User login
Cannabis Overuse Linked to Increased Risk for Head and Neck Cancer
TOPLINE:
The study analyzed data from over four million patients, highlighting the potential carcinogenic effects of the substance.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from a globally federated health research network TriNetX, which included over 90 million men and women from 64 health care organizations in the United States.
- More than 4.1 million patients were included in the analysis, including 116,076 individuals diagnosed with cannabis-related disorder and 3.9 million without the disorder. Cannabis-related disorders involve the excessive use of cannabis with associated psychosocial symptoms, such as impaired social and/or occupational functioning.
- Patients with cannabis-related disorder were matched with those without the disorder based on demographic characteristics, alcohol-related disorders, and tobacco use.
- The primary outcome was the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, including subsites such as oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and salivary gland malignancies.
- Propensity score matching and Poisson regression analysis were used to compare the incidence of head and neck cancers between the groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- According to the researchers, patients with a cannabis-related disorder had a higher risk for any head and neck cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.49; 95% CI, 2.78-4.39) than those without the disorder.
- The risk for specific cancers was also higher in the group with cannabis-related disorders, including oral (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.81-3.47) and oropharyngeal malignancies (RR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.99-8.02).
- The RR for laryngeal cancer was significantly higher in the patients with a cannabis-related disorder (RR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.72-14.90).
- The findings suggest that cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancers, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms involved.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this cohort study, cannabis disorder diagnosis was independently associated with greater risk of subsequent development of any [head or neck cancer] as well as cancers in various subsites of the head and neck among US adults. When limited to cases of [such cancers] occurring greater than 1 year after cannabis use disorder diagnosis, many of the associations increased, demonstrating additional strength in the association,” the authors of the study wrote.
“The association of cannabis and head and neck cancer in this study spanned 2 decades during a rapid growth in use. If this association is causative, the burden of [head and neck cancers] attributable to cannabis will continue to increase, and perhaps dramatically,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the journal article. “Given that cannabis is now a $20 billion industry in the US alone with expanding availability, use, and popularity, this may be “déjà vu, all over again” without appropriate research to understand the potential carcinogenic and salutatory effects of cannabis. Or, in the words of Yogi Berra, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tyler J. Gallagher and Niels C. Kokot, MD, at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had limited information about cohort composition and length of follow-up, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The lack of direct exposure duration, intensity, and dosage information limits the ability to analyze dose-response relationships. Potential inconsistency of diagnosis and reliance on medical record codes may introduce bias. Cannabis use is likely underreported, which could decrease the relative risks discovered. The study was further limited by the lack of information on dosage and frequency of cannabis use, as well as some controls, including alcohol and tobacco use.
DISCLOSURES:
Gallagher disclosed receiving grants from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The study analyzed data from over four million patients, highlighting the potential carcinogenic effects of the substance.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from a globally federated health research network TriNetX, which included over 90 million men and women from 64 health care organizations in the United States.
- More than 4.1 million patients were included in the analysis, including 116,076 individuals diagnosed with cannabis-related disorder and 3.9 million without the disorder. Cannabis-related disorders involve the excessive use of cannabis with associated psychosocial symptoms, such as impaired social and/or occupational functioning.
- Patients with cannabis-related disorder were matched with those without the disorder based on demographic characteristics, alcohol-related disorders, and tobacco use.
- The primary outcome was the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, including subsites such as oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and salivary gland malignancies.
- Propensity score matching and Poisson regression analysis were used to compare the incidence of head and neck cancers between the groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- According to the researchers, patients with a cannabis-related disorder had a higher risk for any head and neck cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.49; 95% CI, 2.78-4.39) than those without the disorder.
- The risk for specific cancers was also higher in the group with cannabis-related disorders, including oral (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.81-3.47) and oropharyngeal malignancies (RR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.99-8.02).
- The RR for laryngeal cancer was significantly higher in the patients with a cannabis-related disorder (RR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.72-14.90).
- The findings suggest that cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancers, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms involved.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this cohort study, cannabis disorder diagnosis was independently associated with greater risk of subsequent development of any [head or neck cancer] as well as cancers in various subsites of the head and neck among US adults. When limited to cases of [such cancers] occurring greater than 1 year after cannabis use disorder diagnosis, many of the associations increased, demonstrating additional strength in the association,” the authors of the study wrote.
