User login
Cosmetic Dermatology Product Recalls Still Common, Analysis Finds
TOPLINE:
Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
- Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
- Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
- A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
- Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
- Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).
IN PRACTICE:
With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
- Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
- Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
- A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
- Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
- Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).
IN PRACTICE:
With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
- Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
- Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
- A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
- Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
- Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).
IN PRACTICE:
With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.
DISCLOSURES:
No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Bright Light Therapy Effective for Nonseasonal Depression
TOPLINE:
Bright light therapy (BLT) is associated with a 41% remission rate in patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders, significantly higher than the remission rates reported with other treatments, a new meta-analysis shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials with 858 patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders.
- Included studies compared BLT alone or BLT plus antidepressant with placebo, antidepressant monotherapy, or dim red light.
- BLT was administered using a fluorescent light box producing white light at 10,000 lux for at least 30 minutes daily.
- The primary outcomes were the remission of symptoms and response to treatment, assessed using scales such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).
TAKEAWAY:
- The estimated remission rate was significantly higher for patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders in the BLT group than for those in the control group (41% vs 23.5%; P < .001).
- The response rate was also higher for patients in the BLT group than for those in the control group (60% vs 39%; P < .001).
- In the subgroup analysis on the basis of the duration of follow-up periods, the BLT group had better remission and response rates than the control group for both short-term (< 4 weeks; P < .001) and long-term (> 4 weeks; P = .04) follow-up periods, which suggests that patients achieved remission and responded to treatment more quickly with BLT than with antidepressants alone.
- The BLT group had a significantly greater reduction in HAM-D scores than the control group (mean difference, −1.44; P = .003).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that BLT was an effective adjunctive treatment for nonseasonal depressive disorders, and the response time to the initial treatment may be improved with the addition of BLT,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Artur Menegaz de Almeida, MS, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Sinop, Brazil. It was published online on October 2, 2024, in JAMA Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
Slight differences were observed in the mean follow-up time between the included trials. The definitions for remission rates and response to treatment varied among the included studies, and they also involved different levels of disorder severity. Additionally, the study did not enable the separate analysis of each included depressive disorder, nor bipolar or unipolar subtypes of major depressive disorder. The moderate number of studies included may have affected the generalizability of the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
Study funding was not disclosed. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Bright light therapy (BLT) is associated with a 41% remission rate in patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders, significantly higher than the remission rates reported with other treatments, a new meta-analysis shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials with 858 patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders.
- Included studies compared BLT alone or BLT plus antidepressant with placebo, antidepressant monotherapy, or dim red light.
- BLT was administered using a fluorescent light box producing white light at 10,000 lux for at least 30 minutes daily.
- The primary outcomes were the remission of symptoms and response to treatment, assessed using scales such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).
TAKEAWAY:
- The estimated remission rate was significantly higher for patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders in the BLT group than for those in the control group (41% vs 23.5%; P < .001).
- The response rate was also higher for patients in the BLT group than for those in the control group (60% vs 39%; P < .001).
- In the subgroup analysis on the basis of the duration of follow-up periods, the BLT group had better remission and response rates than the control group for both short-term (< 4 weeks; P < .001) and long-term (> 4 weeks; P = .04) follow-up periods, which suggests that patients achieved remission and responded to treatment more quickly with BLT than with antidepressants alone.
- The BLT group had a significantly greater reduction in HAM-D scores than the control group (mean difference, −1.44; P = .003).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that BLT was an effective adjunctive treatment for nonseasonal depressive disorders, and the response time to the initial treatment may be improved with the addition of BLT,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Artur Menegaz de Almeida, MS, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Sinop, Brazil. It was published online on October 2, 2024, in JAMA Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
Slight differences were observed in the mean follow-up time between the included trials. The definitions for remission rates and response to treatment varied among the included studies, and they also involved different levels of disorder severity. Additionally, the study did not enable the separate analysis of each included depressive disorder, nor bipolar or unipolar subtypes of major depressive disorder. The moderate number of studies included may have affected the generalizability of the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
Study funding was not disclosed. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Bright light therapy (BLT) is associated with a 41% remission rate in patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders, significantly higher than the remission rates reported with other treatments, a new meta-analysis shows.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials with 858 patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders.
- Included studies compared BLT alone or BLT plus antidepressant with placebo, antidepressant monotherapy, or dim red light.
- BLT was administered using a fluorescent light box producing white light at 10,000 lux for at least 30 minutes daily.
