. So, if you can find a topical medication that hits three out of the four pillars of acne pathogenesis, that would be fantastic.” The only topical that targets excess sebum is clascoterone, she noted, and the only medication that hits all four pillars is isotretinoin.

In October 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved a once-daily topical gel for patients aged 12 years or older that contains clindamycin 1.2%, adapalene 0.15%, and BPO 3.1%. The first-ever triple combination therapy, known as Cabtreo, was released to pharmacies in March 2024. In a phase 2 trial, researchers randomized 394 patients aged 9 years or older with moderate to severe acne to once-daily IDP-126, one of three dyad combination gels, or vehicle gel for 12 weeks. Patients in the Cabtreo arm achieved significantly greater lesion reductions than those in the vehicle arm (inflammatory: 78.3% vs 45.1%; noninflammatory: 70.0% vs 37.6%; P < .001 for both). They also experienced lesion reductions that were 9.2%-16.6% greater than those observed with any of the dyad combination gels. Miranti characterized the study results as “pretty phenomenal,” noting that the ease of use makes Cabtreo stand out as a treatment option. “Simplicity drives compliance, and compliance drives results,” she said. “This is one product to apply once a day. Any of you who have a teenage son like me, you know it is hard to get them to brush their teeth twice a day, let alone take medicine before they leave the house in the morning. This can be a home run for a lot of patients, and not just our teenagers. Adult females have done very well with this medication.”

In a network meta-analysis, researchers reviewed 221 randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic treatment for acne. The most effective treatment in reducing inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions was oral isotretinoin, followed by Cabtreo.

Miranti disclosed being a speaker, consultant, and/or an advisory board member for Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bausch Health, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Sun Pharma, Swift USA, and Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

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

LAS VEGAS — For clinicians who rely on generic tretinoin 0.5% as their go-to treatment for patients with acne, Shanna Miranti, MPAS, PA-C, offers some straightforward advice: You can do better.

“Friends don’t let friends write generic tretinoin only because there are so many better options out there,” Miranti, who practices dermatology in Naples, Florida, said at the Society of Dermatology Physician Associates (SDPA) 22nd Annual Fall Dermatology Conference. “Don’t get lazy; your patients deserve better.”

 

In her wide-ranging presentation, Miranti described the four pillars of acne pathogenesis as increased sebum production caused by androgens, follicular hyperkeratinization in the pilosebaceous unit, colonization by Cutibacterium acnes (formerly Proprionibacterium acnes), and inflammation. Acne “starts with androgens, but this is a cascade, so you have to find treatment options that hit as many of these four pillars as possible,” Miranti explained. “If you’re only using generic tretinoin, you’re only hitting maybe two of the four pillars at best.”

She then discussed the best treatment options for each pillar:

Follicular plugging and hyperkeratinization. Topical retinoids, including tretinoin, adapalene, tazarotene, and trifarotene, are highly effective for this issue. Systemic isotretinoin is also a strong option. For patients who are pregnant or trying to conceive, azelaic acid is a helpful alternative.

Excessive sebum production and androgens. “This may be the genesis of when acne begins — during puberty,” Miranti said. “With rising androgens comes rising amounts of sebum.” The only topical treatment that specifically targets this is clascoterone (Winlevi), which should be applied twice daily. For systemic management of excessive sebum, isotretinoin is highly effective. In women, spironolactone (50 mg daily, or split into two doses) and oral contraceptives are also options.

Inflammation. Topical options include retinoids, antibiotics, benzoyl peroxide (BPO), topical dapsone, azelaic acid, and clascoterone. Systemic options include isotretinoin; the antibiotics doxycycline, minocycline, and sarecycline; spironolactone; and oral contraceptives. “So, when you see patients with intense inflammation, and they’re starting to get post-inflammatory erythema or post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, you need something to address this inflammatory problem,” she noted.

C acnes. Topical treatment options include BPO and antibiotics. However, topical antibiotics should never be used alone, Miranti said; they must always be combined with BPO to prevent bacterial resistance. Oral options include sarecycline, “which has a low propensity for antibiotic resistance and spares the gut microbiome to some degree,” and the “old-school” antibiotics doxycycline, minocycline, and tetracycline. “But all oral antibiotics should be used concomitantly with BPO,” she added.

