User login
Plant-based diet cut hot flashes 78%: WAVS study
Women eating a reduced-fat vegan diet combined with a daily serving of soybeans experienced a 78% reduction in frequency of menopausal hot flashes over 12 weeks, in a small, nonblinded, randomized-controlled trial.
“We do not fully understand yet why this combination works, but it seems that these three elements are key: avoiding animal products, reducing fat, and adding a serving of soybeans,” lead researcher Neal Barnard, MD, explained in a press release. “These new results suggest that a diet change should be considered as a first-line treatment for troublesome vasomotor symptoms, including night sweats and hot flashes,” added Dr. Barnard, who is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and adjunct professor at George Washington University, Washington. 
But, while “the findings from this very small study complement everything we know about the benefits of an excellent diet and the health benefits of soy,” they should be interpreted with some caution, commented Susan Reed, MD, president of the North American Menopause Society, and associate program director of the women’s reproductive research program at the University of Washington, Seattle.
For the trial, called WAVS (Women’s Study for the Alleviation of Vasomotor Symptoms), the researchers randomized 84 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate to severe hot flashes daily to either the intervention or usual diet, with a total of 71 subjects completing the 12-week study, published in Menopause. Criteria for exclusion included any cause of vasomotor symptoms other than natural menopause, current use of a low-fat, vegan diet that includes daily soy products, soy allergy, and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to avoid animal-derived foods, minimize their use of oils and fatty foods such as nuts and avocados, and include half a cup (86 g) of cooked soybeans daily in their diets. They were also offered 1-hour virtual group meetings each week, in which a registered dietitian or research staff provided information on food preparation and managing common dietary challenges.
Control group participants were asked to continue their usual diets and attend four 1-hour group sessions.
At baseline and then after the 12-week study period, dietary intake was self-recorded for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, hot flash frequency and severity was recorded for 1 week using a mobile app, and the effect of menopausal symptoms on quality of life was measured using the vasomotor, psychosocial, physical, and sexual domains of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire.
Equol production was also assessed in a subset of 15 intervention and 12 control participants who had urinary isoflavone concentrations measured after eating half a cup (86 g) of soybeans twice daily for 3 days. This was based on the theory that diets such as the intervention in this study “seem to foster the growth of gut bacteria capable of converting daidzein to equol,” noted the authors. The ability to produce equol is detected more frequently in individuals following vegetarian diets than in omnivores and … has been proposed as a factor in soy’s apparent health benefits.”
The study found that total hot flash frequency decreased by 78% in the intervention group (P < .001) and 39% (P < .001) in the control group (between-group P = .003), and moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 88% versus 34%, respectively (from 5.0 to 0.6 per day, P < .001 vs. from 4.4 to 2.9 per day, P < .001; between-group P < .001). Among participants with at least seven moderate to severe hot flashes per day at baseline, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 93% (from 10.6 to 0.7 per day) in the intervention group (P < .001) and 36% (from 9.0 to 5.8 per day) in the control group (P = .01, between-group P < .001). The changes in hot flashes were paralleled by changes in the MENQOL findings, with significant between-group differences in the vasomotor (P = 0.004), physical (P = 0.01), and sexual (P = 0.03) domains.
Changes in frequency of severe hot flashes correlated directly with changes in fat intake, and inversely with changes in carbohydrate and fiber intake, such that “the greater the reduction in fat intake and the greater the increases in carbohydrate and fiber consumption, the greater the reduction in severe hot flashes,” noted the researchers. Mean body weight also decreased by 3.6 kg in the intervention group and 0.2 kg in the control group (P < .001). “Equol-production status had no apparent effect on hot flashes,” they added.
The study is the second phase of WAVS, which comprises two parts, the first of which showed similar results, but was conducted in the fall, raising questions about whether cooler temperatures were partly responsible for the results. Phase 2 of WAVS enrolled participants in the spring “ruling out the effect of outside temperature,” noted the authors.
“Eating a healthy diet at midlife is so important for long-term health and a sense of well-being for peri- and postmenopausal women,” said Dr Reed, but she urged caution in interpreting the findings. “This was an unblinded study,” she told this news organization. “Women were recruited to this study anticipating that they would be in a study on a soy diet. Individuals who sign up for a study are hoping for benefit from the intervention. The controls who don’t get the soy diet are often disappointed, so there is no benefit from a nonblinded control arm for their hot flashes. And that is exactly what we saw here. Blinded studies can hide what you are getting, so everyone in the study (intervention and controls) has the same anticipated benefit. But you cannot blind a soy diet.”
Dr. Reed also noted that, while the biologic mechanism of benefit should be equol production, this was not shown – given that both equol producers and nonproducers in the soy intervention reported marked symptom reduction.
“Only prior studies with estrogen interventions have observed reductions of hot flashes of the amount reported here,” she concluded. “Hopefully future large studies will clarify the role of soy diet for decreasing hot flashes.”
Dr. Barnard writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources. Dr. Reed has no relevant disclosures.
Women eating a reduced-fat vegan diet combined with a daily serving of soybeans experienced a 78% reduction in frequency of menopausal hot flashes over 12 weeks, in a small, nonblinded, randomized-controlled trial.
“We do not fully understand yet why this combination works, but it seems that these three elements are key: avoiding animal products, reducing fat, and adding a serving of soybeans,” lead researcher Neal Barnard, MD, explained in a press release. “These new results suggest that a diet change should be considered as a first-line treatment for troublesome vasomotor symptoms, including night sweats and hot flashes,” added Dr. Barnard, who is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and adjunct professor at George Washington University, Washington.
But, while “the findings from this very small study complement everything we know about the benefits of an excellent diet and the health benefits of soy,” they should be interpreted with some caution, commented Susan Reed, MD, president of the North American Menopause Society, and associate program director of the women’s reproductive research program at the University of Washington, Seattle.
For the trial, called WAVS (Women’s Study for the Alleviation of Vasomotor Symptoms), the researchers randomized 84 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate to severe hot flashes daily to either the intervention or usual diet, with a total of 71 subjects completing the 12-week study, published in Menopause. Criteria for exclusion included any cause of vasomotor symptoms other than natural menopause, current use of a low-fat, vegan diet that includes daily soy products, soy allergy, and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to avoid animal-derived foods, minimize their use of oils and fatty foods such as nuts and avocados, and include half a cup (86 g) of cooked soybeans daily in their diets. They were also offered 1-hour virtual group meetings each week, in which a registered dietitian or research staff provided information on food preparation and managing common dietary challenges.
Control group participants were asked to continue their usual diets and attend four 1-hour group sessions.
At baseline and then after the 12-week study period, dietary intake was self-recorded for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, hot flash frequency and severity was recorded for 1 week using a mobile app, and the effect of menopausal symptoms on quality of life was measured using the vasomotor, psychosocial, physical, and sexual domains of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire.
Equol production was also assessed in a subset of 15 intervention and 12 control participants who had urinary isoflavone concentrations measured after eating half a cup (86 g) of soybeans twice daily for 3 days. This was based on the theory that diets such as the intervention in this study “seem to foster the growth of gut bacteria capable of converting daidzein to equol,” noted the authors. The ability to produce equol is detected more frequently in individuals following vegetarian diets than in omnivores and … has been proposed as a factor in soy’s apparent health benefits.”
The study found that total hot flash frequency decreased by 78% in the intervention group (P < .001) and 39% (P < .001) in the control group (between-group P = .003), and moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 88% versus 34%, respectively (from 5.0 to 0.6 per day, P < .001 vs. from 4.4 to 2.9 per day, P < .001; between-group P < .001). Among participants with at least seven moderate to severe hot flashes per day at baseline, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 93% (from 10.6 to 0.7 per day) in the intervention group (P < .001) and 36% (from 9.0 to 5.8 per day) in the control group (P = .01, between-group P < .001). The changes in hot flashes were paralleled by changes in the MENQOL findings, with significant between-group differences in the vasomotor (P = 0.004), physical (P = 0.01), and sexual (P = 0.03) domains.
Changes in frequency of severe hot flashes correlated directly with changes in fat intake, and inversely with changes in carbohydrate and fiber intake, such that “the greater the reduction in fat intake and the greater the increases in carbohydrate and fiber consumption, the greater the reduction in severe hot flashes,” noted the researchers. Mean body weight also decreased by 3.6 kg in the intervention group and 0.2 kg in the control group (P < .001). “Equol-production status had no apparent effect on hot flashes,” they added.
The study is the second phase of WAVS, which comprises two parts, the first of which showed similar results, but was conducted in the fall, raising questions about whether cooler temperatures were partly responsible for the results. Phase 2 of WAVS enrolled participants in the spring “ruling out the effect of outside temperature,” noted the authors.
“Eating a healthy diet at midlife is so important for long-term health and a sense of well-being for peri- and postmenopausal women,” said Dr Reed, but she urged caution in interpreting the findings. “This was an unblinded study,” she told this news organization. “Women were recruited to this study anticipating that they would be in a study on a soy diet. Individuals who sign up for a study are hoping for benefit from the intervention. The controls who don’t get the soy diet are often disappointed, so there is no benefit from a nonblinded control arm for their hot flashes. And that is exactly what we saw here. Blinded studies can hide what you are getting, so everyone in the study (intervention and controls) has the same anticipated benefit. But you cannot blind a soy diet.”
Dr. Reed also noted that, while the biologic mechanism of benefit should be equol production, this was not shown – given that both equol producers and nonproducers in the soy intervention reported marked symptom reduction.
“Only prior studies with estrogen interventions have observed reductions of hot flashes of the amount reported here,” she concluded. “Hopefully future large studies will clarify the role of soy diet for decreasing hot flashes.”
Dr. Barnard writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources. Dr. Reed has no relevant disclosures.
Women eating a reduced-fat vegan diet combined with a daily serving of soybeans experienced a 78% reduction in frequency of menopausal hot flashes over 12 weeks, in a small, nonblinded, randomized-controlled trial.
“We do not fully understand yet why this combination works, but it seems that these three elements are key: avoiding animal products, reducing fat, and adding a serving of soybeans,” lead researcher Neal Barnard, MD, explained in a press release. “These new results suggest that a diet change should be considered as a first-line treatment for troublesome vasomotor symptoms, including night sweats and hot flashes,” added Dr. Barnard, who is president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and adjunct professor at George Washington University, Washington.
But, while “the findings from this very small study complement everything we know about the benefits of an excellent diet and the health benefits of soy,” they should be interpreted with some caution, commented Susan Reed, MD, president of the North American Menopause Society, and associate program director of the women’s reproductive research program at the University of Washington, Seattle.
For the trial, called WAVS (Women’s Study for the Alleviation of Vasomotor Symptoms), the researchers randomized 84 postmenopausal women with at least two moderate to severe hot flashes daily to either the intervention or usual diet, with a total of 71 subjects completing the 12-week study, published in Menopause. Criteria for exclusion included any cause of vasomotor symptoms other than natural menopause, current use of a low-fat, vegan diet that includes daily soy products, soy allergy, and body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2.