“The association of cannabis and head and neck cancer in this study spanned 2 decades during a rapid growth in use. If this association is causative, the burden of [head and neck cancers] attributable to cannabis will continue to increase, and perhaps dramatically,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the journal article. “Given that cannabis is now a $20 billion industry in the US alone with expanding availability, use, and popularity, this may be “déjà vu, all over again” without appropriate research to understand the potential carcinogenic and salutatory effects of cannabis. Or, in the words of Yogi Berra, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tyler J. Gallagher and Niels C. Kokot, MD, at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had limited information about cohort composition and length of follow-up, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The lack of direct exposure duration, intensity, and dosage information limits the ability to analyze dose-response relationships. Potential inconsistency of diagnosis and reliance on medical record codes may introduce bias. Cannabis use is likely underreported, which could decrease the relative risks discovered. The study was further limited by the lack of information on dosage and frequency of cannabis use, as well as some controls, including alcohol and tobacco use.
DISCLOSURES:
Gallagher disclosed receiving grants from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
The study analyzed data from over four million patients, highlighting the potential carcinogenic effects of the substance.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from a globally federated health research network TriNetX, which included over 90 million men and women from 64 health care organizations in the United States.
- More than 4.1 million patients were included in the analysis, including 116,076 individuals diagnosed with cannabis-related disorder and 3.9 million without the disorder. Cannabis-related disorders involve the excessive use of cannabis with associated psychosocial symptoms, such as impaired social and/or occupational functioning.
- Patients with cannabis-related disorder were matched with those without the disorder based on demographic characteristics, alcohol-related disorders, and tobacco use.
- The primary outcome was the diagnosis of head and neck cancer, including subsites such as oral, oropharyngeal, nasopharyngeal, laryngeal, hypopharyngeal, and salivary gland malignancies.
- Propensity score matching and Poisson regression analysis were used to compare the incidence of head and neck cancers between the groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- According to the researchers, patients with a cannabis-related disorder had a higher risk for any head and neck cancer (relative risk [RR], 3.49; 95% CI, 2.78-4.39) than those without the disorder.
- The risk for specific cancers was also higher in the group with cannabis-related disorders, including oral (RR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.81-3.47) and oropharyngeal malignancies (RR, 4.90; 95% CI, 2.99-8.02).
- The RR for laryngeal cancer was significantly higher in the patients with a cannabis-related disorder (RR, 8.39; 95% CI, 4.72-14.90).
- The findings suggest that cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased risk for head and neck cancers, highlighting the need for further research to understand the mechanisms involved.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this cohort study, cannabis disorder diagnosis was independently associated with greater risk of subsequent development of any [head or neck cancer] as well as cancers in various subsites of the head and neck among US adults. When limited to cases of [such cancers] occurring greater than 1 year after cannabis use disorder diagnosis, many of the associations increased, demonstrating additional strength in the association,” the authors of the study wrote.
“The association of cannabis and head and neck cancer in this study spanned 2 decades during a rapid growth in use. If this association is causative, the burden of [head and neck cancers] attributable to cannabis will continue to increase, and perhaps dramatically,” said the authors of an editorial accompanying the journal article. “Given that cannabis is now a $20 billion industry in the US alone with expanding availability, use, and popularity, this may be “déjà vu, all over again” without appropriate research to understand the potential carcinogenic and salutatory effects of cannabis. Or, in the words of Yogi Berra, “If you don’t know where you are going, you might wind up someplace else.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Tyler J. Gallagher and Niels C. Kokot, MD, at the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. It was published online in JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery.
LIMITATIONS:
The study had limited information about cohort composition and length of follow-up, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. The lack of direct exposure duration, intensity, and dosage information limits the ability to analyze dose-response relationships. Potential inconsistency of diagnosis and reliance on medical record codes may introduce bias. Cannabis use is likely underreported, which could decrease the relative risks discovered. The study was further limited by the lack of information on dosage and frequency of cannabis use, as well as some controls, including alcohol and tobacco use.