Regardless of which treatment is chosen for any pillar, Miranti emphasized that monotherapy with a single agent is often insufficient. “Historically, we have combined therapies to treat the multiple causes of acne,” she said. “The average number of acne products used per patient is 2.53, but that’s also the average number of copays. We have to be conscious of that. If you are a mom with four kids who are on acne medication, you want to minimize your copay burden. So, if you can find a topical medication that hits three out of the four pillars of acne pathogenesis, that would be fantastic.” The only topical that targets excess sebum is clascoterone, she noted, and the only medication that hits all four pillars is isotretinoin.

In October 2023, the Food and Drug Administration approved a once-daily topical gel for patients aged 12 years or older that contains clindamycin 1.2%, adapalene 0.15%, and BPO 3.1%. The first-ever triple combination therapy, known as Cabtreo, was released to pharmacies in March 2024. In a phase 2 trial, researchers randomized 394 patients aged 9 years or older with moderate to severe acne to once-daily IDP-126, one of three dyad combination gels, or vehicle gel for 12 weeks. Patients in the Cabtreo arm achieved significantly greater lesion reductions than those in the vehicle arm (inflammatory: 78.3% vs 45.1%; noninflammatory: 70.0% vs 37.6%; P < .001 for both). They also experienced lesion reductions that were 9.2%-16.6% greater than those observed with any of the dyad combination gels. Miranti characterized the study results as “pretty phenomenal,” noting that the ease of use makes Cabtreo stand out as a treatment option. “Simplicity drives compliance, and compliance drives results,” she said. “This is one product to apply once a day. Any of you who have a teenage son like me, you know it is hard to get them to brush their teeth twice a day, let alone take medicine before they leave the house in the morning. This can be a home run for a lot of patients, and not just our teenagers. Adult females have done very well with this medication.”

In a network meta-analysis, researchers reviewed 221 randomized controlled trials to compare the efficacy of pharmacologic treatment for acne. The most effective treatment in reducing inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions was oral isotretinoin, followed by Cabtreo.

Miranti disclosed being a speaker, consultant, and/or an advisory board member for Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Bausch Health, Dermavant Sciences, Galderma, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Sun Pharma, Swift USA, and Verrica Pharmaceuticals.

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

TOPLINE:

Biosimilars demonstrate comparable drug survival and safety with adalimumab among new users, but patients switching from Humira (the originator product) to biosimilars had a 35% higher discontinuation rate than those who remained on Humira.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data on patients with psoriasis who were treated with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor used to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, from the French National Health Data System, British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, and Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis.
• The analysis included 7387 adalimumab-naive patients who were new users of an adalimumab biosimilar and 3654 patients (switchers) who switched from Humira to a biosimilar. Patients were matched and compared with patients receiving Humira.
• Co-primary outcomes of the study were drug discontinuation and serious adverse events.
• Researchers assessed the following adalimumab biosimilar brands: Amgevita, Imraldi, Hyrimoz, Idacio, and Hulio.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause drug discontinuation rates were similar between new users of biosimilars and Humira new users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04).
• Discontinuation rates were higher among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.52) than among those who stayed on Humira. Switching to Amgevita (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), Imraldi (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76), and Hyrimoz (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.29-2.52) was associated with higher discontinuation rates.
• Serious adverse events were not significantly different between new users of Humira and biosimilar new users (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05), and between patients who switched from a biosimilar to Humira and those who stayed on Humira (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01).
• No significant differences in discontinuation because of ineffectiveness were found between biosimilar and Humira new users (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Discontinuation because of adverse events was also comparable for all biosimilars among new users, except for Hyrimoz (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85), which showed fewer discontinuations than Humira.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found comparable drug survival and safety between adalimumab biosimilars and Humira in adalimumab-naive patients, supporting the use of biosimilars as viable alternatives for new patients,” the authors wrote. However, noting that discontinuation was more likely among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar, they added: “Changes in treatment response, skin or injection site reactions, and nocebo effects may contribute to treatment discontinuation post-switch. Thus, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support to alleviate these challenges.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Duc Binh Phan, Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England. It was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Unmeasured factors including psychological perceptions, regional policies, and drug availability could influence drug survival, making the results not fully reflective of treatment effectiveness or safety. Most Humira users in registries were enrolled before biosimilars became available, making it impractical to match new users on the basis of treatment initiation years. Additionally, reasons for discontinuation were not available in the French National Health Data System.