Participants in the intervention group were asked to avoid animal-derived foods, minimize their use of oils and fatty foods such as nuts and avocados, and include half a cup (86 g) of cooked soybeans daily in their diets. They were also offered 1-hour virtual group meetings each week, in which a registered dietitian or research staff provided information on food preparation and managing common dietary challenges.
Control group participants were asked to continue their usual diets and attend four 1-hour group sessions.
At baseline and then after the 12-week study period, dietary intake was self-recorded for 2 weekdays and 1 weekend day, hot flash frequency and severity was recorded for 1 week using a mobile app, and the effect of menopausal symptoms on quality of life was measured using the vasomotor, psychosocial, physical, and sexual domains of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQOL) questionnaire.
Equol production was also assessed in a subset of 15 intervention and 12 control participants who had urinary isoflavone concentrations measured after eating half a cup (86 g) of soybeans twice daily for 3 days. This was based on the theory that diets such as the intervention in this study “seem to foster the growth of gut bacteria capable of converting daidzein to equol,” noted the authors. The ability to produce equol is detected more frequently in individuals following vegetarian diets than in omnivores and … has been proposed as a factor in soy’s apparent health benefits.”
The study found that total hot flash frequency decreased by 78% in the intervention group (P < .001) and 39% (P < .001) in the control group (between-group P = .003), and moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 88% versus 34%, respectively (from 5.0 to 0.6 per day, P < .001 vs. from 4.4 to 2.9 per day, P < .001; between-group P < .001). Among participants with at least seven moderate to severe hot flashes per day at baseline, moderate to severe hot flashes decreased by 93% (from 10.6 to 0.7 per day) in the intervention group (P < .001) and 36% (from 9.0 to 5.8 per day) in the control group (P = .01, between-group P < .001). The changes in hot flashes were paralleled by changes in the MENQOL findings, with significant between-group differences in the vasomotor (P = 0.004), physical (P = 0.01), and sexual (P = 0.03) domains.
Changes in frequency of severe hot flashes correlated directly with changes in fat intake, and inversely with changes in carbohydrate and fiber intake, such that “the greater the reduction in fat intake and the greater the increases in carbohydrate and fiber consumption, the greater the reduction in severe hot flashes,” noted the researchers. Mean body weight also decreased by 3.6 kg in the intervention group and 0.2 kg in the control group (P < .001). “Equol-production status had no apparent effect on hot flashes,” they added.
The study is the second phase of WAVS, which comprises two parts, the first of which showed similar results, but was conducted in the fall, raising questions about whether cooler temperatures were partly responsible for the results. Phase 2 of WAVS enrolled participants in the spring “ruling out the effect of outside temperature,” noted the authors.
“Eating a healthy diet at midlife is so important for long-term health and a sense of well-being for peri- and postmenopausal women,” said Dr Reed, but she urged caution in interpreting the findings. “This was an unblinded study,” she told this news organization. “Women were recruited to this study anticipating that they would be in a study on a soy diet. Individuals who sign up for a study are hoping for benefit from the intervention. The controls who don’t get the soy diet are often disappointed, so there is no benefit from a nonblinded control arm for their hot flashes. And that is exactly what we saw here. Blinded studies can hide what you are getting, so everyone in the study (intervention and controls) has the same anticipated benefit. But you cannot blind a soy diet.”
Dr. Reed also noted that, while the biologic mechanism of benefit should be equol production, this was not shown – given that both equol producers and nonproducers in the soy intervention reported marked symptom reduction.
“Only prior studies with estrogen interventions have observed reductions of hot flashes of the amount reported here,” she concluded. “Hopefully future large studies will clarify the role of soy diet for decreasing hot flashes.”
Dr. Barnard writes books and articles and gives lectures related to nutrition and health and has received royalties and honoraria from these sources. Dr. Reed has no relevant disclosures.
Remote assessment of atopic dermatitis is feasible with patient-provided images: Study
MONTREAL – , as well as the possibility of conducting remote clinical trials that would be less expensive and less burdensome for participants, according to investigators, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
Still, practical barriers need to be addressed, particularly the problem of image quality, noted study investigator Aviël Ragamin, MD, from the department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Good-quality images are crucial, [and] in our study, patients didn’t have any incentive to provide images because they had already received their medical consultation,” he explained. He suggested that this problem could be overcome by providing technical support for patients and compensation for trial participants.
The study included 87 children (median age, 7 years), who were assessed for AD severity at an academic outpatient clinic. The in-person visit included assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, as well as the collection of whole-body clinical images. Parents were then asked to return home and to provide their own clinical images and self-administered EASI assessments of their child for comparison. Four raters were asked to rate all images twice and to compare in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores based on the images.
At the in-clinic visit, the median EASI score of the group was 8.8. The majority of patients had moderate (46.6%) or severe (14.8%) AD. Roughly 40% of the patients had darker skin (Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).
Using Spearman rank correlation of 1,534 in-clinic and 425 patient-provided images, the study found good inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical image assessment and strong agreement between images and the in-clinic EASI scores. The top outliers in the assessment were individuals with either darker skin or significant postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which are “the most difficult cases to rate, based on images,” Dr. Ragamin noted.
There was only moderate correlation between the in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores, with a significant number of patients either underestimating or overestimating their AD severity, he added.
Overall, the main problem with remote assessment seems to be the feasibility of patients providing images, said Dr. Ragamin. Only 36.8% of parents provided any images at all, and of these, 1 of 5 were deemed too blurry, leaving just 13 for final assessment, he explained.
“Pragmatically, it’s tricky,” said Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, who was asked to comment on the study. “It takes long enough to do an EASI score in person, let alone looking through blurry pictures that take too long to load into your electronic medical record. We know it works, but when our hospital went virtual [during the COVID pandemic] ... most of my patients with chronic eczema weren’t even sending me pictures.”
Regarding the utility of remote, full-body photography in clinical practice, he said, “There’s too many feasibility hoops to jump through at this point. The most promise I see is for clinical trials, where it’s hard to get people to come in.”
Dr. Ragamin and Dr. Drucker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – , as well as the possibility of conducting remote clinical trials that would be less expensive and less burdensome for participants, according to investigators, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
Still, practical barriers need to be addressed, particularly the problem of image quality, noted study investigator Aviël Ragamin, MD, from the department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Good-quality images are crucial, [and] in our study, patients didn’t have any incentive to provide images because they had already received their medical consultation,” he explained. He suggested that this problem could be overcome by providing technical support for patients and compensation for trial participants.
The study included 87 children (median age, 7 years), who were assessed for AD severity at an academic outpatient clinic. The in-person visit included assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, as well as the collection of whole-body clinical images. Parents were then asked to return home and to provide their own clinical images and self-administered EASI assessments of their child for comparison. Four raters were asked to rate all images twice and to compare in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores based on the images.
At the in-clinic visit, the median EASI score of the group was 8.8. The majority of patients had moderate (46.6%) or severe (14.8%) AD. Roughly 40% of the patients had darker skin (Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).
Using Spearman rank correlation of 1,534 in-clinic and 425 patient-provided images, the study found good inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical image assessment and strong agreement between images and the in-clinic EASI scores. The top outliers in the assessment were individuals with either darker skin or significant postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which are “the most difficult cases to rate, based on images,” Dr. Ragamin noted.
There was only moderate correlation between the in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores, with a significant number of patients either underestimating or overestimating their AD severity, he added.
Overall, the main problem with remote assessment seems to be the feasibility of patients providing images, said Dr. Ragamin. Only 36.8% of parents provided any images at all, and of these, 1 of 5 were deemed too blurry, leaving just 13 for final assessment, he explained.
“Pragmatically, it’s tricky,” said Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, who was asked to comment on the study. “It takes long enough to do an EASI score in person, let alone looking through blurry pictures that take too long to load into your electronic medical record. We know it works, but when our hospital went virtual [during the COVID pandemic] ... most of my patients with chronic eczema weren’t even sending me pictures.”
Regarding the utility of remote, full-body photography in clinical practice, he said, “There’s too many feasibility hoops to jump through at this point. The most promise I see is for clinical trials, where it’s hard to get people to come in.”
Dr. Ragamin and Dr. Drucker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – , as well as the possibility of conducting remote clinical trials that would be less expensive and less burdensome for participants, according to investigators, who presented the study at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
Still, practical barriers need to be addressed, particularly the problem of image quality, noted study investigator Aviël Ragamin, MD, from the department of dermatology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“Good-quality images are crucial, [and] in our study, patients didn’t have any incentive to provide images because they had already received their medical consultation,” he explained. He suggested that this problem could be overcome by providing technical support for patients and compensation for trial participants.
The study included 87 children (median age, 7 years), who were assessed for AD severity at an academic outpatient clinic. The in-person visit included assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, as well as the collection of whole-body clinical images. Parents were then asked to return home and to provide their own clinical images and self-administered EASI assessments of their child for comparison. Four raters were asked to rate all images twice and to compare in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores based on the images.
At the in-clinic visit, the median EASI score of the group was 8.8. The majority of patients had moderate (46.6%) or severe (14.8%) AD. Roughly 40% of the patients had darker skin (Fitzpatrick skin types IV–VI).
Using Spearman rank correlation of 1,534 in-clinic and 425 patient-provided images, the study found good inter- and intra-rater reliability for clinical image assessment and strong agreement between images and the in-clinic EASI scores. The top outliers in the assessment were individuals with either darker skin or significant postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, which are “the most difficult cases to rate, based on images,” Dr. Ragamin noted.
There was only moderate correlation between the in-clinic and self-administered EASI scores, with a significant number of patients either underestimating or overestimating their AD severity, he added.
Overall, the main problem with remote assessment seems to be the feasibility of patients providing images, said Dr. Ragamin. Only 36.8% of parents provided any images at all, and of these, 1 of 5 were deemed too blurry, leaving just 13 for final assessment, he explained.
“Pragmatically, it’s tricky,” said Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, who was asked to comment on the study. “It takes long enough to do an EASI score in person, let alone looking through blurry pictures that take too long to load into your electronic medical record. We know it works, but when our hospital went virtual [during the COVID pandemic] ... most of my patients with chronic eczema weren’t even sending me pictures.”
Regarding the utility of remote, full-body photography in clinical practice, he said, “There’s too many feasibility hoops to jump through at this point. The most promise I see is for clinical trials, where it’s hard to get people to come in.”
Dr. Ragamin and Dr. Drucker have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Dupilumab-associated ocular surface disease in patients with AD: Unraveling the link
MONTREAL – , according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
In a prospective trial of 69 patients with AD starting dupilumab (Dupixent), baseline OSD was found in 91.3%, with about half of these patients reporting no symptoms, said investigator Roselie Achten, MD, from the National Expertise Center for Atopic Dermatitis at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Among these patients, ophthalmologic assessment revealed no OSD in 6 patients and mild OSD in 37 patients, but moderate and severe disease in 20 and 6 patients, respectively, she said, adding that 71% of the group also reported allergic conjunctivitis at baseline.