- The primary outcomes were the remission of symptoms and response to treatment, assessed using scales such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D).
TAKEAWAY:
- The estimated remission rate was significantly higher for patients with nonseasonal depressive disorders in the BLT group than for those in the control group (41% vs 23.5%; P < .001).
- The response rate was also higher for patients in the BLT group than for those in the control group (60% vs 39%; P < .001).
- In the subgroup analysis on the basis of the duration of follow-up periods, the BLT group had better remission and response rates than the control group for both short-term (< 4 weeks; P < .001) and long-term (> 4 weeks; P = .04) follow-up periods, which suggests that patients achieved remission and responded to treatment more quickly with BLT than with antidepressants alone.
- The BLT group had a significantly greater reduction in HAM-D scores than the control group (mean difference, −1.44; P = .003).
IN PRACTICE:
“These findings suggest that BLT was an effective adjunctive treatment for nonseasonal depressive disorders, and the response time to the initial treatment may be improved with the addition of BLT,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Artur Menegaz de Almeida, MS, Federal University of Mato Grosso, Sinop, Brazil. It was published online on October 2, 2024, in JAMA Psychiatry.
LIMITATIONS:
Slight differences were observed in the mean follow-up time between the included trials. The definitions for remission rates and response to treatment varied among the included studies, and they also involved different levels of disorder severity. Additionally, the study did not enable the separate analysis of each included depressive disorder, nor bipolar or unipolar subtypes of major depressive disorder. The moderate number of studies included may have affected the generalizability of the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
Study funding was not disclosed. No relevant conflicts of interest were disclosed.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Cognitive Decline and Antihypertensive Use: New Data
TOPLINE:
a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.
METHODOLOGY:
- The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
- Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
- The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
- The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.
TAKEAWAY:
- Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
- Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
- At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
- In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).
IN PRACTICE:
“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.
METHODOLOGY:
- The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
- Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
- The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
- The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.
TAKEAWAY:
- Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
- Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
- At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
- In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).
IN PRACTICE:
“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
a new study suggests. The association was strongest among those with dementia.
METHODOLOGY:
- The cohort study included 12,644 long-term care residents (mean age, 77.7 years; 97% men; 17.5% Black) with stays of at least 12 weeks from 2006 to 2019.
- Residents who experienced either a reduction in the total number of antihypertensive medications or a sustained 30% decrease in dosage for at least 2 weeks were classified as deprescribing users (n = 1290). Those with no medication changes were considered stable users (n = 11,354).
- The primary outcome was cognitive impairment assessed using the four-point Cognitive Function Scale (CFS), with the score proportional to the severity of impairment.
- The median follow-up duration was 23 weeks for the deprescribing users and 21 weeks for the stable users.
TAKEAWAY:
- Deprescribing antihypertensives was associated with a 12% lower likelihood of progressing to a worse CFS score per 12-week period (odds ratio [OR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99), compared with stable users.
- Among residents with dementia, deprescribing was associated with a 16% reduced likelihood of cognitive decline per 12-week period (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.72-0.98).
- At the end of follow-up, 12% of residents had a higher CFS score and 7.7% had a lower CFS score.
- In the intention-to-treat analysis, the association between deprescribing antihypertensive medications and reduced cognitive decline remained consistent (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98).
IN PRACTICE:
“This work highlights the need for patient-centered approaches to deprescribing, ensuring that medication regimens for older adults are optimized to preserve cognitive function and minimize potential harms,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Bocheng Jing, MS, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco. It was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.
LIMITATIONS:
The study population included predominantly men and White individuals, limiting the generalizability of the results to women and other racial and ethnic groups. The findings may not be applicable to patients with heart failure owing to their noninclusion. The specificity of dementia diagnosis was limited, as this study combined various forms of dementia, making it challenging to differentiate the impacts among subgroups.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was supported by the US National Institute on Aging. Two authors reported receiving grants, honoraria, consulting fees, or royalties from various sources. Details are provided in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High Cadmium Level Associated With Cognitive Impairment Risk
TOPLINE:
High levels of urinary cadmium are associated with double the risk for global cognitive impairment in White adults, a new study shows. There was no such association between the heavy metal and cognitive function in Black adults.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators reviewed data on 2172 adults (mean age, 64 years; 61% White; 39% Black; 55% women) from the ongoing REGARDS population-based prospective cohort study in the United States who were free of cognitive impairment or stroke at baseline.