DISCLOSURES:

In the United Kingdom, the research was funded by the Psoriasis Association PhD studentship and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. In France, the authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, and the Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris and received no funding. The authors reported receiving consulting and speaker fees and clinical trial sponsorship from various pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biosimilars demonstrate comparable drug survival and safety with adalimumab among new users, but patients switching from Humira (the originator product) to biosimilars had a 35% higher discontinuation rate than those who remained on Humira.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data on patients with psoriasis who were treated with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor used to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, from the French National Health Data System, British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, and Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis.
• The analysis included 7387 adalimumab-naive patients who were new users of an adalimumab biosimilar and 3654 patients (switchers) who switched from Humira to a biosimilar. Patients were matched and compared with patients receiving Humira.
• Co-primary outcomes of the study were drug discontinuation and serious adverse events.
• Researchers assessed the following adalimumab biosimilar brands: Amgevita, Imraldi, Hyrimoz, Idacio, and Hulio.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause drug discontinuation rates were similar between new users of biosimilars and Humira new users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04).
• Discontinuation rates were higher among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.52) than among those who stayed on Humira. Switching to Amgevita (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), Imraldi (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76), and Hyrimoz (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.29-2.52) was associated with higher discontinuation rates.
• Serious adverse events were not significantly different between new users of Humira and biosimilar new users (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05), and between patients who switched from a biosimilar to Humira and those who stayed on Humira (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01).
• No significant differences in discontinuation because of ineffectiveness were found between biosimilar and Humira new users (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Discontinuation because of adverse events was also comparable for all biosimilars among new users, except for Hyrimoz (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85), which showed fewer discontinuations than Humira.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found comparable drug survival and safety between adalimumab biosimilars and Humira in adalimumab-naive patients, supporting the use of biosimilars as viable alternatives for new patients,” the authors wrote. However, noting that discontinuation was more likely among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar, they added: “Changes in treatment response, skin or injection site reactions, and nocebo effects may contribute to treatment discontinuation post-switch. Thus, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support to alleviate these challenges.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Duc Binh Phan, Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England. It was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Unmeasured factors including psychological perceptions, regional policies, and drug availability could influence drug survival, making the results not fully reflective of treatment effectiveness or safety. Most Humira users in registries were enrolled before biosimilars became available, making it impractical to match new users on the basis of treatment initiation years. Additionally, reasons for discontinuation were not available in the French National Health Data System.

DISCLOSURES:

In the United Kingdom, the research was funded by the Psoriasis Association PhD studentship and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. In France, the authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, and the Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris and received no funding. The authors reported receiving consulting and speaker fees and clinical trial sponsorship from various pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Biosimilars demonstrate comparable drug survival and safety with adalimumab among new users, but patients switching from Humira (the originator product) to biosimilars had a 35% higher discontinuation rate than those who remained on Humira.

 

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cohort study using data on patients with psoriasis who were treated with adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitor used to treat moderate to severe psoriasis, from the French National Health Data System, British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, and Spanish Registry of Systemic Therapy in Psoriasis.
• The analysis included 7387 adalimumab-naive patients who were new users of an adalimumab biosimilar and 3654 patients (switchers) who switched from Humira to a biosimilar. Patients were matched and compared with patients receiving Humira.
• Co-primary outcomes of the study were drug discontinuation and serious adverse events.
• Researchers assessed the following adalimumab biosimilar brands: Amgevita, Imraldi, Hyrimoz, Idacio, and Hulio.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause drug discontinuation rates were similar between new users of biosimilars and Humira new users (hazard ratio [HR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94-1.04).
• Discontinuation rates were higher among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.52) than among those who stayed on Humira. Switching to Amgevita (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.27), Imraldi (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.33-1.76), and Hyrimoz (HR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.29-2.52) was associated with higher discontinuation rates.
• Serious adverse events were not significantly different between new users of Humira and biosimilar new users (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.80-1.05), and between patients who switched from a biosimilar to Humira and those who stayed on Humira (IRR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83-1.01).
• No significant differences in discontinuation because of ineffectiveness were found between biosimilar and Humira new users (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). Discontinuation because of adverse events was also comparable for all biosimilars among new users, except for Hyrimoz (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35-0.85), which showed fewer discontinuations than Humira.