The patients enrolled in the study who started dupilumab were aged 36-38 years, with Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 14.7-16.5. Baseline ocular surface health was assessed with the Utrecht Ophthalmic Inflammatory and Allergic disease (UTOPIA) score. Tear fluid was collected to analyze biomarkers and dupilumab levels, and impression cytology was performed to collect conjunctival tissue cells for analysis of goblet cells. These measurements were repeated at 4 and 28 weeks after the start of therapy.
Over 28 weeks of treatment, 14.5% of patients experienced worsening of OSD, with worsening disease associated with a decline in the number of goblet cells. In addition, dupilumab treatment was associated with a significant decline in the production of Mucin5AC, suggesting a decline in function of the goblet cells. “Our hypothesis that the blocking effect of dupilumab on [interleukin-] IL-13 might lead to less goblet cells and less mucin production,” she explained.
In a subset of 48 patients, the researchers also detected significantly higher tear fluid dupilumab levels among those patients with more severe OSD, with comparable serum levels.
OSD has been reported in up to 34% of dupilumab-treated patients with AD and is the most frequently reported side-effect of this treatment, noted Dr. Achten. This side effect is not reported by other patients treated with dupilumab for other indications, she added, “suggesting that AD patients may have a predisposition to develop OSD during dupilumab treatment.”
Indeed, as recently noted by Vivian Shi, MD, from the department of dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues, “for reasons not well understood, the incidence of conjunctivitis in dupilumab patients with asthma (0%-2.3%), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (1.6%), or eosinophilic esophagitis (0%) is low to none; thus, patients with AD may be particularly susceptible.”
Dr. Achten said that dupilumab-treated patients with AD at her center are prescribed topical tacrolimus and ketotifen eye drops if they develop OSD.
Asked for comment, Melinda Gooderham, MD, who moderated the session, was impressed with the study. “I’d heard about the goblet cells, there were little bits of data here and there, but the tear analysis is something I hadn’t seen before. It was a nice series of experiments that pulled everything together,” she told this news organization. Dr. Gooderham, who is assistant professor at Queens University, in Kingston, Ontario, medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, and consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, said that she first began noticing dupilumab-related OSD as an early trial investigator for the drug. “When you put some patients on the drug it’s almost like tipping the balance – that little bit of mucin they’re dependent on is now reduced and it makes them more symptomatic,” she said.
Though she prescribes lubricating eye drops as prophylaxis for all her dupilumab-treated patients with AD, she recommends referring any patients who develop OSD to an ophthalmologist who is familiar with this specific side effect. “If they just see a random ophthalmologist who doesn’t know dupilumab, and doesn’t know the story around it, they could get any sort of diagnosis, or even be told to stop the medication altogether.”
The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Achten disclosed no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Gooderham is an investigator with Sanofi Genzyme for dupilumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – , according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
In a prospective trial of 69 patients with AD starting dupilumab (Dupixent), baseline OSD was found in 91.3%, with about half of these patients reporting no symptoms, said investigator Roselie Achten, MD, from the National Expertise Center for Atopic Dermatitis at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Among these patients, ophthalmologic assessment revealed no OSD in 6 patients and mild OSD in 37 patients, but moderate and severe disease in 20 and 6 patients, respectively, she said, adding that 71% of the group also reported allergic conjunctivitis at baseline.
The patients enrolled in the study who started dupilumab were aged 36-38 years, with Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 14.7-16.5. Baseline ocular surface health was assessed with the Utrecht Ophthalmic Inflammatory and Allergic disease (UTOPIA) score. Tear fluid was collected to analyze biomarkers and dupilumab levels, and impression cytology was performed to collect conjunctival tissue cells for analysis of goblet cells. These measurements were repeated at 4 and 28 weeks after the start of therapy.
Over 28 weeks of treatment, 14.5% of patients experienced worsening of OSD, with worsening disease associated with a decline in the number of goblet cells. In addition, dupilumab treatment was associated with a significant decline in the production of Mucin5AC, suggesting a decline in function of the goblet cells. “Our hypothesis that the blocking effect of dupilumab on [interleukin-] IL-13 might lead to less goblet cells and less mucin production,” she explained.
In a subset of 48 patients, the researchers also detected significantly higher tear fluid dupilumab levels among those patients with more severe OSD, with comparable serum levels.
OSD has been reported in up to 34% of dupilumab-treated patients with AD and is the most frequently reported side-effect of this treatment, noted Dr. Achten. This side effect is not reported by other patients treated with dupilumab for other indications, she added, “suggesting that AD patients may have a predisposition to develop OSD during dupilumab treatment.”
Indeed, as recently noted by Vivian Shi, MD, from the department of dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues, “for reasons not well understood, the incidence of conjunctivitis in dupilumab patients with asthma (0%-2.3%), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (1.6%), or eosinophilic esophagitis (0%) is low to none; thus, patients with AD may be particularly susceptible.”
Dr. Achten said that dupilumab-treated patients with AD at her center are prescribed topical tacrolimus and ketotifen eye drops if they develop OSD.
Asked for comment, Melinda Gooderham, MD, who moderated the session, was impressed with the study. “I’d heard about the goblet cells, there were little bits of data here and there, but the tear analysis is something I hadn’t seen before. It was a nice series of experiments that pulled everything together,” she told this news organization. Dr. Gooderham, who is assistant professor at Queens University, in Kingston, Ontario, medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, and consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, said that she first began noticing dupilumab-related OSD as an early trial investigator for the drug. “When you put some patients on the drug it’s almost like tipping the balance – that little bit of mucin they’re dependent on is now reduced and it makes them more symptomatic,” she said.
Though she prescribes lubricating eye drops as prophylaxis for all her dupilumab-treated patients with AD, she recommends referring any patients who develop OSD to an ophthalmologist who is familiar with this specific side effect. “If they just see a random ophthalmologist who doesn’t know dupilumab, and doesn’t know the story around it, they could get any sort of diagnosis, or even be told to stop the medication altogether.”
The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Achten disclosed no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Gooderham is an investigator with Sanofi Genzyme for dupilumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – , according to a study presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
In a prospective trial of 69 patients with AD starting dupilumab (Dupixent), baseline OSD was found in 91.3%, with about half of these patients reporting no symptoms, said investigator Roselie Achten, MD, from the National Expertise Center for Atopic Dermatitis at University Medical Center Utrecht, the Netherlands. Among these patients, ophthalmologic assessment revealed no OSD in 6 patients and mild OSD in 37 patients, but moderate and severe disease in 20 and 6 patients, respectively, she said, adding that 71% of the group also reported allergic conjunctivitis at baseline.
The patients enrolled in the study who started dupilumab were aged 36-38 years, with Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores of 14.7-16.5. Baseline ocular surface health was assessed with the Utrecht Ophthalmic Inflammatory and Allergic disease (UTOPIA) score. Tear fluid was collected to analyze biomarkers and dupilumab levels, and impression cytology was performed to collect conjunctival tissue cells for analysis of goblet cells. These measurements were repeated at 4 and 28 weeks after the start of therapy.
Over 28 weeks of treatment, 14.5% of patients experienced worsening of OSD, with worsening disease associated with a decline in the number of goblet cells. In addition, dupilumab treatment was associated with a significant decline in the production of Mucin5AC, suggesting a decline in function of the goblet cells. “Our hypothesis that the blocking effect of dupilumab on [interleukin-] IL-13 might lead to less goblet cells and less mucin production,” she explained.
In a subset of 48 patients, the researchers also detected significantly higher tear fluid dupilumab levels among those patients with more severe OSD, with comparable serum levels.
OSD has been reported in up to 34% of dupilumab-treated patients with AD and is the most frequently reported side-effect of this treatment, noted Dr. Achten. This side effect is not reported by other patients treated with dupilumab for other indications, she added, “suggesting that AD patients may have a predisposition to develop OSD during dupilumab treatment.”
Indeed, as recently noted by Vivian Shi, MD, from the department of dermatology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, and colleagues, “for reasons not well understood, the incidence of conjunctivitis in dupilumab patients with asthma (0%-2.3%), chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (1.6%), or eosinophilic esophagitis (0%) is low to none; thus, patients with AD may be particularly susceptible.”
Dr. Achten said that dupilumab-treated patients with AD at her center are prescribed topical tacrolimus and ketotifen eye drops if they develop OSD.
Asked for comment, Melinda Gooderham, MD, who moderated the session, was impressed with the study. “I’d heard about the goblet cells, there were little bits of data here and there, but the tear analysis is something I hadn’t seen before. It was a nice series of experiments that pulled everything together,” she told this news organization. Dr. Gooderham, who is assistant professor at Queens University, in Kingston, Ontario, medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology in Peterborough, Ontario, and consultant physician at Peterborough Regional Health Centre, said that she first began noticing dupilumab-related OSD as an early trial investigator for the drug. “When you put some patients on the drug it’s almost like tipping the balance – that little bit of mucin they’re dependent on is now reduced and it makes them more symptomatic,” she said.
Though she prescribes lubricating eye drops as prophylaxis for all her dupilumab-treated patients with AD, she recommends referring any patients who develop OSD to an ophthalmologist who is familiar with this specific side effect. “If they just see a random ophthalmologist who doesn’t know dupilumab, and doesn’t know the story around it, they could get any sort of diagnosis, or even be told to stop the medication altogether.”
The study was sponsored by Sanofi. Dr. Achten disclosed no other conflicts of interest. Dr. Gooderham is an investigator with Sanofi Genzyme for dupilumab.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISAD 2022
Evidence mounting that full-body emollients don’t prevent AD in at-risk babies
MONTREAL – , according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).
The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.
At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.
“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”
The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.
“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.
“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.
“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”
Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”
He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.
Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – , according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).
The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.
At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.
“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”
The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.
“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.
“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.
“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”
Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”
He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.
Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – , according to 5-year results of the BEEP randomized trial, reported at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“So far, the science does not look convincing, and I am concerned about the possible harms,” commented senior investigator Hywel C. Williams, DSc, from the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham (England).
The rate of AD at 2 years – the primary outcome of the BEEP trial – have already shown no benefit of either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel plus standard skin-care advice versus standard skin-care advice alone among 1,394 infants at high risk for developing AD. “These are children born to parents with a first-degree relative with eczema,” Dr. Williams explained.
At 2 years, 23% of the emollient group versus 25% of the control group developed eczema (adjusted relative risk, 0.95), and the parent-reported clinical skin infection rate was statistically increased (incidence rate ratio, 1.55). Despite these results, follow-up of BEEP was extended to 5 years to determine if there was a delayed benefit of emollients, both in AD prevention but also with other related disorders, he explained.