- Global cognitive impairment was assessed annually using the Six-Item Screener, and domain-based cognitive impairment was assessed every 2 years using the Enhanced Cognitive Battery.
- Blood and urine samples were collected from the participants at baseline, and levels of urinary cadmium were assessed using a urinary creatinine-correction method.
- Covariates included participants’ age, sex, smoking pack-years, alcohol consumption, and education level.
- Mean follow-up was 10 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Global cognitive impairment was observed in 195 cases and domain-based cognitive impairment in 53 cases.
- High levels of urinary cadmium were associated with double the risk of developing global cognitive impairment in White adults (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.18-3.64).
- No association was observed between urinary cadmium and global cognitive impairment in the overall cohort or in Black adults.
- Median smoking pack-years — a significant source of cadmium exposure for the US population — was significantly higher in White participants than Black participants (P = .001 for the highest tertile of urinary cadmium concentration).
IN PRACTICE:
“These results need to be confirmed with studies that measure cadmium levels over time, include more people and follow people over a longer time, but there are many reasons to reduce exposure to cadmium, whether it’s through implementing policies and regulations for air pollution and drinking water or people changing their behaviors by stopping smoking or being around cigarette smoke,” lead author Liping Lu, MD, PhD, MS, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
Urinary cadmium levels were tested only at baseline, which may not have captured changes in exposure over time. A limited number of patients with cognitive impairment used the Enhanced Cognitive Battery. The study did not include occupational information, and the potential for residual confounding from smoking could not be completely excluded. The follow-up time may have been insufficient for observing a significant effect on cognition, and competing risks for mortality associated with cadmium exposure could also have affected the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several authors were partially supported by the NIH. Detailed disclosures are provided in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High levels of urinary cadmium are associated with double the risk for global cognitive impairment in White adults, a new study shows. There was no such association between the heavy metal and cognitive function in Black adults.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators reviewed data on 2172 adults (mean age, 64 years; 61% White; 39% Black; 55% women) from the ongoing REGARDS population-based prospective cohort study in the United States who were free of cognitive impairment or stroke at baseline.
- Global cognitive impairment was assessed annually using the Six-Item Screener, and domain-based cognitive impairment was assessed every 2 years using the Enhanced Cognitive Battery.
- Blood and urine samples were collected from the participants at baseline, and levels of urinary cadmium were assessed using a urinary creatinine-correction method.
- Covariates included participants’ age, sex, smoking pack-years, alcohol consumption, and education level.
- Mean follow-up was 10 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Global cognitive impairment was observed in 195 cases and domain-based cognitive impairment in 53 cases.
- High levels of urinary cadmium were associated with double the risk of developing global cognitive impairment in White adults (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.18-3.64).
- No association was observed between urinary cadmium and global cognitive impairment in the overall cohort or in Black adults.
- Median smoking pack-years — a significant source of cadmium exposure for the US population — was significantly higher in White participants than Black participants (P = .001 for the highest tertile of urinary cadmium concentration).
IN PRACTICE:
“These results need to be confirmed with studies that measure cadmium levels over time, include more people and follow people over a longer time, but there are many reasons to reduce exposure to cadmium, whether it’s through implementing policies and regulations for air pollution and drinking water or people changing their behaviors by stopping smoking or being around cigarette smoke,” lead author Liping Lu, MD, PhD, MS, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
Urinary cadmium levels were tested only at baseline, which may not have captured changes in exposure over time. A limited number of patients with cognitive impairment used the Enhanced Cognitive Battery. The study did not include occupational information, and the potential for residual confounding from smoking could not be completely excluded. The follow-up time may have been insufficient for observing a significant effect on cognition, and competing risks for mortality associated with cadmium exposure could also have affected the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several authors were partially supported by the NIH. Detailed disclosures are provided in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
High levels of urinary cadmium are associated with double the risk for global cognitive impairment in White adults, a new study shows. There was no such association between the heavy metal and cognitive function in Black adults.
METHODOLOGY:
- Investigators reviewed data on 2172 adults (mean age, 64 years; 61% White; 39% Black; 55% women) from the ongoing REGARDS population-based prospective cohort study in the United States who were free of cognitive impairment or stroke at baseline.
- Global cognitive impairment was assessed annually using the Six-Item Screener, and domain-based cognitive impairment was assessed every 2 years using the Enhanced Cognitive Battery.
