User login
Attrition in Youth Sports
.
Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.
Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.
How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.
We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.
We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.
Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.
When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.
In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.
I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
.
Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.
Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.
How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.
We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.
We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.
Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.
When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.
In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.
I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
.
Seventy-five years ago news of this dramatic decline in participation would have received a quizzical shrug because organized youth sports was in its infancy. It consisted primarily of Little League Baseball and for the most part excluded girls. Prior to middle school and high school, children were self-organizing their sports activities – picking their own teams, demarcating their own fields, and making up the rules to fit the conditions. Soccer Dads and Hockey Moms hadn’t been invented. To what extent this attrition from youth sports is contributing to the fact that more than 75% of this country’s adolescents fail to meet even the most lenient activity requirements is unclear. But, it certainly isn’t helping the situation.
Parsing out the contributors to this decline in organized sport should be high on our priority list. In the recent AAP Clinical Report published in Pediatrics (same reference as above) the authors claim “Burnout represents one of the primary reasons for attrition in youth sports.” This statement doesn’t quite agree with my experiences. So, I decided to chase down their reference. It turns out their assertion comes from an article coming out of Australia by eight authors who “brainstormed” 83 unique statements of 61 stakeholders regarding “athlete participation in the high-performance pathway” and concluded “Athlete health was considered the most important athlete retention to address.” While injury and overuse may explain why some elite youth participants drop out and represent a topic for the AAP to address, I’m not sure this paper’s anecdotal conclusion helps us understand the overall decline in youth sports. A broader and deeper discussion can be found in a 2019 AAP Clinical Report that addresses the advantages and pitfalls of youth sports as organized in this country.
How we arrived at this point in which, as the AAP report observes, “Youth sport participation represents the primary route to physical activity” is unclear. One obvious cause is the blossoming of the sedentary entertainment alternatives that has easily overpowered the attraction of self-organized outdoor games. The first attack in this war that we are losing came with affordable color television. Here we must blame ourselves both as parents and pediatricians for not acknowledging the risks and creating some limits. Sadly, the AAP’s initial focus was on content and not on time watched. And, of course, by the time handheld electronic devices arrived the cat was out of the bag.
We also must accept some blame for allowing physical activity to disappear as a meaningful part of the school day. Recesses have been curtailed, leaving free play and all its benefits as an endangered species. Physical education classes have been pared down tragically just as teenagers are making their own choices about how they will spend their time.
We must not underestimate the role that parental anxiety has played in the popularity of organized sport. I’m not sure of the origins of this change, but folks in my cohort recall that our parents let us roam free. As long as we showed up for meals without a policeman in tow, our parents were happy. For some reason parents seem more concerned about risks of their children being outside unmonitored, even in what are clearly safe neighborhoods.
Into this void created by sedentary amusements, limited in-school opportunities for physical activity, and parental anxiety, adult (often parent) organized sports have flourished. Unfortunately, they have too often been over-organized and allowed to morph into a model that mimics professional sports. The myth that to succeed a child must start early, narrow his/her focus and practice, practice, practice has created a situation that is a major contributor to the decline in youth sports participation. This philosophy also contributes to burnout and overuse injuries, but this is primarily among the few and the more elite.
When the child who is already involved in an organized sport sees and believes that he or she hasn’t a chance against the “early bloomers,” that child will quit. Without an appealing alternative, he/she will become sedentary. Further damage is done when children themselves and their parents have witnessed other families heavily invested in professionalized youth programs and decide it doesn’t make sense to even sign up.
In full disclosure, I must say that I have children and grandchildren who have participated in travel teams. Luckily they have not been tempted to seek even more elite programs. They have played at least two or three sports each year and still remain physically active as adults.
I don’t think the answer to the decline in youth sports is to eliminate travel and super-elite teams. The drive to succeed is too strong in some individuals. The answers lie in setting limits on sedentary alternatives, continuing to loudly question the myth of early specialization, and to work harder at offering the broadest range of opportunities that can appeal to children of all skill levels.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].
Does Exercise Reduce Cancer Risk? It’s Just Not That Simple
“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.
Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.
The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.
What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?
Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.
Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag
When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.
For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.
The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.
The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”
Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations.
“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.
That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.
“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”
And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.
The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.
Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.
In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.
The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.
Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).
What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.
Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).
The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.
But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.
How Big Is the Effect?
Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.
But how much of a difference can exercise make?
Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.
These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.
“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.
“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.
The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.
Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.
For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).
But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.
Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.
The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.
Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.
Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk
Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.
Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.
The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.
“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.
That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.
A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.
Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.
Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’
Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.
The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.
But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.
Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.
Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.
But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.
“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.
Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.
There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.
“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.
Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.
“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.
Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.
The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.
What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?
Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.
Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag
When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.
For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.
The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.
The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”
Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations.
“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.
That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.
“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”
And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.