“Prevention is so much more logical than treating sick individuals with severe disease who present after a long chain of pathological events with expensive drugs. And even if you can’t primarily prevent eczema, even a small shift in the severity of distribution to the left has major public health implications,” Dr. Williams added. “And if you believe in the atopic march, then if you could prevent eczema, you might be able to prevent subsequent food allergy, asthma, and allergic rhinitis.”
The extension data was based on questionnaires at 3, 4, and 5 years documenting parental reports of doctor-diagnosed eczema and eczema severity, wheezing, allergic rhinitis, food allergy symptoms, and clinical diagnosis, as well as 5-year clinical diagnoses of asthma or allergic rhinitis. About 70% of parents returned their questionnaires at each point, showing no significant difference at 5 years for a clinical diagnosis of eczema (31% in the emollient group vs. 28% in controls), clinical diagnosis of food allergy (15% vs. 14%, respectively), or other outcomes.
“It’s a lovely hypothesis, but did we use the wrong emollients, or did we start it too late? Or should we start facing the possibility that maybe emollients really do not prevent eczema?” Dr. Williams commented, adding that he does not recommend use of emollients for AD prevention.
“There’s more research needed,” agreed panelist Eric Simpson, MD, professor of dermatology at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, whose AD primary prevention CASCADE trial is expected to shed more light on the role of emollients in the near future. “And we can’t just ignore [another] randomized controlled trial that was done really well ... showing a positive effect,” he added, referring to the small, single-center STOP-AD trial.
“We’re always hoping, and it’s scientifically incredibly frustrating that none of this has borne out,” Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital and associate professor at the University of Toronto, told this news organization. “It’s so appealing that emollients early in life would improve the skin barrier and then decrease likelihood of getting eczema. It’s great that there’s a new, large study from Dr. Simpson that is going to be coming out soon, so we’ll have another piece of this puzzle.”
Dr. Drucker said that although it sounds simple, there is much nuance in the question of emollients and skin barrier protection: “Who is the population that you ought to use the emollients in? What kind of emollient? How often and where? All of these things can influence potentially what the results of a trial might be. That’s where there’s still hope. I think the hope fades more and more as more evidence piles up.”
He added that although there currently is not enough evidence to recommend emollients for AD prevention, there is also not enough evidence of harm. “It’s nothing we should be afraid of,” Dr. Drucker advised.
Dr. Williams and Dr. Drucker report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT ISAD 2022
Study finds systemic AD treatment relieves depressive symptoms along with skin symptoms
MONTREAL – presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).
At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.
Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).
The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.
“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.
Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.
Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”
Dr. Joseph pointed out that taking the deep dive also involves being prepared for what comes up. “Once you’ve established there’s a mental health issue, what do you do then?” she said. “If you are a dermatologist, is that in your wheelhouse to address? There’s the education and connection piece for the physician, creating networks where – if you identify a patient who has an issue – who is a person I can send them to? We have these types of connections with infectious disease or with ophthalmologists if there are ocular symptoms, but mental health is one area where there may not be as much support for dermatologists.”
She noted that though all doctors learn how to screen for depression, “there’s the formulaic, yes/no answers, and then there’s the nuanced history-taking, creating a safe space, where the patient is going to answer you fulsomely ... and feel heard. Many of us know how to do that. The question is time.”
Dr. Ivert had no disclosures connected to this study. Dr. Joseph had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).
At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.
Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).
The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.
“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.
Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.
Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”
Dr. Joseph pointed out that taking the deep dive also involves being prepared for what comes up. “Once you’ve established there’s a mental health issue, what do you do then?” she said. “If you are a dermatologist, is that in your wheelhouse to address? There’s the education and connection piece for the physician, creating networks where – if you identify a patient who has an issue – who is a person I can send them to? We have these types of connections with infectious disease or with ophthalmologists if there are ocular symptoms, but mental health is one area where there may not be as much support for dermatologists.”
She noted that though all doctors learn how to screen for depression, “there’s the formulaic, yes/no answers, and then there’s the nuanced history-taking, creating a safe space, where the patient is going to answer you fulsomely ... and feel heard. Many of us know how to do that. The question is time.”
Dr. Ivert had no disclosures connected to this study. Dr. Joseph had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTREAL – presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Atopic Dermatitis.
“Randomized, controlled, phase 3 studies have shown that systemic treatment of AD reduces depressive symptoms, but whether this holds true in real-world cohorts remains to be shown,” said study investigator Lina Ivert, MD, PhD, of the dermatology and venereology unit in the department of medicine at the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm.
The study used data from SwedAD, a newly launched web-based Swedish national registry of patients with AD on systemic treatment between June 2017 and August 2021. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months for the primary outcome of depressive symptoms using the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale–self-report (MADRS-S). Secondary outcomes included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and pruritus visual analog scale/numeric rating scale (VAS/NRS).
At baseline, 120 patients (median age, 39 years; 57.5% men) were started on dupilumab (n = 91), methotrexate (26), or cyclosporin (3). Although almost half had no depression at baseline, mild depression was present in 29.2%, with moderate and severe depression in 20% and 4.2%, respectively.
Among 59 patients with 6-month follow-up data (48 on dupilumab, 10 on methotrexate, 1 on cyclosporin), all nine depressive symptoms in MADRS-S improved significantly, with reduced sleep improving the most (from a median of 3 points to a median of 1 point). Similarly, overall MADRS-S scores improved (from a median of 14 points to a median of 5; P < .001), as did EASI scores (from a median of 20.5 to 2), POEM scores (from a median of 22 to 6), DLQI (from a median of 15 to 3), and pruritus scores (from a median of 7.1 to 1.8; all P < .001).
The analysis also found a strong correlation between the MADRS-S score and all of the secondary outcomes (P < .001 for all). All these improvements remained significant among the 36 patients with 12-month follow-up data.
“The median MADRS-S reduction also remained when we excluded eight patients who were on antidepressants during the study period, so these results cannot be explained by psychiatric medication,” noted Dr. Ivert, adding that three patients with severe suicide ideation at baseline improved their MADRS-S suicide item to less than 2 points. “So, this study taught us to look at the suicide item score and not only the total MADRS-S score,” she commented.
Comparing patients treated with dupilumab with those treated with methotrexate, the analysis showed that though baseline median MADRS-S scores did not differ significantly between them, there was a significant 6-month reduction in the dupilumab group but not in the methotrexate group.
Asked to comment on the findings, moderator Marissa Joseph, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at the University of Toronto, said that “the mental health effects of inflammatory skin conditions like atopic dermatitis are well known, but whether or not they are well explored in the patient-physician interaction is a whole other scenario.” There are time constraints, she said, adding, “it sometimes takes some deep-diving ... but exploring those types of symptoms is something we need to do more of, and the severity of the disease and reasons for treatment are not just what you can see.”
Dr. Joseph pointed out that taking the deep dive also involves being prepared for what comes up. “Once you’ve established there’s a mental health issue, what do you do then?” she said. “If you are a dermatologist, is that in your wheelhouse to address? There’s the education and connection piece for the physician, creating networks where – if you identify a patient who has an issue – who is a person I can send them to? We have these types of connections with infectious disease or with ophthalmologists if there are ocular symptoms, but mental health is one area where there may not be as much support for dermatologists.”
She noted that though all doctors learn how to screen for depression, “there’s the formulaic, yes/no answers, and then there’s the nuanced history-taking, creating a safe space, where the patient is going to answer you fulsomely ... and feel heard. Many of us know how to do that. The question is time.”
Dr. Ivert had no disclosures connected to this study. Dr. Joseph had no disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ISAD 2022
Increased HIV infection linked to pandemic-related access to PrEP
Changes to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access during the COVID-19 pandemic were linked to higher rates of HIV infection among young sexual minority men and gender-diverse individuals who identified as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, according to a national survey.
“The public health crisis surrounding COVID-19 had clear impact on PrEP access and risk of HIV acquisition overall,” said lead investigator Ethan Morgan, PhD, College of Nursing and the Infectious Disease Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus.
he said in an interview.
The online survey was administered in four waves during the first year and a half of the pandemic, starting in March 2020. Participants were recruited through mailing lists, national networks, community partners, and social media.
Among 796 baseline respondents, 300 agreed to three follow-up surveys administered between February and March 2021, between July and August 2021, and between October and November 2021.
Inclusion required participants to identify as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, be between ages 18-29 years, be assigned male at birth, reside in the United States, and have reported anal intercourse with a man in the past 12 months. The researchers noted that given the limited uptake of and adherence to PrEP in the targeted population, they prioritized baseline respondents who reported either current PrEP use or use at least once in their lifetime.
The researchers used separate multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between odds of testing positive for HIV and other STIs across the four online study visits and pandemic-related changes to PrEP access, and pandemic-related changes to sexual activity.
Changes in PrEP access were reported by a total of 109 (13.8%) of baseline respondents, and HIV seroconversion was reported in 25 of 292 respondents (8.6%) who reported their HIV and other STI status at follow-up. STI positivity was reported 25.6% of the baseline cohort (n = 204).
Compared with respondents who reported no changes to PrEP access, those who did report change to access were significantly more likely to report HIV seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-7.68). However, Dr. Morgan emphasized that the study question did not ask how PrEP had changed, only if it had.
“While we presume this survey question corresponds to a diminished access to PrEP medication during the COVID-19 pandemic, the question was: ‘Has your access to PrEP been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic?’ So, it is unfortunately unclear whether access was diminished or improved,” he explained. STI positivity was not associated with PrEP access.
The survey also asked respondents how much the pandemic had impacted their sexual activity (measured on a Likert scale of not at all, a little, moderately, quite a bit, and extremely). Respondents reporting greater impact on their sexual activity were more likely to report an STI (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.40) during the study period.
In addition, though participants reported a mean of 2.8 sexual partners in the past 3 months, those reporting a greater number were more likely to report an STI (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21-1.38).
The researchers suggested that expansion of telehealth and mail-order prescriptions as well as structural-level interventions addressing pandemic-related unemployment and loss of health insurance could have helped preserve access to PrEP.
Commenting on the study, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, noted that self-reported data can be subject to bias. “However, reduction in services for other medical care has been reported frequently throughout COVID and so this finding of reduced PrEP access, and subsequent HIV infection, is completely in line with the other studies,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Gandhi, who is director of the University of California, San Francisco Center for AIDS Research and medical director of the HIV/AIDS Clinic (“Ward 86”) at San Francisco General Hospital, added: “We knew early on in the COVID-19 pandemic that access to and uptake of PrEP was decreased based on data from Boston’s Fenway Institute.”
The Boston data, reported July 2020 at the virtual International AIDS Conference, prompted “a real attempt” by clinicians to increase PrEP access and uptake – raising community awareness, dispensing PrEP through mobile units, and changing prescribing patterns, Dr. Gandhi said. “We usually see patients every 3 months for PrEP but with HIV self-testing, we can extend that interval to every 6 months, and we did so in many centers during COVID.”