IN PRACTICE:

“This study found comparable drug survival and safety between adalimumab biosimilars and Humira in adalimumab-naive patients, supporting the use of biosimilars as viable alternatives for new patients,” the authors wrote. However, noting that discontinuation was more likely among those who switched from Humira to a biosimilar, they added: “Changes in treatment response, skin or injection site reactions, and nocebo effects may contribute to treatment discontinuation post-switch. Thus, patients who switch from Humira to biosimilars may require closer monitoring and support to alleviate these challenges.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Duc Binh Phan, Dermatology Centre, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust in Manchester, England. It was published online in The British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Unmeasured factors including psychological perceptions, regional policies, and drug availability could influence drug survival, making the results not fully reflective of treatment effectiveness or safety. Most Humira users in registries were enrolled before biosimilars became available, making it impractical to match new users on the basis of treatment initiation years. Additionally, reasons for discontinuation were not available in the French National Health Data System.

DISCLOSURES:

In the United Kingdom, the research was funded by the Psoriasis Association PhD studentship and supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. In France, the authors are employees of the French National Health Insurance, the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products, and the Assistance Publique — Hôpitaux de Paris and received no funding. The authors reported receiving consulting and speaker fees and clinical trial sponsorship from various pharmaceutical companies. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The drug survival for adalimumab is significantly higher than that of infliximab in pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), results from a small single-center study showed.

A previous study found that overall drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in adults with HS at 12 and 24 months was 56.3% and 30.5%, and 58.3% and 48.6%, respectively. “They also found that older age, longer disease duration, higher body mass index (BMI), and surgery during treatment are associated with increased drug survival,” Robyn Guo, a third-year medical student at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization following the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “To our knowledge, the drug survival of biologic therapies in pediatric HS patients has not been previously investigated.”

Adalimumab and infliximab are tumor necrosis factor blockers approved for multiple indications; adalimumab is approved for treating moderate to severe HS in patients aged 12 years or older. Infliximab is not approved for HS but is used to treat the disease.

To determine the drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in pediatric patients with HS and whether patient comorbidities and HS lesion location are associated with length of biologic survival in pediatric patients with HS, Guo and colleagues used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate biologic survival at 12 and 24 months following biologic initiation and Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze potential factors associated with biologic survival. The study population included 49 pediatric patients in the adalimumab cohort and 11 in the infliximab cohort.

The researchers found that drug survival for adalimumab was 90.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 83.0%-98.8%) and 78.3% at 24 months (95% CI, 67.7%-90.6%), while drug survival for infliximab was 54.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 31.8%-93.6%) and 36.4% at 24 months, an overall difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0009). “Our data suggests that adalimumab survival is significantly higher than infliximab survival in pediatric HS patients,” Guo said.

On univariate Cox regression analysis, gluteal HS lesions were associated with shorter adalimumab survival, and obesity was associated with longer infliximab survival.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including the small sample size and that unadjusted Cox regression analysis did not account for baseline HS severity, biologic therapy dosing, and concomitant medication use. Also, there were patients in both cohorts who were not biologic-naive: Two in the adalimumab cohort were previously treated with infliximab, and five patients in the infliximab cohort were previously treated with adalimumab.

“We plan on conducting further analysis using adjusted Cox regression analysis to account for baseline disease severity measured by Hurley stage, BMI, medication dosing, and concomitant medication use,” Guo said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The drug survival for adalimumab is significantly higher than that of infliximab in pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), results from a small single-center study showed.

A previous study found that overall drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in adults with HS at 12 and 24 months was 56.3% and 30.5%, and 58.3% and 48.6%, respectively. “They also found that older age, longer disease duration, higher body mass index (BMI), and surgery during treatment are associated with increased drug survival,” Robyn Guo, a third-year medical student at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization following the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “To our knowledge, the drug survival of biologic therapies in pediatric HS patients has not been previously investigated.”

Adalimumab and infliximab are tumor necrosis factor blockers approved for multiple indications; adalimumab is approved for treating moderate to severe HS in patients aged 12 years or older. Infliximab is not approved for HS but is used to treat the disease.

To determine the drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in pediatric patients with HS and whether patient comorbidities and HS lesion location are associated with length of biologic survival in pediatric patients with HS, Guo and colleagues used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate biologic survival at 12 and 24 months following biologic initiation and Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze potential factors associated with biologic survival. The study population included 49 pediatric patients in the adalimumab cohort and 11 in the infliximab cohort.

The researchers found that drug survival for adalimumab was 90.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 83.0%-98.8%) and 78.3% at 24 months (95% CI, 67.7%-90.6%), while drug survival for infliximab was 54.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 31.8%-93.6%) and 36.4% at 24 months, an overall difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0009). “Our data suggests that adalimumab survival is significantly higher than infliximab survival in pediatric HS patients,” Guo said.

On univariate Cox regression analysis, gluteal HS lesions were associated with shorter adalimumab survival, and obesity was associated with longer infliximab survival.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including the small sample size and that unadjusted Cox regression analysis did not account for baseline HS severity, biologic therapy dosing, and concomitant medication use. Also, there were patients in both cohorts who were not biologic-naive: Two in the adalimumab cohort were previously treated with infliximab, and five patients in the infliximab cohort were previously treated with adalimumab.

“We plan on conducting further analysis using adjusted Cox regression analysis to account for baseline disease severity measured by Hurley stage, BMI, medication dosing, and concomitant medication use,” Guo said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The drug survival for adalimumab is significantly higher than that of infliximab in pediatric patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), results from a small single-center study showed.

A previous study found that overall drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in adults with HS at 12 and 24 months was 56.3% and 30.5%, and 58.3% and 48.6%, respectively. “They also found that older age, longer disease duration, higher body mass index (BMI), and surgery during treatment are associated with increased drug survival,” Robyn Guo, a third-year medical student at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, told this news organization following the annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances, where the study was presented during an oral abstract session. “To our knowledge, the drug survival of biologic therapies in pediatric HS patients has not been previously investigated.”

Adalimumab and infliximab are tumor necrosis factor blockers approved for multiple indications; adalimumab is approved for treating moderate to severe HS in patients aged 12 years or older. Infliximab is not approved for HS but is used to treat the disease.

To determine the drug survival of adalimumab and infliximab in pediatric patients with HS and whether patient comorbidities and HS lesion location are associated with length of biologic survival in pediatric patients with HS, Guo and colleagues used Kaplan-Meier survival curves to calculate biologic survival at 12 and 24 months following biologic initiation and Cox proportional hazards regression to analyze potential factors associated with biologic survival. The study population included 49 pediatric patients in the adalimumab cohort and 11 in the infliximab cohort.

The researchers found that drug survival for adalimumab was 90.6% at 12 months (95% CI, 83.0%-98.8%) and 78.3% at 24 months (95% CI, 67.7%-90.6%), while drug survival for infliximab was 54.5% at 12 months (95% CI, 31.8%-93.6%) and 36.4% at 24 months, an overall difference that reached statistical significance (P = .0009). “Our data suggests that adalimumab survival is significantly higher than infliximab survival in pediatric HS patients,” Guo said.

On univariate Cox regression analysis, gluteal HS lesions were associated with shorter adalimumab survival, and obesity was associated with longer infliximab survival.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of their study, including the small sample size and that unadjusted Cox regression analysis did not account for baseline HS severity, biologic therapy dosing, and concomitant medication use. Also, there were patients in both cohorts who were not biologic-naive: Two in the adalimumab cohort were previously treated with infliximab, and five patients in the infliximab cohort were previously treated with adalimumab.

“We plan on conducting further analysis using adjusted Cox regression analysis to account for baseline disease severity measured by Hurley stage, BMI, medication dosing, and concomitant medication use,” Guo said.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.