The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.
Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.
In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.
The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.
Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).
What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.
Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).
The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.
But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.
How Big Is the Effect?
Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.
But how much of a difference can exercise make?
Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.
These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.
“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.
“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.
The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.
Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.
For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).
But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.
Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.
The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.
Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.
Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk
Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.
Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.
The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.
“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.
That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.
A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.
Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.
Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’
Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.
The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.
But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.
Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.
Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.
But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.
“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.
Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.
There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.
“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.
Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.
“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
“Exercise is medicine” has become something of a mantra, with good reason. There’s no doubt that regular physical activity has a broad range of health benefits. Exercise can improve circulation, help control weight, reduce stress, and boost mood — take your pick.
Lower cancer risk is also on the list — with exercise promoted as a risk-cutting strategy in government guidelines and in recommendations from professional groups such as the American Cancer Society.
The bulk of the data hangs on less rigorous, observational studies that have linked physical activity to lower risks for certain cancers, but plenty of questions remain.
What are the cancer types where exercise makes a difference? How significant is that impact? And what, exactly, defines a physical activity pattern powerful enough to move the needle on cancer risk?
Here’s an overview of the state of the evidence.
Exercise and Cancer Types: A Mixed Bag
When it comes to cancer prevention strategies, guidelines uniformly endorse less couch time and more movement. But a deeper look at the science reveals a complex and often poorly understood connection between exercise and cancer risk.
For certain cancer types, the benefits of exercise on cancer risk seem fairly well established.
The latest edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, published in 2018, cites “strong evidence” that regular exercise might curb the risks for breast and colon cancers as well as bladder, endometrial, esophageal, kidney, and gastric cancers. These guidelines also point to “moderate”-strength evidence of a protective association with lung cancer.
The evidence of a protective effect, however, is strongest for breast and colon cancers, said Jennifer Ligibel, MD, senior physician in the Breast Oncology Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, . “But,” she pointed out, “that may be because they’re some of the most common cancers, and it’s been easier to detect an association.”
Guidelines from the American Cancer Society, published in 2020, align with the 2018 recommendations.
“We believe there’s strong evidence to suggest at least eight different types of cancer are associated with physical activity,” said Erika Rees-Punia, PhD, MPH, senior principal scientist, epidemiology and behavioral research at the American Cancer Society.
That view is not universal, however. Current recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, for example, are more circumspect, citing only three cancers with good evidence of a protective effect from exercise: Breast (postmenopausal), colon, and endometrial.
“We definitely can’t say exercise reduces the risk of all cancers,” said Lee Jones, PhD, head of the Exercise Oncology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. “The data suggest it’s just not that simple.”
And it’s challenging to put all the evidence together, Dr. Jones added.
The physical activity guidelines are based on published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses of data from observational studies that examined the relationship between physical activity — aerobic exercise, specifically — and cancer incidence. That means the evidence comes with all the limitations observational studies entail, such as how they collect information on participants’ exercise habits — which, Dr. Jones noted, is typically done via “monster questionnaires” that gauge physical activity in broad strokes.
Pooling all those findings into a meta-analysis is tricky, Dr. Jones added, because individual studies vary in important ways — from follow-up periods to how they quantify exercise and track cancer incidence.
In a study published in February in Cancer Cell, Dr. Jones and his colleagues attempted to address some of those issues by leveraging data from the PLCO screening trial.
The PLCO was a prospective study of over 60,000 US adults that compared the effects of annual screening vs usual care on cancer mortality. At enrollment, participants completed questionnaires that included an assessment of “vigorous” exercise. Based on that, Dr. Jones and his colleagues classified 55% as “exercisers” — meaning they reported 2 or more hours of vigorous exercise per week. The remaining 45%, who were in the 0 to 1 hour per week range, were deemed non-exercisers.
Over a median of 18 years, nearly 16,000 first-time invasive cancers were diagnosed, and some interesting differences between exercisers and non-exercisers emerged. The active group had lower risks for three cancers: Head and neck, with a 26% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74), lung (a 20% lower risk), and breast (an 11% lower risk).
What was striking, however, was the lack of connection between exercise and many cancers cited in the guidelines, including colon, gastric, bladder, endometrial, and renal cancers.
Perhaps even more surprising — exercisers had higher risks for prostate cancer (12%) and melanoma (20%). This finding, Dr. Jones said, is in line with a previous pooled analysis of data from 12 US and European prospective cohorts. In this study, the most physically active participants (90th percentile) had higher risks for melanoma and prostate cancer, compared with the least active group (10th percentile).
The melanoma findings do make sense, Dr. Jones said, given that highly active people may spend a lot of time in the sun. “My advice,” Dr. Jones said, “is, if you’re exercising outside, wear sunscreen.” The prostate cancer findings, however, are more puzzling and warrant further research, he noted.