The study was funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Morgan and Dr. Gandhi reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Changes to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access during the COVID-19 pandemic were linked to higher rates of HIV infection among young sexual minority men and gender-diverse individuals who identified as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, according to a national survey.
“The public health crisis surrounding COVID-19 had clear impact on PrEP access and risk of HIV acquisition overall,” said lead investigator Ethan Morgan, PhD, College of Nursing and the Infectious Disease Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus.
he said in an interview.
The online survey was administered in four waves during the first year and a half of the pandemic, starting in March 2020. Participants were recruited through mailing lists, national networks, community partners, and social media.
Among 796 baseline respondents, 300 agreed to three follow-up surveys administered between February and March 2021, between July and August 2021, and between October and November 2021.
Inclusion required participants to identify as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, be between ages 18-29 years, be assigned male at birth, reside in the United States, and have reported anal intercourse with a man in the past 12 months. The researchers noted that given the limited uptake of and adherence to PrEP in the targeted population, they prioritized baseline respondents who reported either current PrEP use or use at least once in their lifetime.
The researchers used separate multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between odds of testing positive for HIV and other STIs across the four online study visits and pandemic-related changes to PrEP access, and pandemic-related changes to sexual activity.
Changes in PrEP access were reported by a total of 109 (13.8%) of baseline respondents, and HIV seroconversion was reported in 25 of 292 respondents (8.6%) who reported their HIV and other STI status at follow-up. STI positivity was reported 25.6% of the baseline cohort (n = 204).
Compared with respondents who reported no changes to PrEP access, those who did report change to access were significantly more likely to report HIV seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-7.68). However, Dr. Morgan emphasized that the study question did not ask how PrEP had changed, only if it had.
“While we presume this survey question corresponds to a diminished access to PrEP medication during the COVID-19 pandemic, the question was: ‘Has your access to PrEP been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic?’ So, it is unfortunately unclear whether access was diminished or improved,” he explained. STI positivity was not associated with PrEP access.
The survey also asked respondents how much the pandemic had impacted their sexual activity (measured on a Likert scale of not at all, a little, moderately, quite a bit, and extremely). Respondents reporting greater impact on their sexual activity were more likely to report an STI (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.40) during the study period.
In addition, though participants reported a mean of 2.8 sexual partners in the past 3 months, those reporting a greater number were more likely to report an STI (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21-1.38).
The researchers suggested that expansion of telehealth and mail-order prescriptions as well as structural-level interventions addressing pandemic-related unemployment and loss of health insurance could have helped preserve access to PrEP.
Commenting on the study, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, noted that self-reported data can be subject to bias. “However, reduction in services for other medical care has been reported frequently throughout COVID and so this finding of reduced PrEP access, and subsequent HIV infection, is completely in line with the other studies,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Gandhi, who is director of the University of California, San Francisco Center for AIDS Research and medical director of the HIV/AIDS Clinic (“Ward 86”) at San Francisco General Hospital, added: “We knew early on in the COVID-19 pandemic that access to and uptake of PrEP was decreased based on data from Boston’s Fenway Institute.”
The Boston data, reported July 2020 at the virtual International AIDS Conference, prompted “a real attempt” by clinicians to increase PrEP access and uptake – raising community awareness, dispensing PrEP through mobile units, and changing prescribing patterns, Dr. Gandhi said. “We usually see patients every 3 months for PrEP but with HIV self-testing, we can extend that interval to every 6 months, and we did so in many centers during COVID.”
The study was funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Morgan and Dr. Gandhi reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Changes to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) access during the COVID-19 pandemic were linked to higher rates of HIV infection among young sexual minority men and gender-diverse individuals who identified as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, according to a national survey.
“The public health crisis surrounding COVID-19 had clear impact on PrEP access and risk of HIV acquisition overall,” said lead investigator Ethan Morgan, PhD, College of Nursing and the Infectious Disease Institute at Ohio State University, Columbus.
he said in an interview.
The online survey was administered in four waves during the first year and a half of the pandemic, starting in March 2020. Participants were recruited through mailing lists, national networks, community partners, and social media.
Among 796 baseline respondents, 300 agreed to three follow-up surveys administered between February and March 2021, between July and August 2021, and between October and November 2021.
Inclusion required participants to identify as Black and/or Hispanic/Latino, be between ages 18-29 years, be assigned male at birth, reside in the United States, and have reported anal intercourse with a man in the past 12 months. The researchers noted that given the limited uptake of and adherence to PrEP in the targeted population, they prioritized baseline respondents who reported either current PrEP use or use at least once in their lifetime.
The researchers used separate multivariable logistic regression models to assess the association between odds of testing positive for HIV and other STIs across the four online study visits and pandemic-related changes to PrEP access, and pandemic-related changes to sexual activity.
Changes in PrEP access were reported by a total of 109 (13.8%) of baseline respondents, and HIV seroconversion was reported in 25 of 292 respondents (8.6%) who reported their HIV and other STI status at follow-up. STI positivity was reported 25.6% of the baseline cohort (n = 204).
Compared with respondents who reported no changes to PrEP access, those who did report change to access were significantly more likely to report HIV seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio, 2.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-7.68). However, Dr. Morgan emphasized that the study question did not ask how PrEP had changed, only if it had.
“While we presume this survey question corresponds to a diminished access to PrEP medication during the COVID-19 pandemic, the question was: ‘Has your access to PrEP been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic?’ So, it is unfortunately unclear whether access was diminished or improved,” he explained. STI positivity was not associated with PrEP access.
The survey also asked respondents how much the pandemic had impacted their sexual activity (measured on a Likert scale of not at all, a little, moderately, quite a bit, and extremely). Respondents reporting greater impact on their sexual activity were more likely to report an STI (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.10-1.40) during the study period.
In addition, though participants reported a mean of 2.8 sexual partners in the past 3 months, those reporting a greater number were more likely to report an STI (aOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.21-1.38).
The researchers suggested that expansion of telehealth and mail-order prescriptions as well as structural-level interventions addressing pandemic-related unemployment and loss of health insurance could have helped preserve access to PrEP.
Commenting on the study, Monica Gandhi, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research, noted that self-reported data can be subject to bias. “However, reduction in services for other medical care has been reported frequently throughout COVID and so this finding of reduced PrEP access, and subsequent HIV infection, is completely in line with the other studies,” she said in an interview.
Dr. Gandhi, who is director of the University of California, San Francisco Center for AIDS Research and medical director of the HIV/AIDS Clinic (“Ward 86”) at San Francisco General Hospital, added: “We knew early on in the COVID-19 pandemic that access to and uptake of PrEP was decreased based on data from Boston’s Fenway Institute.”
The Boston data, reported July 2020 at the virtual International AIDS Conference, prompted “a real attempt” by clinicians to increase PrEP access and uptake – raising community awareness, dispensing PrEP through mobile units, and changing prescribing patterns, Dr. Gandhi said. “We usually see patients every 3 months for PrEP but with HIV self-testing, we can extend that interval to every 6 months, and we did so in many centers during COVID.”
The study was funded by National Institute on Drug Abuse, part of the National Institutes of Health.
Dr. Morgan and Dr. Gandhi reported no conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME
Ublituximab bests teriflunomide in head-to-head clinical trials
Study shows ublituximab’s superiority over teriflunomide in suppressing MS relapses and MRI lesions.
Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.
“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.
The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, pave the way for ublituximab’s approval as the third high-efficacy anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody to treat relapsing forms of MS, predicted Patricia Coyle, MD, director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center, and professor of neurology, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Neurosciences Institute, who was not involved in the research. Ublituximab will “widen the anti-CD20 monoclonal choices for MS, and should directly compete with ocrelizumab and ofatumumab,” she said.
Two trials
The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.
Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.
Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).
The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
Similar disability worsening in both groups
A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.
Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.
Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).
While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
Equivalent efficacy
Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”
Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.
The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.
Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.
Study shows ublituximab’s superiority over teriflunomide in suppressing MS relapses and MRI lesions.
Study shows ublituximab’s superiority over teriflunomide in suppressing MS relapses and MRI lesions.
Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.
“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.
The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, pave the way for ublituximab’s approval as the third high-efficacy anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody to treat relapsing forms of MS, predicted Patricia Coyle, MD, director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center, and professor of neurology, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Neurosciences Institute, who was not involved in the research. Ublituximab will “widen the anti-CD20 monoclonal choices for MS, and should directly compete with ocrelizumab and ofatumumab,” she said.
Two trials
The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.
Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.
Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).
The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
Similar disability worsening in both groups
A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.
Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.
Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).
While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
Equivalent efficacy
Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”
Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.
The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.
Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.
Patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) treated with intravenous ublituximab had fewer relapses and brain lesions compared with those treated with oral teriflunomide, although both therapies resulted in similar rates of worsening disability, according to results of the two identical phase 3 ULTIMATE I and II trials.
“In these two 96-week trials involving participants with MS, annualized relapse rates were lower with intravenous ublituximab than with oral teriflunomide. Ublituximab was associated with infusion-related reactions. Larger and longer trials are required to determine the efficacy and safety of ublituximab in patients with relapsing MS, including comparison with other disease-modifying treatments such as existing anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies,” noted lead author Lawrence Steinman, MD, professor of neurology and neurological sciences, pediatrics, and genetics at Stanford (Calif.) University, and colleagues.
The results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, pave the way for ublituximab’s approval as the third high-efficacy anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody to treat relapsing forms of MS, predicted Patricia Coyle, MD, director of the MS Comprehensive Care Center, and professor of neurology, at Stony Brook (N.Y.) Neurosciences Institute, who was not involved in the research. Ublituximab will “widen the anti-CD20 monoclonal choices for MS, and should directly compete with ocrelizumab and ofatumumab,” she said.
Two trials
The double-blind, double-dummy ULTIMATE I and II trials enrolled 549 and 545 participants respectively, with a median follow-up of 95 weeks. Subjects, aged between 18 and 55 years, were randomized to receive either oral placebo and intravenous ublituximab (150 mg on day 1, followed by 450 mg on day 15 and at weeks 24, 48, and 72), or oral teriflunomide (14 mg once daily) and intravenous placebo. The primary endpoint was the annualized relapse rate, defined as the number of confirmed MS relapses per participant-year, with a range of secondary end points including number of lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by 96 weeks, and worsening of disability confirmed at 12 weeks.
Prevention and management of infusion-related reactions was with oral antihistamine and dexamethasone, administered 30 to 60 minutes before each intravenous dose of ublituximab or placebo, as well as reductions in infusion flow rates and discretionary acetaminophen.
Results for the primary endpoint in ULTIMATE I showed the adjusted annualized relapse rate over a period of 96 weeks was 0.08 in the ublituximab group and 0.19 in the teriflunomide group (rate ratio, 0.41; P < .001). Corresponding rates for ULTIMATE II were 0.09 and 0.18 (rate ratio, 0.51; P = .002).
The mean number of lesions in both ublituximab arms of the trials was 0.02 and 0.01 compared with 0.49 and 0.25 in the teriflunomide arms (rate ratios 0.03 and 0.04 respectively; P < .001 for both).