DISCLOSURES:
Gallagher disclosed receiving grants from the Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
High-Frequency Electric Nerve Block Shows Promise in Postamputation Pain Management
TOPLINE:
in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
- Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
- Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
- The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.
TAKEAWAY:
- A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
- The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
- Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
- Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.
IN PRACTICE:
The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”
“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.
DISCLOSURES:
The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.
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:
in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
- Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
- Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
- The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.
TAKEAWAY:
- A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
- The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
- Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
- Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.
IN PRACTICE:
The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”
“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.
DISCLOSURES:
The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.
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:
in a new study, presenting a potential new therapeutic option for amputees.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study enrolled 180 patients with unilateral lower limb amputations who were experiencing severe post-procedure pain.
- Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 3 months of treatment with either a high-frequency nerve block (Altius; Neuros Medical) or an active sham.
- Effectiveness was measured by the percentage of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in pain in more than half of the treatment sessions.
- The researchers attempted to control for variables including pain type and baseline pain intensity.
TAKEAWAY:
- A total of 24.7% of patients in the group that received the nerve block were responders at 30 minutes post-treatment, significantly higher than 7.1% in the control group (P = .002).
- The rate of response rose to 46.8% in the treatment group at 120 minutes, compared with 22.2% in the sham group (P = .001).
- Patients who received the nerve block reported a greater improvement in their score on the Brief Pain Inventory than those in the sham arm — 2.3 ± 0.29 vs 1.3 ± 0.26, respectively (P = .01).
- Use of opioids trended toward a greater reduction in the treatment group, although that finding was not statistically significant.
IN PRACTICE:
The results suggested “high-frequency electric nerve block could be a viable option for managing chronic post-amputation pain, potentially improving patients’ quality of life and reducing reliance on opioids,” the authors wrote. “The study addresses a critical gap in treatment options for amputees suffering from persistent pain, offering evidence for a novel therapeutic approach.”
“We have never seen a study of this magnitude and rigor in this patient population,” said lead author Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in a press release about the data. “The data demonstrated clear and lasting benefit of treatment for pain reduction and functional outcomes at 3 months, creating great optimism for the long-term study results. These findings represent a significant advancement for an at-risk and underserved patient population in desperate need of reliable and effective treatment.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Leonardo Kapural, MD, PhD, of the Carolinas Pain Institute in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and was published online in the Journal of Pain Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The sample size of 180 participants may limit the generalizability of the findings to all amputees. A 3-month duration for assessing treatment efficacy may not capture long-term outcomes and effects. The active-sham control design, while rigorous, may not fully account for the placebo effects inherent in pain perception studies.
DISCLOSURES:
The QUEST study was funded by Neuros Medical Inc. Dr. Kapural reported personal fees from various medical companies, unrelated to this work. No other conflicts of interest were reported in this work.
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.
Melatonin May Cut Risk for Age-Related Eye Disease
TOPLINE:
Melatonin supplementation is linked to a reduced risk for developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and slowing its progression, suggesting potential as a preventive therapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the TriNetX database, covering electronic medical records across the United States from December 2023 to March 2024.
- The retrospective study included patients aged ≥ 50 years, divided into groups based on their history of AMD and melatonin medication codes between November 2008 and November 2023.
- Propensity score matching was used to compare melatonin users and nonusers for the risk for developing any form of AMD or the progression to exudative AMD from the nonexudative form of the condition.
TAKEAWAY:
- Use of melatonin was associated with a 58% reduction in the risk for developing AMD, according to the researchers.
- In people with nonexudative AMD, use of the supplement was linked to a 56% lower risk for progression to exudative AMD.
- The findings were consistent across age groups, suggesting melatonin’s benefits may extend to older populations at higher risk for AMD, the researchers reported.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this cohort study of 121,523 patients with no history of AMD aged ≥ 50 years, taking melatonin was associated with a decreased risk of developing AMD,” the authors of the study wrote. “Likewise, among 66,253 patients with preexisting nonexudative AMD, melatonin supplementation was negatively associated with the rate of progression to exudative AMD.”