- Blood and urine samples were collected from the participants at baseline, and levels of urinary cadmium were assessed using a urinary creatinine-correction method.
- Covariates included participants’ age, sex, smoking pack-years, alcohol consumption, and education level.
- Mean follow-up was 10 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Global cognitive impairment was observed in 195 cases and domain-based cognitive impairment in 53 cases.
- High levels of urinary cadmium were associated with double the risk of developing global cognitive impairment in White adults (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.18-3.64).
- No association was observed between urinary cadmium and global cognitive impairment in the overall cohort or in Black adults.
- Median smoking pack-years — a significant source of cadmium exposure for the US population — was significantly higher in White participants than Black participants (P = .001 for the highest tertile of urinary cadmium concentration).
IN PRACTICE:
“These results need to be confirmed with studies that measure cadmium levels over time, include more people and follow people over a longer time, but there are many reasons to reduce exposure to cadmium, whether it’s through implementing policies and regulations for air pollution and drinking water or people changing their behaviors by stopping smoking or being around cigarette smoke,” lead author Liping Lu, MD, PhD, MS, Columbia University, New York City, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
Urinary cadmium levels were tested only at baseline, which may not have captured changes in exposure over time. A limited number of patients with cognitive impairment used the Enhanced Cognitive Battery. The study did not include occupational information, and the potential for residual confounding from smoking could not be completely excluded. The follow-up time may have been insufficient for observing a significant effect on cognition, and competing risks for mortality associated with cadmium exposure could also have affected the findings.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Several authors were partially supported by the NIH. Detailed disclosures are provided in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment-Resistant Depression Linked to Increased Mortality
TOPLINE:
Treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) is associated with a 17% higher risk for all-cause mortality than non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD), a new study shows. The increased mortality risk was driven largely by suicide and accidental overdose, which were nearly twice as high among people whose depression didn’t improve after two treatments.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data on 176,942 individuals diagnosed with MDD and treated with an antidepressant (median age at diagnosis, 40 years; 63% women) were obtained from Finnish nationwide registers.
- About 11% of the participants had TRD, defined as having more than two adequate treatment trials of at least 28 days, each within 2 years from the index antidepressant prescription.
- The outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment history included as covariates.
- The median follow-up period was 8.9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median time to TRD was 8 months, and 959 and 7662 deaths were observed in the TRD and non-TRD groups, respectively.
- All-cause mortality was 17% higher among patients with TRD than among those with non-TRD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.25) because of higher mortality to external causes.
- Mortalities because of suicides (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.64-2.20) and accidental poisonings (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.22) were almost double in the TRD group, compared with the non-TRD group.
- No significant difference in mortality due to natural causes was observed between the TRD and non-TRD groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“The markedly increased mortality due to suicides and accidental overdoses suggests that persons with TRD may experience higher-intensity symptoms and more severe suicidal ideation than persons with non-TRD major depression,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tapio T. Gustafsson, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online on September 11, 2024, in The Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The definition of TRD lacked consensus. The study used routine data to define TRD, which may not have captured all relevant clinical nuances. Additionally, the reasons for medication changes were unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine and Niuvanniemi Hospital, with support from the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, and two are employees of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) is associated with a 17% higher risk for all-cause mortality than non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD), a new study shows. The increased mortality risk was driven largely by suicide and accidental overdose, which were nearly twice as high among people whose depression didn’t improve after two treatments.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data on 176,942 individuals diagnosed with MDD and treated with an antidepressant (median age at diagnosis, 40 years; 63% women) were obtained from Finnish nationwide registers.
- About 11% of the participants had TRD, defined as having more than two adequate treatment trials of at least 28 days, each within 2 years from the index antidepressant prescription.
- The outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment history included as covariates.
- The median follow-up period was 8.9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median time to TRD was 8 months, and 959 and 7662 deaths were observed in the TRD and non-TRD groups, respectively.
- All-cause mortality was 17% higher among patients with TRD than among those with non-TRD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.25) because of higher mortality to external causes.
- Mortalities because of suicides (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.64-2.20) and accidental poisonings (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.22) were almost double in the TRD group, compared with the non-TRD group.