Similar disability worsening in both groups
A pooled analysis of the two trials showed worsening disability in 5.2% of the ublituximab group, and 5.9% of the teriflunomide group (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = 0.51). “In both trials, teriflunomide was associated with a numerically lower rate of worsening of disability than that reported in previous studies with this drug, but no conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons,” noted the authors.
Infusion-related reactions occurred in 47.7% of the participants in the ublituximab group, consisting mainly of mild to moderate pyrexia, headache, chills, and influenza-like illness. “The reactions may have been related to cytokine release from immune cells (B and NK cells) on interaction of the Fc antibody domain with Fc gamma receptors on effector cells,” they suggested.
Although no opportunistic infections occurred, a higher frequency of infections, including serious infections, was observed with ublituximab (5.0%) than with teriflunomide (2.9%).
While the ULTIMATE trials showed no difference between ublituximab and teriflunomide in confirmed worsening of disability, only a small percentage of participants in either arm showed deterioration, Dr. Coyle remarked. “In a relatively short trial (96 weeks), in a relapsing population on active treatment, this result was not surprising … If the study was bigger, or longer it would increase the chances of seeing a progressive slow worsening component to affect the EDSS [Expanded Disability Status Scale],” she added.
Equivalent efficacy
Ultimately, “it appears likely” that ublituximab is “equivalent in efficacy” to the earlier anti-CD20 agents ocrelizumab and ofatumumab, Dr. Coyle said. While all three agents target B-cells, “ublituximab targets a novel CD20 binding site, and is bioengineered to have a particularly potent antibody dependent cell cytotoxicity lysis mechanism,” she added. “It has been touted to ultimately allow a short infusion of 1 hour.”
Although the serious infection rate is slightly higher with ublituximab (5.0% vs. 2.5% for ofatumumab, and 1.3% for ocrelizumab), “it is still low,” and infusion-related reactions are also higher with ublituximab, she added (47.7% vs. 20.2% and 34.3%, respectively). She suggested factors that might influence which treatment is chosen for a given patient might include cost, convenience, whether it is more or less likely to cause low IgG, interference with vaccination, or influence on cancer or COVID risk.
The trials were supported by TG Therapeutics.
Dr. Coyle has received consulting fees from Accordant, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Horizon, Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, and Viela Bio and grant funding from Actelion, Alkermes, Bristol Myers Squibb, CorEvitas LLD, Genentech/Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, MedDay, NINDS, and Novartis.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
VTE risk not elevated in AD patients on JAK inhibitors: Study
, according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.
The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.
The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.
Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.
“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.
The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).
Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).
Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.
“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.
While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”
Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.
The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.
, according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.
The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.
The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.
Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.
“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.
The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).
Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).
Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.
“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.
While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”
Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.
The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.
, according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.
“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.
The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.
The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.
Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.
“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.
The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).
Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).
Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.
“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.
While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”
Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.
The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
‘Flat denial’ can leave breast cancer patients with lasting scars
Six years ago, Kim Bowles had a double mastectomy after being diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. Instead of opting for reconstruction, she decided to go “flat.” At 35, she had already breast fed both of her children, and didn’t want breasts anymore.
She asked her surgeon for an aesthetic flat closure, showing him photos of a smooth chest with no excess skin flaps. Although he agreed to her request in the office, he reneged in the operating room.
As the anesthesia took effect he said,
When Ms. Bowles woke up, she saw excess tissue instead of the smooth chest she had requested. When she was eventually well enough, she staged a topless sit-in at the hospital and marched outside with a placard, baring her breastless, disfigured chest.
“Do I need a B-cup side-boob?” she asked, pulling at her lateral excess tissue, often referred to as dog ears. “You would never think that a surgeon would leave somebody looking like that,” she said in an interview.
Based on her experience, Ms. Bowles coined the term “flat denial” to describe what her surgeon did.
The weight of flat denial
In a recent study, Deanna Attai, MD, a breast surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that more than one in five women who want a flat closure experience flat denial.
But well before that survey, Dr. Attai first came across flat denial more than a decade ago when a patient came to her for a second opinion after another surgeon insisted the patient see a psychiatrist when she requested a flat closure. Dr. Attai performed the flat closure for her instead.
But Dr. Attai said flat denial can take many forms. Some experiences may closely match the paternalistic encounter Ms. Bowles had, where a surgeon disregards a patient’s request. Other surgeons may simply be ignorant that a flat closure can be achieved aesthetically or that patients would even want this option.
This resistance aligns with Hester Schnipper’s experience as an oncology social worker. In her 45-year career, she has often found herself pushing back against breast surgeons who present reconstruction as if it were the only option for patients after mastectomy.
“And because most women are so overwhelmed, so scared, so stressed, they tend to go with whatever the doctor suggests,” said Ms. Schnipper.
Whatever form flat denial takes, the outcome can be damaging to the patient.
“This isn’t just ‘my scar’s a little thick.’ This is much more,” Dr. Attai said. “How do you even put a prosthesis on that? And if you’re not going to do a prosthesis in a bra, how do you even wear a shirt with all of that? It becomes a cleaning issue and depending on how things scar down you can get irregular fibrosis.”
What’s more, the harms of flat denial can extend beyond the physical scars.
Like Ms. Bowles, Anne Marie Champagne had made her desire for a flat closure clear to her surgeon before undergoing a mastectomy in 2009. The surgeon also reneged in the operating room while Champagne was unconscious and unable to object.
Ms. Champagne told The Washington Post that her surgeon’s justification for his actions left her feeling “profound grief, a combination of heartache and anger.
“I couldn’t believe that my surgeon would make a decision for me while I was under anesthesia that went against everything we had discussed – what I had consented to.”
Although it’s not clear how often women experience flat denial, discussions surrounding the issue have increased in recent years.
Ms. Bowles started a patient advocacy organization called “Not Putting on A Shirt” to help other women. And Dr. Attai moderates a Twitter group, called #BCSM or Breast Cancer Social Media, where patients share their experiences of breast cancer treatment, including in some cases flat denial.
“In getting to know so many women in the online space, an early observation was that the conversations online were different than what we had in the office,” Dr. Attai said. Online, “women were less guarded and more open about sharing the entirety of their breast cancer experience, including the more painful and raw moments.”
Being immersed in these moments, it also became clear to Dr. Attai that members of the treatment team don’t always recognize what is most important to a patient. “We might not ask, we might not allow them the time to express their preferences, or we might not really hear them,” she said.
An evolving awareness
National figures on the prevalence of flat closures remain elusive, but it has always been an option. And data indicate that many women choose no reconstruction after mastectomy.
One U.S. survey of women undergoing mastectomy between 2005 and 2007 found that 58% opted not to receive reconstruction, and a more recent British National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit from 2011 found 70% chose no reconstruction.
“I definitely have seen more patients requesting to go flat after mastectomy, likely as they feel more empowered to make this decision,” Roshni Rao, MD, chief of breast surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, told The Washington Post.
But to better understand the scope of flat denial, Dr. Attai and colleagues conducted a survey, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology. In it, she found that, among 931 women who had opted to go flat after mastectomy, 22% had experienced flat denial. That meant not being offered the option of going flat, not being supported in their choice to go flat, or not receiving the flat closure surgery initially agreed upon.
In the spring of 2022, Dr. Attai, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, took her results to the society’s annual meeting. The goal was to bring to light aesthetic flat closure techniques as well as the harms of flat denial, presenting photos of the sagging, shriveled skin flaps alongside her analysis.
“No one ever goes into an operation intending it to look like those horrible pictures,” she said.
Asking for “no breast mound reconstruction” should imply a nice neat flat closure, or an aesthetic flat closure, Dr. Attai explained. “A patient should not have to specify she wants the surgeon to make all efforts to remove redundant and excess skin and fat, but I do think having the discussion and making preferences very clear is important, especially as we’ve seen that some patients are not getting the desired outcome.”
To help improve education and communication, the board of “No Putting on a Shirt” also had an exhibitor’s booth focused on aesthetic flat closures at the ASBrS meeting.
And given this growing awareness, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers has begun asking breast centers to report their process for shared decision-making on postmastectomy choices and provide proof that patients’ closure choices are being heard and followed.
A shift toward aesthetics
Despite a growing interest in flat closure aesthetics, the landscape shift is still relatively new.
The traditional mastectomy training Dr. Attai and colleagues went through in the 1990s did not emphasize aesthetics.
“I just removed the breast and then I left the room,” she said, explaining that the plastic surgeon took charge of the reconstruction. “We never really learned how to make a nice, neat closure.”
Abhishek Chatterjee, MD, MBA, a breast surgical oncologist and board-certified plastic surgeon, agreed that aesthetics have become more central in the field.
“A decade ago, I would argue that ... it wasn’t in the training program,” but today breast surgery fellowships now include “flat closures that are aesthetically appropriate,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who works at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and is vice chair of the ASBrS oncoplastics committee.
“In my mind, and in any surgeon’s mind, when you do something, you have to do it well ... and with that, aesthetics should be presumed,” he added.
But the term “aesthetic flat closure” was only adopted by the National Cancer Institute in 2020. The NCI, which considers an aesthetic flat closure reconstructive not cosmetic surgery, defines it as rebuilding the shape of the chest wall after breasts are removed, and involves contouring and eliminating excess tissue to create a smooth, flat chest wall.
Achieving this smooth look requires a skilled surgeon trained in flat closure reconstruction, which is not necessarily a guarantee. To help women find a surgeon, “Not Putting on A Shirt” has a flat friendly directory where patients can recommend surgeons who provide aesthetic flat closures. As of August 2022, the list has now grown to over 300 surgeons.
Dr. Chatterjee said the ASBrS is actively involved in training surgeons in aesthetic flat closure. Given this shift, he said most general or breast surgeons should have the skill set to design mastectomy flaps that enable a flat closure with no excess skin, but there are some caveats.
For instance, he noted, if a woman has a lot of breast tissue and excess skin in the outer, lateral folds of the axilla, “it is very, very hard to get a flat closure” and in those rare circumstances, a breast surgeon may need assistance from a plastic surgeon.
But Dr. Attai found a significant gap still exists between what should be done and what is being done in practice.
Part of that disconnect may stem from the lack of a standard of care.
In a recent publication, a team of plastic surgeons from New York University noted that, to date, “there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy.”
And Dr. Attai added, “there is really no way to know at this point what women are getting when they choose no breast mound reconstruction.”
Physicians may also simply not understand what their patients want.
Dr. Attai said she was “blown away” by the reaction to her presentation on flat denial at ASBrS in April. “I had a lot of members come up to me afterwards and say ‘I had no idea that patients would want this. I am guilty of not offering this.’ ”
In addition, Dr. Chatterjee said, patients may now have “much higher” expectations for a smooth, symmetrical look “versus an outcome with excess skin and bumps.”