But the bottom line is that the relationship between exercise and cancer types is mixed and far from nailed down.
How Big Is the Effect?
Even if exercise reduces the risk for only certain cancers, that’s still important, particularly when those links appear strongest for common cancer types, such as breast and colon.
But how much of a difference can exercise make?
Based on the evidence, it may only be a modest one. A 2019 systematic review by the Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee provided a rough estimate: Across hundreds of epidemiological studies, people with the highest physical activity levels had a 10%-20% lower risk for the cancers cited in the 2018 exercise guidelines compared with people who were least active.
These figures, however, are probably an underestimate, said Anne McTiernan, MD, PhD, a member of the advisory committee and professor of epidemiology, at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle.
“This is what we usually see when a factor is not measured very well,” said Dr. McTiernan, explaining that the individual studies differed in their categories of “highest” and “lowest” physical activity, such that one study’s “highest” could be another’s mid-range.
“In other words, the effects of physical activity are likely larger” than the review found, Dr. McTiernan said.
The next logical question is whether a bigger exercise “dose” — more time or higher intensity — would have a greater impact on cancer risk. A 2019 study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology tried to clarify that by pooling data on over 750,000 participants from nine prospective cohorts.
Overall, people meeting government recommendations for exercise — equivalent to about 2.5-5 hours of weekly moderate activity, such as a brisk walk, or about 1.25-2.5 hours of more vigorous activities, like running — had lower risks for seven of 15 cancer types studied compared with less active people.
For cancers with positive findings, being on the higher end of the recommended 2.5- to 5-hour weekly range was better. Risk reductions for breast cancer, for instance, were 6% at 2.5 hours of physical activity per week and 10% at 5 hours per week. Similar trends emerged for other cancer types, including colon (8%-14%), endometrial (10%-18%), liver cancer (18%-27%), and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in women (11%-18%).
But there may be an exercise sweet spot that maximizes the cancer risk benefit.
Among people who surpassed the recommendations — exercising for more time or more intensely — the risk reduction benefit did not necessarily improve in a linear fashion. For certain cancer types, such as colon and endometrial, the benefits of more vigorous exercise “eroded at higher levels of activity,” the authors said.
The issue here is that most studies have not dug deeply into aerobic exercise habits. Often, studies present participants with a list of activities — walking, biking, and running — and ask them to estimate how often and for what duration they do each.
Plus, “we’ve usually lumped moderate and vigorous activities together,” Dr. Rees-Punia said, which means there’s a lack of “granular data” to say whether certain intensities or frequencies of exercise are optimal and for whom.
Why Exercise May Lower Cancer Risk
Exercise habits do not, of course, exist in a vacuum. Highly active people, Dr. Ligibel said, tend to be of higher socioeconomic status, leaner, and have generally healthier lifestyles than sedentary people.
Body weight is a big confounder as well. However, Dr. Rees-Punia noted, it’s also probably a reason that exercise is linked to lower cancer risks, particularly by preventing weight gain. Still, studies have found that the association between exercise and many cancers remains significant after adjusting for body mass index.
The why remains unclear, though some studies offer clues.
“There’s been some really interesting mechanistic research, suggesting that exercise may help inhibit tumor growth or upregulate the immune system,” Dr. Ligibel said.
That includes not only lab research but small intervention studies. While these studies have largely involved people who already have cancer, some have also focused on healthy individuals.
A 2019 study from Dr. Ligibel and her colleagues, which randomly assigned 49 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer to start either an exercise program or mind-body practices ahead of surgery, found exercisers, who had been active for about a month at the time of surgery, showed signs of immune system upregulation in their tumors, while the control group did not.
Among healthy postmenopausal women, a meta-analysis of six clinical trials from Dr. McTiernan and her colleagues found that exercise plus calorie reduction can reduce levels of breast cancer-related endogenous hormones, more so than calorie-cutting alone. And a 2023 study found that high-intensity exercise boosted the ranks of certain immune cells and reduced inflammation in the colon among people at high risk for colon and endometrial cancers due to Lynch syndrome.
Defining an Exercise ‘Prescription’
Despite the gaps and uncertainties in the research, government guidelines as well as those from the American Cancer Society and other medical groups are in lockstep in their exercise recommendations: Adults should strive for 150-300 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (like brisk walking), 75-150 minutes of vigorous activity (like running), or some combination each week.
The guidelines also encourage strength training twice a week — advice that’s based on research tying those activity levels to lower risks for heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic conditions.
But there’s no “best” exercise prescription for lowering cancer risk specifically. Most epidemiological studies have examined only aerobic activity, Dr. Rees-Punia said, and there’s very little known about whether strength conditioning or other moderate heart rate-elevating activities, such as daily household chores, may reduce the risk for cancer.
Given the lack of nuance in the literature, it’s hard to say what intensities, types, or amounts of exercise are best for each individual.
Going forward, device-based measurements of physical activity could “help us sort out the effects of different intensities of exercise and possibly types,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.
But overall, Dr. McTiernan said, the data do show that the risks for several cancers are lower at the widely recommended activity levels.
“The bottom-line advice is still to exercise at least 150 minutes per week at a moderate-intensity level or greater,” Dr. McTiernan said.
Or put another way, moving beats being sedentary. It’s probably wise for everyone to sit less, noted Dr. Rees-Punia, for overall health and based on evidence tying sedentary time to the risks for certain cancers, including colon, endometrial, and lung.
There’s a practical element to consider in all of this: What physical activities will people actually do on the regular? In the big epidemiological studies, Dr. McTiernan noted, middle-aged and older adults most often report walking, suggesting that’s the preferred, or most accessible activity, for many.
“You can only benefit from the physical activity you’ll actually do,” Dr. Rees-Punia said.
Dr. Ligibel echoed that sentiment, saying she encourages patients to think about physical activity as a process: “You need to find things you like to do and work them into your daily life, in a sustainable way.
“People often talk about exercise being medicine,” Dr. Ligibel said. “But I think you could take that too far. If we get too prescriptive about it, that could take the joy away.”
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Sulfites Selected as ACDS Allergen of the Year
by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).
Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.
Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO32− and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.
Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.
In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.
“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.
According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.
“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.
Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
How to Spot Sulfite Allergies
The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.
“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.
Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.
For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.
The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.
Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.
She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.
“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.
In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.
The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).
Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.
Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO32− and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.
Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.
In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.
“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.
According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.
“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.
Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
How to Spot Sulfite Allergies
The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.
“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.
Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.
For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.
The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.
Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.
She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.
“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.
In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.
The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).
Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.
Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO32− and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.
The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.
Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.
In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.
“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.
According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.
“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.
Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
How to Spot Sulfite Allergies
The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.
“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.
Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.
For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.
The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.
Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.
She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.
“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.
In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.
The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACDS 2024
Second FDA-Approved Tocilizumab Biosimilar Has Intravenous, Subcutaneous Formulations
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.
This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release. 
Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:
- Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
- Adults with giant cell arteritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.
The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.
Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector.
The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.
Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.
“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.
This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release.
Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:
- Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
- Adults with giant cell arteritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.
The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.
Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector.
The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.
Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.
“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the biosimilar tocilizumab-aazg (Tyenne), Fresenius Kabi, the drug’s manufacturer, announced on March 7.
This is the second tocilizumab biosimilar approved by the regulatory agency and the first to be approved in both intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous formulations that are available with the reference product, Actemra, the company said in a press release.
Tocilizumab-aazg is an interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonist indicated for:
- Adults with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs
- Adults with giant cell arteritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis
- Patients aged 2 years or older with active systemic juvenile idiopathic arthritis
“Fresenius Kabi is leading the way as the first company to receive FDA approval for both IV and subcutaneous formulations of its tocilizumab biosimilar and is available in prefilled syringe, pen injector, and vial presentations,” Fabrice Romanet, senior vice president of innovation and development at Fresenius Kabi Biopharma, said in a statement.
The FDA approved the first tocilizumab biosimilar, manufactured by Biogen, in late September 2023. It is administered by IV infusion.
Tocilizumab-aazg’s approval was based on outcome and safety data from a dozen clinical studies. The drug can be administered via intravenous formulation (20 mg/mL) or subcutaneously via a single-dose 162-mg/0.9-mL prefilled syringe or single-dose prefilled autoinjector.
The most common side effects for tocilizumab-aazg include upper respiratory tract infections, headache, hypertension, and injection site reactions. The most serious side effects include serious infections, perforation of the stomach or intestines, hepatotoxicity, and changes in certain lab results.
Tocilizumab-aazg has already launched in 10 countries, Fresenius Kabi shared in the press release, and plans to launch in additional countries in 2024 and 2025. It is not clear when tocilizumab-aazg will be made available in the United States.
“In accordance with its patent settlement agreement with Genentech, Fresenius Kabi has a license to market its tocilizumab products in the United States commencing on the license dates, which are confidential,” the company noted.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Home Insulin Pumps Safe for In-Hospital Pediatric Care
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
- Clinical guidelines support the use of home insulin pumps in adults hospitalized for noncritical illnesses, but it has been unclear if adult safety data translate to pediatric inpatients.
- The study evaluated if insulin can be safely and precisely delivered using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers in 2738 patients (0.5-25 years old; median age about 16) with insulin-dependent diabetes admitted to non–intensive care units of a tertiary children’s hospital between January 2016 and December 2021.
- Insulin was delivered either using home insulin pumps managed by patients or caregivers or using hospital insulin pumps or subcutaneous injections managed by hospital staff.
- Safety was measured by hyperglycemia (glucose level > 250 mg/dL), hypoglycemia (moderate: glucose level, 45-59 mg/dL or severe: glucose level, < 45 mg/dL), glucose variability, and the incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis for each delivery method.
- Results were calculated by the number of days a patient had one or more glucose levels meeting the definition of hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia and divided by the number of days a patient receive any insulin dose.
TAKEAWAY:
The number of hyperglycemic days was lower in patients using a hospital (15.7%) or a home (27.0%) insulin pump than in those receiving subcutaneous insulin injections (45.2%; P < .001).
At least one moderate hypoglycemic day was noted in patients receiving insulin through subcutaneous injections (5.1%) compared with those receiving it through hospital (3.1%) or home insulin pumps (4.5%; P = .02).
The proportion of days within the desired blood glucose range and glucose variability were similar in patients using hospital or home insulin pumps and worse in patients managed with injections (P < .001).
No patients using home or hospital pumps developed diabetic ketoacidosis, but two cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were noted among patients using injections.
IN PRACTICE:
“Safety is not sacrificed when patients or caregivers use home pumps during pediatric non–intensive care unit admissions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The investigation, led by Jodi Owens, MSN, RN, Division of Endocrinology, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, was published along with an invited commentary in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The strategies employed for insulin safety and awareness by the institution may have led to improved rates of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. Moreover, the study did not assess changes in glycemic levels during transition in the insulin delivery method. The study was limited to non–intensive care units and hence cannot be generalized to intensive care unit settings or in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis. The study did not include patients using hybrid-closed loop insulin pumps.
DISCLOSURES:
The study did not disclose any source of funding. The authors did not report any conflicts of interest.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Pfizer Antibody-Drug Conjugate Picks Up Pediatric ALL Indication
The CD22-directed antibody and cytotoxic drug conjugate was previously approved only for adults with the condition.
Pediatric approval was based on a single-arm study of 53 children, of whom 12 were treated with an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 per cycle and the rest with an initial dose of 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for a median of two cycles and a range of one to four cycles.
Premedications included methylprednisolone plus an antipyretic and antihistamine.
Overall, 22 children (42%) had a complete remission, defined as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, no leukemia blasts in peripheral blood, full recovery of peripheral blood counts, and resolution of extramedullary disease. The median duration of complete remission was 8.2 months.
All but one child who went into complete remission (95.5%) had no minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, and 19 (86.4%) were MRD negative by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Adverse events in ≥ 20% of participants included thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, anemia, vomiting, infection, hemorrhage, neutropenia, nausea, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, increased transaminases, abdominal pain, and headache.
The antibody-drug conjugate carries a black box warning of hepatotoxicity, including hepatic veno-occlusive and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant mortality.
The initial recommended dose is 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle, divided into 0.8 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by 0.5 mg/m2 on day 9 and 0.5 mg/m2 on day 15. The initial 3-week cycle can be extended to 4 weeks for patients who have a complete remission or a complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery and/or to recover from toxicities.
According to drugs.com, 0.9 mg costs $23,423.47.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The CD22-directed antibody and cytotoxic drug conjugate was previously approved only for adults with the condition.
Pediatric approval was based on a single-arm study of 53 children, of whom 12 were treated with an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 per cycle and the rest with an initial dose of 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for a median of two cycles and a range of one to four cycles.
Premedications included methylprednisolone plus an antipyretic and antihistamine.
Overall, 22 children (42%) had a complete remission, defined as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, no leukemia blasts in peripheral blood, full recovery of peripheral blood counts, and resolution of extramedullary disease. The median duration of complete remission was 8.2 months.
All but one child who went into complete remission (95.5%) had no minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, and 19 (86.4%) were MRD negative by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Adverse events in ≥ 20% of participants included thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, anemia, vomiting, infection, hemorrhage, neutropenia, nausea, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, increased transaminases, abdominal pain, and headache.
The antibody-drug conjugate carries a black box warning of hepatotoxicity, including hepatic veno-occlusive and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant mortality.
The initial recommended dose is 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle, divided into 0.8 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by 0.5 mg/m2 on day 9 and 0.5 mg/m2 on day 15. The initial 3-week cycle can be extended to 4 weeks for patients who have a complete remission or a complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery and/or to recover from toxicities.
According to drugs.com, 0.9 mg costs $23,423.47.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
The CD22-directed antibody and cytotoxic drug conjugate was previously approved only for adults with the condition.
Pediatric approval was based on a single-arm study of 53 children, of whom 12 were treated with an initial dose of 1.4 mg/m2 per cycle and the rest with an initial dose of 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle for a median of two cycles and a range of one to four cycles.
Premedications included methylprednisolone plus an antipyretic and antihistamine.
Overall, 22 children (42%) had a complete remission, defined as < 5% blasts in the bone marrow, no leukemia blasts in peripheral blood, full recovery of peripheral blood counts, and resolution of extramedullary disease. The median duration of complete remission was 8.2 months.
All but one child who went into complete remission (95.5%) had no minimal residual disease (MRD) by flow cytometry, and 19 (86.4%) were MRD negative by real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction.
Adverse events in ≥ 20% of participants included thrombocytopenia, pyrexia, anemia, vomiting, infection, hemorrhage, neutropenia, nausea, leukopenia, febrile neutropenia, increased transaminases, abdominal pain, and headache.
The antibody-drug conjugate carries a black box warning of hepatotoxicity, including hepatic veno-occlusive and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant mortality.
The initial recommended dose is 1.8 mg/m2 per cycle, divided into 0.8 mg/m2 on day 1, followed by 0.5 mg/m2 on day 9 and 0.5 mg/m2 on day 15. The initial 3-week cycle can be extended to 4 weeks for patients who have a complete remission or a complete remission with incomplete hematologic recovery and/or to recover from toxicities.
According to drugs.com, 0.9 mg costs $23,423.47.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Is Atopic Dermatitis Linked to Cognitive Impairment Symptoms in Children?
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.
To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.
Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.
The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.
TAKEAWAY:
Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).
On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41).
When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).
Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.
To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.
Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.
The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.
TAKEAWAY:
Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).
On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41).
When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).
Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
METHODOLOGY:
It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.
To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.
Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.
The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.
TAKEAWAY:
Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).
On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41).
When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).
Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions.
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Move Over Sealants, Silver Diamine Fluoride Might Take Your Place
TOPLINE:
Children treated with silver diamine fluoride (SDF) had outcomes similar to those who received sealants and atraumatic restoration (ART), according to findings from a new study published in JAMA Pediatrics
METHODOLOGY:
- School programs for dental sealants were first proposed as a way to reduce health inequities, but the technique is too expensive to be widely used.
- Silver diamine fluoride has antimicrobial properties that remineralize the teeth and is a cost-effective alternative to dental sealants.
- The trial included 4100 children from low-income and/or minority groups in New York City, who were aged between 5 to 13 years.
- Between 2018 and 2023, students exhibiting early tooth decay were randomized to receive either SDF or sealants and ART.
- Researchers compared the rates of new cavities and fillings between the two groups over time.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the odds of developing dental cavities decreased by around 20% in both treatment groups.
- The prevalence of cavities among children treated with SDF was 10.2 per 1000 tooth-years compared with 9.8 per 1000 in the sealant and ART group.
- The difference in students who had no new cavities or fillings between the two groups was minimal, ranging from −0.001 to 0.031.
- Children who received SDF from a nurse had outcomes similar to those who were treated by a dental hygienist (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19).
IN PRACTICE:
“Research indicates that treatment of early childhood caries using SDF by physicians in primary care settings is both feasible and acceptable…we conclude that SDF is an effective alternative for community-based prevention that may help address these existing barriers.”
SOURCE:
The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). It was led by Ryan Richard Ruff, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion at New York University College of Dentistry, New York.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported that youth may have received dental care outside of the study, which could have influenced the results. To account for that risk, they identified students who received outside care. In addition, > 3000 students were not included in the final analysis due to attrition.
DISCLOSURES:
Authors reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the PCORI, and the National Institutes of Health. Richard Niederman, DMD, reported nonfinancial support from Colgate, GC America, and Elevate Oral Care and consulting fees from Delta Dental Washington outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Children treated with silver diamine fluoride (SDF) had outcomes similar to those who received sealants and atraumatic restoration (ART), according to findings from a new study published in JAMA Pediatrics
METHODOLOGY:
- School programs for dental sealants were first proposed as a way to reduce health inequities, but the technique is too expensive to be widely used.
- Silver diamine fluoride has antimicrobial properties that remineralize the teeth and is a cost-effective alternative to dental sealants.
- The trial included 4100 children from low-income and/or minority groups in New York City, who were aged between 5 to 13 years.
- Between 2018 and 2023, students exhibiting early tooth decay were randomized to receive either SDF or sealants and ART.
- Researchers compared the rates of new cavities and fillings between the two groups over time.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the odds of developing dental cavities decreased by around 20% in both treatment groups.
- The prevalence of cavities among children treated with SDF was 10.2 per 1000 tooth-years compared with 9.8 per 1000 in the sealant and ART group.
- The difference in students who had no new cavities or fillings between the two groups was minimal, ranging from −0.001 to 0.031.
- Children who received SDF from a nurse had outcomes similar to those who were treated by a dental hygienist (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19).
IN PRACTICE:
“Research indicates that treatment of early childhood caries using SDF by physicians in primary care settings is both feasible and acceptable…we conclude that SDF is an effective alternative for community-based prevention that may help address these existing barriers.”
SOURCE:
The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). It was led by Ryan Richard Ruff, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion at New York University College of Dentistry, New York.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported that youth may have received dental care outside of the study, which could have influenced the results. To account for that risk, they identified students who received outside care. In addition, > 3000 students were not included in the final analysis due to attrition.
DISCLOSURES:
Authors reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the PCORI, and the National Institutes of Health. Richard Niederman, DMD, reported nonfinancial support from Colgate, GC America, and Elevate Oral Care and consulting fees from Delta Dental Washington outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Children treated with silver diamine fluoride (SDF) had outcomes similar to those who received sealants and atraumatic restoration (ART), according to findings from a new study published in JAMA Pediatrics
METHODOLOGY:
- School programs for dental sealants were first proposed as a way to reduce health inequities, but the technique is too expensive to be widely used.
- Silver diamine fluoride has antimicrobial properties that remineralize the teeth and is a cost-effective alternative to dental sealants.
- The trial included 4100 children from low-income and/or minority groups in New York City, who were aged between 5 to 13 years.
- Between 2018 and 2023, students exhibiting early tooth decay were randomized to receive either SDF or sealants and ART.
- Researchers compared the rates of new cavities and fillings between the two groups over time.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, the odds of developing dental cavities decreased by around 20% in both treatment groups.
- The prevalence of cavities among children treated with SDF was 10.2 per 1000 tooth-years compared with 9.8 per 1000 in the sealant and ART group.
- The difference in students who had no new cavities or fillings between the two groups was minimal, ranging from −0.001 to 0.031.
- Children who received SDF from a nurse had outcomes similar to those who were treated by a dental hygienist (odds ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.67-1.19).
IN PRACTICE:
“Research indicates that treatment of early childhood caries using SDF by physicians in primary care settings is both feasible and acceptable…we conclude that SDF is an effective alternative for community-based prevention that may help address these existing barriers.”
SOURCE:
The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). It was led by Ryan Richard Ruff, PhD, MPH, associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion at New York University College of Dentistry, New York.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors reported that youth may have received dental care outside of the study, which could have influenced the results. To account for that risk, they identified students who received outside care. In addition, > 3000 students were not included in the final analysis due to attrition.
DISCLOSURES:
Authors reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the PCORI, and the National Institutes of Health. Richard Niederman, DMD, reported nonfinancial support from Colgate, GC America, and Elevate Oral Care and consulting fees from Delta Dental Washington outside the submitted work.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Psilocybin Poison Control Calls Spike in Teens, Young Adults
Calls to US poison centers related to psilocybin more than tripled among teens and more than doubled in young adults between 2019 and 2022, new research suggests. Investigators say the increase may be linked to decriminalization efforts in US cities and states.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators used data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to identify calls involving psilocybin between January 2013 and December 2022.
- Researchers focused on calls about individuals between the ages of 13 and 25 years.
- Exposures to psilocybin were examined based on demographics, clinical effects, level of care, and medical outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the entire 10-year study period, 4055 psilocybin-involved exposures were reported in the age groups studied, with 66% being single-substance exposures and close to three quarters receiving medical attention.
- Psilocybin’s most common effects were hallucinations or delusions (37% of calls), agitation (28%), tachycardia (20%), and confusion (16%).
- The number of psilocybin-related calls to poison control centers for youth were largely unchanged from 2013 to 2018 but more than tripled among adolescents (aged 13-19 years) from 2019 and 2022 and more than doubled among young adults (aged 20-25 years) between 2018 and 2022 (P < .0001).
IN PRACTICE:
The increase in poison center calls coincides with psilocybin decriminalization efforts in several states in 2019, the authors noted. However, because those efforts only legalized use in adults aged 21 years and older, the rise among younger people is concerning, they added. “As psilocybin may become more widely available, it is important for parents to be aware that psilocybin is also available in edible forms such as chocolate and gummies. And we learned from our experience with edible cannabis that young children can mistake edibles for candy,” lead author Rita Farah, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Blue Ridge Poison Center epidemiologist, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
Christopher Holstege, MD, director of UVA Health’s Blue Ridge Poison Center and chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology at the UVA School of Medicine was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 26 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
LIMITATIONS:
NPDS data are not designed to assess potential risk factors leading to increases in psilocybin-related cases. Moreover, because reports to poison control centers are voluntary and don’t capture all exposures, NPDS data likely under-represent cases of hallucinogenic mushroom poisonings. Lastly, NPDS data are susceptible to reporting and misclassification biases.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding source was not disclosed. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Calls to US poison centers related to psilocybin more than tripled among teens and more than doubled in young adults between 2019 and 2022, new research suggests. Investigators say the increase may be linked to decriminalization efforts in US cities and states.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators used data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to identify calls involving psilocybin between January 2013 and December 2022.
- Researchers focused on calls about individuals between the ages of 13 and 25 years.
- Exposures to psilocybin were examined based on demographics, clinical effects, level of care, and medical outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the entire 10-year study period, 4055 psilocybin-involved exposures were reported in the age groups studied, with 66% being single-substance exposures and close to three quarters receiving medical attention.
- Psilocybin’s most common effects were hallucinations or delusions (37% of calls), agitation (28%), tachycardia (20%), and confusion (16%).
- The number of psilocybin-related calls to poison control centers for youth were largely unchanged from 2013 to 2018 but more than tripled among adolescents (aged 13-19 years) from 2019 and 2022 and more than doubled among young adults (aged 20-25 years) between 2018 and 2022 (P < .0001).
IN PRACTICE:
The increase in poison center calls coincides with psilocybin decriminalization efforts in several states in 2019, the authors noted. However, because those efforts only legalized use in adults aged 21 years and older, the rise among younger people is concerning, they added. “As psilocybin may become more widely available, it is important for parents to be aware that psilocybin is also available in edible forms such as chocolate and gummies. And we learned from our experience with edible cannabis that young children can mistake edibles for candy,” lead author Rita Farah, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Blue Ridge Poison Center epidemiologist, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
Christopher Holstege, MD, director of UVA Health’s Blue Ridge Poison Center and chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology at the UVA School of Medicine was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 26 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
LIMITATIONS:
NPDS data are not designed to assess potential risk factors leading to increases in psilocybin-related cases. Moreover, because reports to poison control centers are voluntary and don’t capture all exposures, NPDS data likely under-represent cases of hallucinogenic mushroom poisonings. Lastly, NPDS data are susceptible to reporting and misclassification biases.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding source was not disclosed. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Calls to US poison centers related to psilocybin more than tripled among teens and more than doubled in young adults between 2019 and 2022, new research suggests. Investigators say the increase may be linked to decriminalization efforts in US cities and states.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators used data from the National Poison Data System (NPDS) to identify calls involving psilocybin between January 2013 and December 2022.
- Researchers focused on calls about individuals between the ages of 13 and 25 years.
- Exposures to psilocybin were examined based on demographics, clinical effects, level of care, and medical outcome.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the entire 10-year study period, 4055 psilocybin-involved exposures were reported in the age groups studied, with 66% being single-substance exposures and close to three quarters receiving medical attention.
- Psilocybin’s most common effects were hallucinations or delusions (37% of calls), agitation (28%), tachycardia (20%), and confusion (16%).
- The number of psilocybin-related calls to poison control centers for youth were largely unchanged from 2013 to 2018 but more than tripled among adolescents (aged 13-19 years) from 2019 and 2022 and more than doubled among young adults (aged 20-25 years) between 2018 and 2022 (P < .0001).
IN PRACTICE:
The increase in poison center calls coincides with psilocybin decriminalization efforts in several states in 2019, the authors noted. However, because those efforts only legalized use in adults aged 21 years and older, the rise among younger people is concerning, they added. “As psilocybin may become more widely available, it is important for parents to be aware that psilocybin is also available in edible forms such as chocolate and gummies. And we learned from our experience with edible cannabis that young children can mistake edibles for candy,” lead author Rita Farah, PharmD, MPH, PhD, Blue Ridge Poison Center epidemiologist, said in a news release.
SOURCE:
Christopher Holstege, MD, director of UVA Health’s Blue Ridge Poison Center and chief of the Division of Medical Toxicology at the UVA School of Medicine was the senior and corresponding author of the study. It was published online on February 26 in the Journal of Adolescent Health.
LIMITATIONS:
NPDS data are not designed to assess potential risk factors leading to increases in psilocybin-related cases. Moreover, because reports to poison control centers are voluntary and don’t capture all exposures, NPDS data likely under-represent cases of hallucinogenic mushroom poisonings. Lastly, NPDS data are susceptible to reporting and misclassification biases.
DISCLOSURES:
Funding source was not disclosed. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Be Wary of TikTok Content on Infantile Hemangiomas: Study
TOPLINE:
.
METHODOLOGY:
- New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
- Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
- The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.
TAKEAWAY:
- Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
- Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
- Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
- In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.
IN PRACTICE:
“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
.
METHODOLOGY:
- New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
- Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
- The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.
TAKEAWAY:
- Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
- Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
- Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
- In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.
IN PRACTICE:
“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
.
METHODOLOGY:
- New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
- Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
- The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.
TAKEAWAY:
- Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
- Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
- Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
- In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.
IN PRACTICE:
“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.
DISCLOSURES:
The researchers reported having no disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.