- No significant difference in mortality due to natural causes was observed between the TRD and non-TRD groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“The markedly increased mortality due to suicides and accidental overdoses suggests that persons with TRD may experience higher-intensity symptoms and more severe suicidal ideation than persons with non-TRD major depression,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tapio T. Gustafsson, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online on September 11, 2024, in The Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The definition of TRD lacked consensus. The study used routine data to define TRD, which may not have captured all relevant clinical nuances. Additionally, the reasons for medication changes were unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine and Niuvanniemi Hospital, with support from the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, and two are employees of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Treatment-resistant major depression (TRD) is associated with a 17% higher risk for all-cause mortality than non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD), a new study shows. The increased mortality risk was driven largely by suicide and accidental overdose, which were nearly twice as high among people whose depression didn’t improve after two treatments.
METHODOLOGY:
- Data on 176,942 individuals diagnosed with MDD and treated with an antidepressant (median age at diagnosis, 40 years; 63% women) were obtained from Finnish nationwide registers.
- About 11% of the participants had TRD, defined as having more than two adequate treatment trials of at least 28 days, each within 2 years from the index antidepressant prescription.
- The outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific mortality, with demographic characteristics, psychiatric comorbidities, and treatment history included as covariates.
- The median follow-up period was 8.9 years.
TAKEAWAY:
- Median time to TRD was 8 months, and 959 and 7662 deaths were observed in the TRD and non-TRD groups, respectively.
- All-cause mortality was 17% higher among patients with TRD than among those with non-TRD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.25) because of higher mortality to external causes.
- Mortalities because of suicides (aHR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.64-2.20) and accidental poisonings (aHR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.48-2.22) were almost double in the TRD group, compared with the non-TRD group.
- No significant difference in mortality due to natural causes was observed between the TRD and non-TRD groups.
IN PRACTICE:
“The markedly increased mortality due to suicides and accidental overdoses suggests that persons with TRD may experience higher-intensity symptoms and more severe suicidal ideation than persons with non-TRD major depression,” the study authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tapio T. Gustafsson, University of Eastern Finland, Niuvanniemi Hospital, Kuopio, Finland. It was published online on September 11, 2024, in The Journal of Affective Disorders.
LIMITATIONS:
The definition of TRD lacked consensus. The study used routine data to define TRD, which may not have captured all relevant clinical nuances. Additionally, the reasons for medication changes were unavailable.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine and Niuvanniemi Hospital, with support from the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies, and two are employees of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Wide Regional Variation in Dementia Risk Across the United States
TOPLINE:
The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
- Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
- Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
- ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.
TAKEAWAY:
- Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
- Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
- The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
- Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.
IN PRACTICE:
“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
- Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
- Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
- ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.
TAKEAWAY:
- Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
- Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
- The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
- Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.
IN PRACTICE:
“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The likelihood of receiving a dementia diagnosis in older adults varies significantly by region across the United States, a new study suggests. Rates ranged from 1.7% to 5.4%, with variations more pronounced in those aged 66-74 years and Black or Hispanic individuals.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed newly diagnosed cases of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) using the 2018-2019 Medicare claims data for 4.8 million older adults across 306 hospital referral regions (HRRs).
- Participants were categorized by age and race or ethnicity to examine variations in diagnosis rates.
- Regional characteristics such as education level and prevalence of obesity, smoking, and diabetes were included to adjust for population risk factors.
- ADRD-specific diagnostic intensity was calculated as the ratio of the observed-to-expected new cases of ADRD in each HRR.
TAKEAWAY:
- Unadjusted analysis for that overall, 3% of older adults received a new ADRD diagnosis in 2019, with rates ranging from 1.7 to 5.4 per 100 individuals across HRRs and varied by age category.
- Regions in the South had the highest unadjusted ADRD case concentration, and the areas in the West/Northwest had the lowest.
- The ADRD-specific diagnosis intensity was 0.69-1.47 and varied the most in Black and Hispanic individuals and those aged 66-74 years.
- Regional differences in ADRD diagnosis rates are not fully explained by population risk factors, indicating potential health system-level differences.
IN PRACTICE:
“From place to place, the likelihood of getting your dementia diagnosed varies, and that may happen because of everything from practice norms for healthcare providers to individual patients’ knowledge and care-seeking behavior. These findings go beyond demographic and population-level differences in risk and indicate that there are health system-level differences that could be targeted and remediated,” lead author Julie P.W. Bynum, MD, MPH, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dr. Bynum, professor of internal medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, and published online in Alzheimer’s & Dementia.
LIMITATIONS:
The results may not be generalizable to other groups. The observational design of the study cannot completely negate residual confounding. The measures of population risks are coarser than those used in well-characterized epidemiologic studies, leading to potential imprecision. Finally, the study was not designed to determine whether regional differences in the likelihood of ADRD diagnosis resulted in differences in the population health outcomes.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Aging. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Parkinson’s Risk in Women and History of Migraine: New Data
TOPLINE:
A history of migraine is not associated with an elevated risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD) in women, regardless of headache frequency or migraine subtype, a new study suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data on 39,312 women health professionals aged ≥ 45 years and having no history of PD who enrolled in the Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995 and were followed until 2021.
- At baseline, 7321 women (18.6%) had migraine.
- The mean follow-up duration was 22 years.
- The primary outcome was a self-reported, physician-confirmed diagnosis of PD.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 685 women self-reported a diagnosis of PD.
- Of these, 18.7% of reported cases were in women with any migraine and 81.3% in women without migraine.
- No significant association was found between PD risk and a history of migraine, migraine subtypes (with or without aura), or migraine frequency.
- Migraine was not associated with a higher risk for PD than that of nonmigraine headaches.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results are reassuring for women who have migraine, which itself causes many burdens, that they don’t have to worry about an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in the future,” study author Tobias Kurth, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ricarda S. Schulz, MSc, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s findings may not be generalizable to other populations, such as men and non-White individuals. The self-reported data on migraine and PD may be subject to inaccuracies. PD is often not diagnosed until symptoms have reached an advanced stage, potentially leading to cases being underreported. Changes in the status and frequency of migraine over the study period were not accounted for, which may have affected the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors did not disclose any specific funding for this work. The Women’s Health Study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Two authors reported having financial ties outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A history of migraine is not associated with an elevated risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD) in women, regardless of headache frequency or migraine subtype, a new study suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data on 39,312 women health professionals aged ≥ 45 years and having no history of PD who enrolled in the Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995 and were followed until 2021.
- At baseline, 7321 women (18.6%) had migraine.
- The mean follow-up duration was 22 years.
- The primary outcome was a self-reported, physician-confirmed diagnosis of PD.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 685 women self-reported a diagnosis of PD.
- Of these, 18.7% of reported cases were in women with any migraine and 81.3% in women without migraine.
- No significant association was found between PD risk and a history of migraine, migraine subtypes (with or without aura), or migraine frequency.
- Migraine was not associated with a higher risk for PD than that of nonmigraine headaches.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results are reassuring for women who have migraine, which itself causes many burdens, that they don’t have to worry about an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in the future,” study author Tobias Kurth, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ricarda S. Schulz, MSc, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s findings may not be generalizable to other populations, such as men and non-White individuals. The self-reported data on migraine and PD may be subject to inaccuracies. PD is often not diagnosed until symptoms have reached an advanced stage, potentially leading to cases being underreported. Changes in the status and frequency of migraine over the study period were not accounted for, which may have affected the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors did not disclose any specific funding for this work. The Women’s Health Study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Two authors reported having financial ties outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A history of migraine is not associated with an elevated risk for Parkinson’s disease (PD) in women, regardless of headache frequency or migraine subtype, a new study suggests.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data on 39,312 women health professionals aged ≥ 45 years and having no history of PD who enrolled in the Women’s Health Study between 1992 and 1995 and were followed until 2021.
- At baseline, 7321 women (18.6%) had migraine.
- The mean follow-up duration was 22 years.
- The primary outcome was a self-reported, physician-confirmed diagnosis of PD.
TAKEAWAY:
- During the study period, 685 women self-reported a diagnosis of PD.
- Of these, 18.7% of reported cases were in women with any migraine and 81.3% in women without migraine.
- No significant association was found between PD risk and a history of migraine, migraine subtypes (with or without aura), or migraine frequency.
- Migraine was not associated with a higher risk for PD than that of nonmigraine headaches.
IN PRACTICE:
“These results are reassuring for women who have migraine, which itself causes many burdens, that they don’t have to worry about an increased risk of Parkinson’s disease in the future,” study author Tobias Kurth, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, said in a press release.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Ricarda S. Schulz, MSc, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. It was published online in Neurology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s findings may not be generalizable to other populations, such as men and non-White individuals. The self-reported data on migraine and PD may be subject to inaccuracies. PD is often not diagnosed until symptoms have reached an advanced stage, potentially leading to cases being underreported. Changes in the status and frequency of migraine over the study period were not accounted for, which may have affected the results.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors did not disclose any specific funding for this work. The Women’s Health Study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Two authors reported having financial ties outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.