But Ms. Bowles said the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing look is nothing new.
“Women have always cared about how they look, they are just shamed into accepting a lesser result,” she argued. “If you look at why women go flat, the primary reason is they don’t want more surgery, not ‘I don’t care what I look like.’ ”
Three years after the mastectomy that left flaps of skin hanging from her chest, Ms. Bowles finally had a revision surgery to achieve the flat closure aesthetic she had wanted from the get-go.
“Nobody expects perfection, but I think the important thing is to have a standard of care that’s optimal,” said Ms. Bowles. “A patient like me should not have needed another surgery.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Six years ago, Kim Bowles had a double mastectomy after being diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. Instead of opting for reconstruction, she decided to go “flat.” At 35, she had already breast fed both of her children, and didn’t want breasts anymore.
She asked her surgeon for an aesthetic flat closure, showing him photos of a smooth chest with no excess skin flaps. Although he agreed to her request in the office, he reneged in the operating room.
As the anesthesia took effect he said,
When Ms. Bowles woke up, she saw excess tissue instead of the smooth chest she had requested. When she was eventually well enough, she staged a topless sit-in at the hospital and marched outside with a placard, baring her breastless, disfigured chest.
“Do I need a B-cup side-boob?” she asked, pulling at her lateral excess tissue, often referred to as dog ears. “You would never think that a surgeon would leave somebody looking like that,” she said in an interview.
Based on her experience, Ms. Bowles coined the term “flat denial” to describe what her surgeon did.
The weight of flat denial
In a recent study, Deanna Attai, MD, a breast surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that more than one in five women who want a flat closure experience flat denial.
But well before that survey, Dr. Attai first came across flat denial more than a decade ago when a patient came to her for a second opinion after another surgeon insisted the patient see a psychiatrist when she requested a flat closure. Dr. Attai performed the flat closure for her instead.
But Dr. Attai said flat denial can take many forms. Some experiences may closely match the paternalistic encounter Ms. Bowles had, where a surgeon disregards a patient’s request. Other surgeons may simply be ignorant that a flat closure can be achieved aesthetically or that patients would even want this option.
This resistance aligns with Hester Schnipper’s experience as an oncology social worker. In her 45-year career, she has often found herself pushing back against breast surgeons who present reconstruction as if it were the only option for patients after mastectomy.
“And because most women are so overwhelmed, so scared, so stressed, they tend to go with whatever the doctor suggests,” said Ms. Schnipper.
Whatever form flat denial takes, the outcome can be damaging to the patient.
“This isn’t just ‘my scar’s a little thick.’ This is much more,” Dr. Attai said. “How do you even put a prosthesis on that? And if you’re not going to do a prosthesis in a bra, how do you even wear a shirt with all of that? It becomes a cleaning issue and depending on how things scar down you can get irregular fibrosis.”
What’s more, the harms of flat denial can extend beyond the physical scars.
Like Ms. Bowles, Anne Marie Champagne had made her desire for a flat closure clear to her surgeon before undergoing a mastectomy in 2009. The surgeon also reneged in the operating room while Champagne was unconscious and unable to object.
Ms. Champagne told The Washington Post that her surgeon’s justification for his actions left her feeling “profound grief, a combination of heartache and anger.
“I couldn’t believe that my surgeon would make a decision for me while I was under anesthesia that went against everything we had discussed – what I had consented to.”
Although it’s not clear how often women experience flat denial, discussions surrounding the issue have increased in recent years.
Ms. Bowles started a patient advocacy organization called “Not Putting on A Shirt” to help other women. And Dr. Attai moderates a Twitter group, called #BCSM or Breast Cancer Social Media, where patients share their experiences of breast cancer treatment, including in some cases flat denial.
“In getting to know so many women in the online space, an early observation was that the conversations online were different than what we had in the office,” Dr. Attai said. Online, “women were less guarded and more open about sharing the entirety of their breast cancer experience, including the more painful and raw moments.”
Being immersed in these moments, it also became clear to Dr. Attai that members of the treatment team don’t always recognize what is most important to a patient. “We might not ask, we might not allow them the time to express their preferences, or we might not really hear them,” she said.
An evolving awareness
National figures on the prevalence of flat closures remain elusive, but it has always been an option. And data indicate that many women choose no reconstruction after mastectomy.
One U.S. survey of women undergoing mastectomy between 2005 and 2007 found that 58% opted not to receive reconstruction, and a more recent British National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit from 2011 found 70% chose no reconstruction.
“I definitely have seen more patients requesting to go flat after mastectomy, likely as they feel more empowered to make this decision,” Roshni Rao, MD, chief of breast surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, told The Washington Post.
But to better understand the scope of flat denial, Dr. Attai and colleagues conducted a survey, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology. In it, she found that, among 931 women who had opted to go flat after mastectomy, 22% had experienced flat denial. That meant not being offered the option of going flat, not being supported in their choice to go flat, or not receiving the flat closure surgery initially agreed upon.
In the spring of 2022, Dr. Attai, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, took her results to the society’s annual meeting. The goal was to bring to light aesthetic flat closure techniques as well as the harms of flat denial, presenting photos of the sagging, shriveled skin flaps alongside her analysis.
“No one ever goes into an operation intending it to look like those horrible pictures,” she said.
Asking for “no breast mound reconstruction” should imply a nice neat flat closure, or an aesthetic flat closure, Dr. Attai explained. “A patient should not have to specify she wants the surgeon to make all efforts to remove redundant and excess skin and fat, but I do think having the discussion and making preferences very clear is important, especially as we’ve seen that some patients are not getting the desired outcome.”
To help improve education and communication, the board of “No Putting on a Shirt” also had an exhibitor’s booth focused on aesthetic flat closures at the ASBrS meeting.
And given this growing awareness, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers has begun asking breast centers to report their process for shared decision-making on postmastectomy choices and provide proof that patients’ closure choices are being heard and followed.
A shift toward aesthetics
Despite a growing interest in flat closure aesthetics, the landscape shift is still relatively new.
The traditional mastectomy training Dr. Attai and colleagues went through in the 1990s did not emphasize aesthetics.
“I just removed the breast and then I left the room,” she said, explaining that the plastic surgeon took charge of the reconstruction. “We never really learned how to make a nice, neat closure.”
Abhishek Chatterjee, MD, MBA, a breast surgical oncologist and board-certified plastic surgeon, agreed that aesthetics have become more central in the field.
“A decade ago, I would argue that ... it wasn’t in the training program,” but today breast surgery fellowships now include “flat closures that are aesthetically appropriate,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who works at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and is vice chair of the ASBrS oncoplastics committee.
“In my mind, and in any surgeon’s mind, when you do something, you have to do it well ... and with that, aesthetics should be presumed,” he added.
But the term “aesthetic flat closure” was only adopted by the National Cancer Institute in 2020. The NCI, which considers an aesthetic flat closure reconstructive not cosmetic surgery, defines it as rebuilding the shape of the chest wall after breasts are removed, and involves contouring and eliminating excess tissue to create a smooth, flat chest wall.
Achieving this smooth look requires a skilled surgeon trained in flat closure reconstruction, which is not necessarily a guarantee. To help women find a surgeon, “Not Putting on A Shirt” has a flat friendly directory where patients can recommend surgeons who provide aesthetic flat closures. As of August 2022, the list has now grown to over 300 surgeons.
Dr. Chatterjee said the ASBrS is actively involved in training surgeons in aesthetic flat closure. Given this shift, he said most general or breast surgeons should have the skill set to design mastectomy flaps that enable a flat closure with no excess skin, but there are some caveats.
For instance, he noted, if a woman has a lot of breast tissue and excess skin in the outer, lateral folds of the axilla, “it is very, very hard to get a flat closure” and in those rare circumstances, a breast surgeon may need assistance from a plastic surgeon.
But Dr. Attai found a significant gap still exists between what should be done and what is being done in practice.
Part of that disconnect may stem from the lack of a standard of care.
In a recent publication, a team of plastic surgeons from New York University noted that, to date, “there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy.”
And Dr. Attai added, “there is really no way to know at this point what women are getting when they choose no breast mound reconstruction.”
Physicians may also simply not understand what their patients want.
Dr. Attai said she was “blown away” by the reaction to her presentation on flat denial at ASBrS in April. “I had a lot of members come up to me afterwards and say ‘I had no idea that patients would want this. I am guilty of not offering this.’ ”
In addition, Dr. Chatterjee said, patients may now have “much higher” expectations for a smooth, symmetrical look “versus an outcome with excess skin and bumps.”
But Ms. Bowles said the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing look is nothing new.
“Women have always cared about how they look, they are just shamed into accepting a lesser result,” she argued. “If you look at why women go flat, the primary reason is they don’t want more surgery, not ‘I don’t care what I look like.’ ”
Three years after the mastectomy that left flaps of skin hanging from her chest, Ms. Bowles finally had a revision surgery to achieve the flat closure aesthetic she had wanted from the get-go.
“Nobody expects perfection, but I think the important thing is to have a standard of care that’s optimal,” said Ms. Bowles. “A patient like me should not have needed another surgery.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Six years ago, Kim Bowles had a double mastectomy after being diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer. Instead of opting for reconstruction, she decided to go “flat.” At 35, she had already breast fed both of her children, and didn’t want breasts anymore.
She asked her surgeon for an aesthetic flat closure, showing him photos of a smooth chest with no excess skin flaps. Although he agreed to her request in the office, he reneged in the operating room.
As the anesthesia took effect he said,
When Ms. Bowles woke up, she saw excess tissue instead of the smooth chest she had requested. When she was eventually well enough, she staged a topless sit-in at the hospital and marched outside with a placard, baring her breastless, disfigured chest.
“Do I need a B-cup side-boob?” she asked, pulling at her lateral excess tissue, often referred to as dog ears. “You would never think that a surgeon would leave somebody looking like that,” she said in an interview.
Based on her experience, Ms. Bowles coined the term “flat denial” to describe what her surgeon did.
The weight of flat denial
In a recent study, Deanna Attai, MD, a breast surgeon at University of California, Los Angeles, discovered that more than one in five women who want a flat closure experience flat denial.
But well before that survey, Dr. Attai first came across flat denial more than a decade ago when a patient came to her for a second opinion after another surgeon insisted the patient see a psychiatrist when she requested a flat closure. Dr. Attai performed the flat closure for her instead.
But Dr. Attai said flat denial can take many forms. Some experiences may closely match the paternalistic encounter Ms. Bowles had, where a surgeon disregards a patient’s request. Other surgeons may simply be ignorant that a flat closure can be achieved aesthetically or that patients would even want this option.
This resistance aligns with Hester Schnipper’s experience as an oncology social worker. In her 45-year career, she has often found herself pushing back against breast surgeons who present reconstruction as if it were the only option for patients after mastectomy.
“And because most women are so overwhelmed, so scared, so stressed, they tend to go with whatever the doctor suggests,” said Ms. Schnipper.