Studies in animals and humans have shown melatonin may be a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent and have both antiangiogenic and mitochondrial-preserving properties, the authors noted. The new findings “provide a rationale for expanding clinical research on the potential therapeutic efficacy of melatonin in preventing AMD development or its progression,” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Hejin Jeong, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, and was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on diagnostic codes may have limited the accuracy of identifying AMD progression. Variations in coding practices and the reporting of over-the-counter medications like melatonin could have influenced the results. The study did not control for all modifiable risk factors for AMD, which may have introduced healthy user bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported various potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Cleveland Eye Bank Foundation.
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:
Melatonin supplementation is linked to a reduced risk for developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and slowing its progression, suggesting potential as a preventive therapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the TriNetX database, covering electronic medical records across the United States from December 2023 to March 2024.
- The retrospective study included patients aged ≥ 50 years, divided into groups based on their history of AMD and melatonin medication codes between November 2008 and November 2023.
- Propensity score matching was used to compare melatonin users and nonusers for the risk for developing any form of AMD or the progression to exudative AMD from the nonexudative form of the condition.
TAKEAWAY:
- Use of melatonin was associated with a 58% reduction in the risk for developing AMD, according to the researchers.
- In people with nonexudative AMD, use of the supplement was linked to a 56% lower risk for progression to exudative AMD.
- The findings were consistent across age groups, suggesting melatonin’s benefits may extend to older populations at higher risk for AMD, the researchers reported.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this cohort study of 121,523 patients with no history of AMD aged ≥ 50 years, taking melatonin was associated with a decreased risk of developing AMD,” the authors of the study wrote. “Likewise, among 66,253 patients with preexisting nonexudative AMD, melatonin supplementation was negatively associated with the rate of progression to exudative AMD.”
Studies in animals and humans have shown melatonin may be a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent and have both antiangiogenic and mitochondrial-preserving properties, the authors noted. The new findings “provide a rationale for expanding clinical research on the potential therapeutic efficacy of melatonin in preventing AMD development or its progression,” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Hejin Jeong, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, and was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on diagnostic codes may have limited the accuracy of identifying AMD progression. Variations in coding practices and the reporting of over-the-counter medications like melatonin could have influenced the results. The study did not control for all modifiable risk factors for AMD, which may have introduced healthy user bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported various potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Cleveland Eye Bank Foundation.
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:
Melatonin supplementation is linked to a reduced risk for developing age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and slowing its progression, suggesting potential as a preventive therapy.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers analyzed data from the TriNetX database, covering electronic medical records across the United States from December 2023 to March 2024.
- The retrospective study included patients aged ≥ 50 years, divided into groups based on their history of AMD and melatonin medication codes between November 2008 and November 2023.
- Propensity score matching was used to compare melatonin users and nonusers for the risk for developing any form of AMD or the progression to exudative AMD from the nonexudative form of the condition.
TAKEAWAY:
- Use of melatonin was associated with a 58% reduction in the risk for developing AMD, according to the researchers.
- In people with nonexudative AMD, use of the supplement was linked to a 56% lower risk for progression to exudative AMD.
- The findings were consistent across age groups, suggesting melatonin’s benefits may extend to older populations at higher risk for AMD, the researchers reported.
IN PRACTICE:
“In this cohort study of 121,523 patients with no history of AMD aged ≥ 50 years, taking melatonin was associated with a decreased risk of developing AMD,” the authors of the study wrote. “Likewise, among 66,253 patients with preexisting nonexudative AMD, melatonin supplementation was negatively associated with the rate of progression to exudative AMD.”
Studies in animals and humans have shown melatonin may be a potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent and have both antiangiogenic and mitochondrial-preserving properties, the authors noted. The new findings “provide a rationale for expanding clinical research on the potential therapeutic efficacy of melatonin in preventing AMD development or its progression,” they added.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Hejin Jeong, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, and was published online in JAMA Ophthalmology.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s reliance on diagnostic codes may have limited the accuracy of identifying AMD progression. Variations in coding practices and the reporting of over-the-counter medications like melatonin could have influenced the results. The study did not control for all modifiable risk factors for AMD, which may have introduced healthy user bias.
DISCLOSURES:
The authors reported various potential conflicts of interest, including receiving personal fees and grants from various pharmaceutical companies. The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Cleveland Eye Bank Foundation.
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.