Whatever form flat denial takes, the outcome can be damaging to the patient.
“This isn’t just ‘my scar’s a little thick.’ This is much more,” Dr. Attai said. “How do you even put a prosthesis on that? And if you’re not going to do a prosthesis in a bra, how do you even wear a shirt with all of that? It becomes a cleaning issue and depending on how things scar down you can get irregular fibrosis.”
What’s more, the harms of flat denial can extend beyond the physical scars.
Like Ms. Bowles, Anne Marie Champagne had made her desire for a flat closure clear to her surgeon before undergoing a mastectomy in 2009. The surgeon also reneged in the operating room while Champagne was unconscious and unable to object.
Ms. Champagne told The Washington Post that her surgeon’s justification for his actions left her feeling “profound grief, a combination of heartache and anger.
“I couldn’t believe that my surgeon would make a decision for me while I was under anesthesia that went against everything we had discussed – what I had consented to.”
Although it’s not clear how often women experience flat denial, discussions surrounding the issue have increased in recent years.
Ms. Bowles started a patient advocacy organization called “Not Putting on A Shirt” to help other women. And Dr. Attai moderates a Twitter group, called #BCSM or Breast Cancer Social Media, where patients share their experiences of breast cancer treatment, including in some cases flat denial.
“In getting to know so many women in the online space, an early observation was that the conversations online were different than what we had in the office,” Dr. Attai said. Online, “women were less guarded and more open about sharing the entirety of their breast cancer experience, including the more painful and raw moments.”
Being immersed in these moments, it also became clear to Dr. Attai that members of the treatment team don’t always recognize what is most important to a patient. “We might not ask, we might not allow them the time to express their preferences, or we might not really hear them,” she said.
An evolving awareness
National figures on the prevalence of flat closures remain elusive, but it has always been an option. And data indicate that many women choose no reconstruction after mastectomy.
One U.S. survey of women undergoing mastectomy between 2005 and 2007 found that 58% opted not to receive reconstruction, and a more recent British National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Audit from 2011 found 70% chose no reconstruction.
“I definitely have seen more patients requesting to go flat after mastectomy, likely as they feel more empowered to make this decision,” Roshni Rao, MD, chief of breast surgery at Columbia University Medical Center, New York, told The Washington Post.
But to better understand the scope of flat denial, Dr. Attai and colleagues conducted a survey, published in Annals of Surgical Oncology. In it, she found that, among 931 women who had opted to go flat after mastectomy, 22% had experienced flat denial. That meant not being offered the option of going flat, not being supported in their choice to go flat, or not receiving the flat closure surgery initially agreed upon.
In the spring of 2022, Dr. Attai, past president of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, took her results to the society’s annual meeting. The goal was to bring to light aesthetic flat closure techniques as well as the harms of flat denial, presenting photos of the sagging, shriveled skin flaps alongside her analysis.
“No one ever goes into an operation intending it to look like those horrible pictures,” she said.
Asking for “no breast mound reconstruction” should imply a nice neat flat closure, or an aesthetic flat closure, Dr. Attai explained. “A patient should not have to specify she wants the surgeon to make all efforts to remove redundant and excess skin and fat, but I do think having the discussion and making preferences very clear is important, especially as we’ve seen that some patients are not getting the desired outcome.”
To help improve education and communication, the board of “No Putting on a Shirt” also had an exhibitor’s booth focused on aesthetic flat closures at the ASBrS meeting.
And given this growing awareness, the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers has begun asking breast centers to report their process for shared decision-making on postmastectomy choices and provide proof that patients’ closure choices are being heard and followed.
A shift toward aesthetics
Despite a growing interest in flat closure aesthetics, the landscape shift is still relatively new.
The traditional mastectomy training Dr. Attai and colleagues went through in the 1990s did not emphasize aesthetics.
“I just removed the breast and then I left the room,” she said, explaining that the plastic surgeon took charge of the reconstruction. “We never really learned how to make a nice, neat closure.”
Abhishek Chatterjee, MD, MBA, a breast surgical oncologist and board-certified plastic surgeon, agreed that aesthetics have become more central in the field.
“A decade ago, I would argue that ... it wasn’t in the training program,” but today breast surgery fellowships now include “flat closures that are aesthetically appropriate,” said Dr. Chatterjee, who works at Tufts Medical Center in Boston and is vice chair of the ASBrS oncoplastics committee.
“In my mind, and in any surgeon’s mind, when you do something, you have to do it well ... and with that, aesthetics should be presumed,” he added.
But the term “aesthetic flat closure” was only adopted by the National Cancer Institute in 2020. The NCI, which considers an aesthetic flat closure reconstructive not cosmetic surgery, defines it as rebuilding the shape of the chest wall after breasts are removed, and involves contouring and eliminating excess tissue to create a smooth, flat chest wall.
Achieving this smooth look requires a skilled surgeon trained in flat closure reconstruction, which is not necessarily a guarantee. To help women find a surgeon, “Not Putting on A Shirt” has a flat friendly directory where patients can recommend surgeons who provide aesthetic flat closures. As of August 2022, the list has now grown to over 300 surgeons.
Dr. Chatterjee said the ASBrS is actively involved in training surgeons in aesthetic flat closure. Given this shift, he said most general or breast surgeons should have the skill set to design mastectomy flaps that enable a flat closure with no excess skin, but there are some caveats.
For instance, he noted, if a woman has a lot of breast tissue and excess skin in the outer, lateral folds of the axilla, “it is very, very hard to get a flat closure” and in those rare circumstances, a breast surgeon may need assistance from a plastic surgeon.
But Dr. Attai found a significant gap still exists between what should be done and what is being done in practice.
Part of that disconnect may stem from the lack of a standard of care.
In a recent publication, a team of plastic surgeons from New York University noted that, to date, “there is no plastic surgery literature on specific techniques to achieve an aesthetic flat closure after mastectomy.”
And Dr. Attai added, “there is really no way to know at this point what women are getting when they choose no breast mound reconstruction.”
Physicians may also simply not understand what their patients want.
Dr. Attai said she was “blown away” by the reaction to her presentation on flat denial at ASBrS in April. “I had a lot of members come up to me afterwards and say ‘I had no idea that patients would want this. I am guilty of not offering this.’ ”
In addition, Dr. Chatterjee said, patients may now have “much higher” expectations for a smooth, symmetrical look “versus an outcome with excess skin and bumps.”
But Ms. Bowles said the desire for a more aesthetically pleasing look is nothing new.
“Women have always cared about how they look, they are just shamed into accepting a lesser result,” she argued. “If you look at why women go flat, the primary reason is they don’t want more surgery, not ‘I don’t care what I look like.’ ”
Three years after the mastectomy that left flaps of skin hanging from her chest, Ms. Bowles finally had a revision surgery to achieve the flat closure aesthetic she had wanted from the get-go.
“Nobody expects perfection, but I think the important thing is to have a standard of care that’s optimal,” said Ms. Bowles. “A patient like me should not have needed another surgery.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Underweight in early childhood persists
The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
Methods and results
The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.
The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.
At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.
The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.
Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.
Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight
This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.
“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.
Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”
Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.
She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.
“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”
She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.
The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.
The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
Methods and results
The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.
The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.
At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.
The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.
Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.
Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight
This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.
“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.
Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”
Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.
She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.
“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”
She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.
The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.
The association was most pronounced for girls, as well as for children with lower growth rates, write the authors of the prospective Canadian cohort study published in JAMA Network Open.
The findings “highlight the importance of preventing underweight in early life,” because this can have “lasting effects” in later childhood, senior author Jonathon L. Maguire, MD, from St Michael’s Hospital Pediatric Clinic, and the University of Toronto said in an interview.
Methods and results
The study recruited 5,803 healthy children, mean age 4.07 months, between February 2008 and September 2020 during well-child visits at clinics in The Applied Research Group for Kids! (TARGet Kids!) practice-based research network in Canada. The study’s exclusion criteria included a premature birth, or a health condition affecting growth.
The primary outcome of the study was the child’s age- and sex-adjusted weight, also known as the body mass index z score (zBMI), between the ages of 2 and 10 years.
At baseline, a total of 550 children (9.5%) were classified as underweight, based on the World Health Organization definition of zBMI less than –2. Underweight children were more likely to be younger, have lower birth weight, and to report Asian maternal ethnicity, the researchers observed.
The study found that, compared with children with normal weight, those who were underweight in the first 2 years had lower zBMI at ages 5 and 10 years (–0.49 and –0.39 respectively). This meant that at 10 years old, they were a mean of 1.23 kg lighter than 10-year-olds who had been normal weight at age 2 years.
Height-for-age z score (HAZ) was also lower for underweight 2-year-olds (–0.24), making them a mean of 0.68 cm shorter than normal-weight 2-year-olds. This difference was attenuated at age 5 years.
Growth rate modified the association of underweight with both zBMI and HAZ. Among children who were underweight in the first 2 years, those with lower growth rate had lower zBMI at 10 years (–0.64) compared with those with average (–0.38) or high growth rate (0.11). Similarly, children who were underweight and had a lower growth rate at age 2 years also a lower HAZ at age 10 years (–0.12), compared with those with average (0.02) or high growth rates (0.16). These effects were more pronounced in girls.
Increased health risks linked with chronic underweight
This study did not assess the reasons for early underweight, Dr. Maguire commented in an interview. But, he cited challenges with dietary transitions as a possible explanation.
“Considerable dietary changes happen around 2 years of age with increasing diversity of foods as children transition from primarily liquid foods to primarily solid foods,” he noted.
Asked for comment on the study, Colleen Spees, PhD, associate professor in the division of medical dietetics and director of Hope lab at the Ohio State University, Columbus, said that “at age 10, it’s not surprising to see a lower zBMI and height-for-age in those that were underweight at age 2 with poor growth trajectories.”
Although, this is the first study she is aware of to document these findings in a Canadian cohort, “the results align with what we know about low birth weight and underweight infants and children in terms of linear growth trajectories from child stunting studies,” Dr. Spees said.
She said child stunting, which is more common in less developed countries where children have lower birth weights and greater socioeconomic and environmental risk factors, is defined by the WHO as impaired linear growth with adverse functional consequences.
“In short, a chronic underweight status in infants and young children can lead to greater risk of malnutrition, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, decreased immune function, as well as physical growth and development issues,” she said. “Hence, the most recent 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans now includes both pregnancy, breastfeeding, and the first 2 years of life (referred to as the “first 1,000 days”) in their recommendations.”
She added that, if caregivers are concerned about their child’s weight, they should consult with their pediatrician to rule out any medical issues. If no medical issues are identified, they should ask for a referral to a pediatric dietitian.
The study was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Dr Maguire reported receiving grants from the CIHR, Physician Services, Ontario SPOR Support Unit, and Dairy Farmers of Canada during the conduct of the study and nonfinancial support from DDrops outside the submitted work. Other authors of the paper reported receiving grants from various institutions. Dr. Spees reported no relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN