Louise Gagnon

Patients with back pain that has persisted for less than 12 weeks have a high probability of substantial pain reduction over time, but patients with back pain that has persisted for 12 or more weeks have a lower chance of improvement, new data suggest.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95 studies, pain score decreased by 35 points on a 100-point scale from baseline to 52 weeks among patients with acute pain (ie, pain lasting for less than 6 weeks). Patients with persistent pain (ie, pain lasting for more than 12 weeks but less than 52 weeks) had smaller improvements at 52 weeks, however. 

“The outcomes for acute pain are better than we thought they were,” study author Lorimer Moseley, AO, DSc, PhD, professor of clinical neurosciences and chair of physiotherapy at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, told this news organization. 

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 

Good Prognoses 

The current analysis represents an update to and advance on a 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, said Moseley. That study found that patients with subacute low back pain and those with persistent low back pain had similar decreases in pain over 6 weeks. The previous analysis “may have resulted in improved outcomes in the persistent group,” the investigators wrote in the current analysis.

For the current study, the researchers examined 95 studies to understand the clinical course of acute, subacute (ie, lasting for 6 to less than 12 weeks), and persistent low back pain. They excluded retrospective cohorts and interventional studies, as well as studies of patients with low back pain for more than 12 months. The researchers also conducted meta-analyses on aggregate data, where possible, using pain and disability outcome data. 

In patients with acute pain, the mean pain score improved from 56 at baseline to 26 at 6 weeks and 21 at 52 weeks. Patients with subacute pain had a mean pain score of 63 at baseline that improved to 29 at 6 weeks and was maintained at 31 at 52 weeks. Patients with persistent pain had a mean pain score of 56 at baseline that improved to 48 at six weeks and 40 at 52 weeks.

“I don’t think we need to do any more studies to clarify recovery from acute back pain,” said Dr. Moseley. “For subacute back pain, I think there is a moderate to high level of certainty, so the prognosis is pretty good there. The bad news is that the data suggest that if someone’s got back pain 3 months after onset, the likelihood of recovery is much less, but those data are the ones we can’t be certain of on the basis of this meta-analysis.”

Dr. Moseley noted that the current analysis is not highly detailed, because individual patient data are absent. This is “the biggest limitation from a methodological perspective,” he said. “Individual patient analysis is a lot more powerful.”

Comprehensive Literature Search 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Borenstein, MD, clinical professor of rheumatology at the George Washington University Medical Center and partner at Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in Washington, DC, described the literature search as comprehensive. Dr. Borenstein did not participate in the study. The assessment of low back pain as either short-lived or lasting is worth investigating, he added, given that low back pain impairs a patient’s function and carries a hefty price tag at a societal level.

The study results suggest “that people with acute low back pain do pretty well, and people with subacute low back pain will do less well but still have a chance of healing,” said Dr. Borenstein. “People who have chronic low back pain do not do as well, and they have some increase in disability.” It would be important to develop ways to identify patients whose low back pain will persist beyond 3 months, as well as ways to identify the criteria or characteristics that might prevent those patients from having prolonged difficulties and persistent low back pain, he added.

Dr. Borenstein noted that the authors failed to mention specific approaches that could decrease progression from subacute to persistent low back pain. “They really don’t point anyone in a direction to what would make a difference,” he said. “It would have really improved the impact of the paper if they had seen anything along the way in their review of these articles that might have suggested how someone or a group might have been able to impact this progression.” 

The study was funded by supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to Dr. Moseley. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Borenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with back pain that has persisted for less than 12 weeks have a high probability of substantial pain reduction over time, but patients with back pain that has persisted for 12 or more weeks have a lower chance of improvement, new data suggest.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95 studies, pain score decreased by 35 points on a 100-point scale from baseline to 52 weeks among patients with acute pain (ie, pain lasting for less than 6 weeks). Patients with persistent pain (ie, pain lasting for more than 12 weeks but less than 52 weeks) had smaller improvements at 52 weeks, however. 

“The outcomes for acute pain are better than we thought they were,” study author Lorimer Moseley, AO, DSc, PhD, professor of clinical neurosciences and chair of physiotherapy at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, told this news organization. 

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 

Good Prognoses 

The current analysis represents an update to and advance on a 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, said Moseley. That study found that patients with subacute low back pain and those with persistent low back pain had similar decreases in pain over 6 weeks. The previous analysis “may have resulted in improved outcomes in the persistent group,” the investigators wrote in the current analysis.

For the current study, the researchers examined 95 studies to understand the clinical course of acute, subacute (ie, lasting for 6 to less than 12 weeks), and persistent low back pain. They excluded retrospective cohorts and interventional studies, as well as studies of patients with low back pain for more than 12 months. The researchers also conducted meta-analyses on aggregate data, where possible, using pain and disability outcome data. 

In patients with acute pain, the mean pain score improved from 56 at baseline to 26 at 6 weeks and 21 at 52 weeks. Patients with subacute pain had a mean pain score of 63 at baseline that improved to 29 at 6 weeks and was maintained at 31 at 52 weeks. Patients with persistent pain had a mean pain score of 56 at baseline that improved to 48 at six weeks and 40 at 52 weeks.

“I don’t think we need to do any more studies to clarify recovery from acute back pain,” said Dr. Moseley. “For subacute back pain, I think there is a moderate to high level of certainty, so the prognosis is pretty good there. The bad news is that the data suggest that if someone’s got back pain 3 months after onset, the likelihood of recovery is much less, but those data are the ones we can’t be certain of on the basis of this meta-analysis.”

Dr. Moseley noted that the current analysis is not highly detailed, because individual patient data are absent. This is “the biggest limitation from a methodological perspective,” he said. “Individual patient analysis is a lot more powerful.”

Comprehensive Literature Search 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Borenstein, MD, clinical professor of rheumatology at the George Washington University Medical Center and partner at Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in Washington, DC, described the literature search as comprehensive. Dr. Borenstein did not participate in the study. The assessment of low back pain as either short-lived or lasting is worth investigating, he added, given that low back pain impairs a patient’s function and carries a hefty price tag at a societal level.

The study results suggest “that people with acute low back pain do pretty well, and people with subacute low back pain will do less well but still have a chance of healing,” said Dr. Borenstein. “People who have chronic low back pain do not do as well, and they have some increase in disability.” It would be important to develop ways to identify patients whose low back pain will persist beyond 3 months, as well as ways to identify the criteria or characteristics that might prevent those patients from having prolonged difficulties and persistent low back pain, he added.

Dr. Borenstein noted that the authors failed to mention specific approaches that could decrease progression from subacute to persistent low back pain. “They really don’t point anyone in a direction to what would make a difference,” he said. “It would have really improved the impact of the paper if they had seen anything along the way in their review of these articles that might have suggested how someone or a group might have been able to impact this progression.” 

The study was funded by supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to Dr. Moseley. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Borenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with back pain that has persisted for less than 12 weeks have a high probability of substantial pain reduction over time, but patients with back pain that has persisted for 12 or more weeks have a lower chance of improvement, new data suggest.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 95 studies, pain score decreased by 35 points on a 100-point scale from baseline to 52 weeks among patients with acute pain (ie, pain lasting for less than 6 weeks). Patients with persistent pain (ie, pain lasting for more than 12 weeks but less than 52 weeks) had smaller improvements at 52 weeks, however. 

“The outcomes for acute pain are better than we thought they were,” study author Lorimer Moseley, AO, DSc, PhD, professor of clinical neurosciences and chair of physiotherapy at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, told this news organization. 

The study was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. 

Good Prognoses 

The current analysis represents an update to and advance on a 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis, said Moseley. That study found that patients with subacute low back pain and those with persistent low back pain had similar decreases in pain over 6 weeks. The previous analysis “may have resulted in improved outcomes in the persistent group,” the investigators wrote in the current analysis.

For the current study, the researchers examined 95 studies to understand the clinical course of acute, subacute (ie, lasting for 6 to less than 12 weeks), and persistent low back pain. They excluded retrospective cohorts and interventional studies, as well as studies of patients with low back pain for more than 12 months. The researchers also conducted meta-analyses on aggregate data, where possible, using pain and disability outcome data. 

In patients with acute pain, the mean pain score improved from 56 at baseline to 26 at 6 weeks and 21 at 52 weeks. Patients with subacute pain had a mean pain score of 63 at baseline that improved to 29 at 6 weeks and was maintained at 31 at 52 weeks. Patients with persistent pain had a mean pain score of 56 at baseline that improved to 48 at six weeks and 40 at 52 weeks.

“I don’t think we need to do any more studies to clarify recovery from acute back pain,” said Dr. Moseley. “For subacute back pain, I think there is a moderate to high level of certainty, so the prognosis is pretty good there. The bad news is that the data suggest that if someone’s got back pain 3 months after onset, the likelihood of recovery is much less, but those data are the ones we can’t be certain of on the basis of this meta-analysis.”

Dr. Moseley noted that the current analysis is not highly detailed, because individual patient data are absent. This is “the biggest limitation from a methodological perspective,” he said. “Individual patient analysis is a lot more powerful.”

Comprehensive Literature Search 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, David Borenstein, MD, clinical professor of rheumatology at the George Washington University Medical Center and partner at Arthritis and Rheumatism Associates in Washington, DC, described the literature search as comprehensive. Dr. Borenstein did not participate in the study. The assessment of low back pain as either short-lived or lasting is worth investigating, he added, given that low back pain impairs a patient’s function and carries a hefty price tag at a societal level.

The study results suggest “that people with acute low back pain do pretty well, and people with subacute low back pain will do less well but still have a chance of healing,” said Dr. Borenstein. “People who have chronic low back pain do not do as well, and they have some increase in disability.” It would be important to develop ways to identify patients whose low back pain will persist beyond 3 months, as well as ways to identify the criteria or characteristics that might prevent those patients from having prolonged difficulties and persistent low back pain, he added.

Dr. Borenstein noted that the authors failed to mention specific approaches that could decrease progression from subacute to persistent low back pain. “They really don’t point anyone in a direction to what would make a difference,” he said. “It would have really improved the impact of the paper if they had seen anything along the way in their review of these articles that might have suggested how someone or a group might have been able to impact this progression.” 

The study was funded by supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Leadership Investigator Grant to Dr. Moseley. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Borenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Outpatient COVID-19 treatment with monoclonal antibodies or antiretroviral medications such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) administered to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease led to lower odds of having severe outcomes when compared with similar patients who received no outpatient treatment in a real-world, retrospective analysis of cases.

The investigators found that there were nine hospitalizations or deaths (2.1%) among 426 patients who received outpatient treatment, compared with 49 (17.6%) among 278 who did not receive outpatient treatment, yielding an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.25), after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and kidney function. The study was published in Lancet Rheumatology.

“Across the board, there was a really strong association with receiving outpatient treatment and lower risk of severe COVID-19,” senior author Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “It is pretty powerful evidence that, in this high-risk group, that treatment still matters related to preventing severe COVID. We found almost all patients who had severe COVID-19, either hospitalized or who had died, were in the untreated group.”
 

Early outpatient treatment an important tool in patients with rheumatic disease

Dr. Sparks noted that he and his coinvestigators conducted the study because the benefit of outpatient COVID-19 treatments in individuals with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease was not adequately determined in clinical trials because they had infrequent enrollment of such patients.

The analysis included 704 patients with a mean age of 58.4 years who were seen at Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, a multicenter health care system that includes 14 hospitals and primary care or specialty outpatient centers in the Boston area. A majority were female (76%) and White (84%). Nearly half had rheumatoid arthritis. Of the 704, 426 (61%) received outpatient treatment, which included nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 307), monoclonal antibodies (n = 105), molnupiravir (n = 5), remdesivir (n = 3), and combination treatment (n = 6).

The findings underline the need to individualize approaches to outpatient treatment in those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 to fend off severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Sparks. “It seems if you are vaccinated and in the general population that you are way less likely to have severe COVID-19 in the current environment, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to some high-risk groups like patients on immunosuppression. There are still patients at risk of severe COVID-19, and some of them are in this group of rheumatic patients. This should be part of the discussion related to deciding whether or not to treat.”

Dr. Sparks noted that vaccination against COVID-19 confers protection against developing severe COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease as it does in the general population, but patients with rheumatic diseases remain at increased risk for severe presentation. “Certainly, the vaccines really help our patients too, but there’s still a bit of a gap between the risk for our patients with rheumatic diseases and the general population” in developing severe COVID-19.

Dr. Sparks said he hopes the results represent a “call to action” that even among vaccinated patients there are still some who have poor outcomes, and that early outpatient treatment appears to be an important tool in the fight against poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

COVID-19 rebound

The study also reported on the phenomenon of COVID-19 rebound (recurrence of symptoms and test positivity after regimen completion) after oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment. “This [COVID-19 rebound] is a downside to treatment,” he said. COVID rebound was not infrequent: A total of 25 (8%) of 318 patients who received oral outpatient treatment had documented COVID-19 rebound.

“It was reassuring because we found no one who had rebound progressed to have severe COVID-19,” Dr. Sparks said. “On the other hand, [rebound] happened pretty frequently in our data, as 8% of patients are documented to have it.”

Dr. Sparks said he and coinvestigators speculate that more patients in the cohort may have experienced COVID-19 rebound but did not communicate this to their health care providers, and, as such, it was not documented in the medical record. The potential development of COVID-19 rebound “is something to counsel your patients about.” COVID-19 rebound is a phenomenon that is being most commonly observed with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as outpatient treatment.
 

Possible confounding factors in study

Katie Bechman, MBChB, clinical lecturer in rheumatology at King’s College London, who coauthored an accompanying editorial about the study and its findings, pointed out that the study is limited by its observational design.

“With any study that looks at the efficacy of treatment, especially in an observational cohort, you’re going to have to consider the unmeasured confounding and the difference between these two groups,” Dr. Bechman said. “I know that they did try to adjust for that in this study, but there’s always going to be factors that we can’t [control for]. That is something that needs to be considered. I think that’s always something we need to consider when we’re looking at observational data.”

In lieu of a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Bechman noted that the study and its associated findings serve as “the best data we have,” and she described the results as “very informative and positive.”

She added that the large number of patients represents a strength of the study, as does the robust method employed for identifying which patients had COVID-19.

The learnings from this study with respect to outpatient treatment can be applied to more common illnesses that patients with rheumatic disease may develop, such as the flu, according to Dr. Bechman.

“One of the positive aspects from this pandemic is that we’ve learned a huge amount about how best to treat certain viruses and prevent them in patients,” she said. “It would be worth thinking towards the future, what we can do for illnesses that we see very commonly in these populations. There may be treatment regimens that we haven’t really considered until now. You could hypothesize that in the next couple of years, if we have an influenza breakout, that we should be providing some prehospital antiviral treatment to patients, especially the ones that are at high risk.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Dr. Bechman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient COVID-19 treatment with monoclonal antibodies or antiretroviral medications such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) administered to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease led to lower odds of having severe outcomes when compared with similar patients who received no outpatient treatment in a real-world, retrospective analysis of cases.

The investigators found that there were nine hospitalizations or deaths (2.1%) among 426 patients who received outpatient treatment, compared with 49 (17.6%) among 278 who did not receive outpatient treatment, yielding an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.25), after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and kidney function. The study was published in Lancet Rheumatology.

“Across the board, there was a really strong association with receiving outpatient treatment and lower risk of severe COVID-19,” senior author Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “It is pretty powerful evidence that, in this high-risk group, that treatment still matters related to preventing severe COVID. We found almost all patients who had severe COVID-19, either hospitalized or who had died, were in the untreated group.”
 

Early outpatient treatment an important tool in patients with rheumatic disease

Dr. Sparks noted that he and his coinvestigators conducted the study because the benefit of outpatient COVID-19 treatments in individuals with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease was not adequately determined in clinical trials because they had infrequent enrollment of such patients.

The analysis included 704 patients with a mean age of 58.4 years who were seen at Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, a multicenter health care system that includes 14 hospitals and primary care or specialty outpatient centers in the Boston area. A majority were female (76%) and White (84%). Nearly half had rheumatoid arthritis. Of the 704, 426 (61%) received outpatient treatment, which included nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 307), monoclonal antibodies (n = 105), molnupiravir (n = 5), remdesivir (n = 3), and combination treatment (n = 6).

The findings underline the need to individualize approaches to outpatient treatment in those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 to fend off severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Sparks. “It seems if you are vaccinated and in the general population that you are way less likely to have severe COVID-19 in the current environment, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to some high-risk groups like patients on immunosuppression. There are still patients at risk of severe COVID-19, and some of them are in this group of rheumatic patients. This should be part of the discussion related to deciding whether or not to treat.”

Dr. Sparks noted that vaccination against COVID-19 confers protection against developing severe COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease as it does in the general population, but patients with rheumatic diseases remain at increased risk for severe presentation. “Certainly, the vaccines really help our patients too, but there’s still a bit of a gap between the risk for our patients with rheumatic diseases and the general population” in developing severe COVID-19.

Dr. Sparks said he hopes the results represent a “call to action” that even among vaccinated patients there are still some who have poor outcomes, and that early outpatient treatment appears to be an important tool in the fight against poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

COVID-19 rebound

The study also reported on the phenomenon of COVID-19 rebound (recurrence of symptoms and test positivity after regimen completion) after oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment. “This [COVID-19 rebound] is a downside to treatment,” he said. COVID rebound was not infrequent: A total of 25 (8%) of 318 patients who received oral outpatient treatment had documented COVID-19 rebound.

“It was reassuring because we found no one who had rebound progressed to have severe COVID-19,” Dr. Sparks said. “On the other hand, [rebound] happened pretty frequently in our data, as 8% of patients are documented to have it.”

Dr. Sparks said he and coinvestigators speculate that more patients in the cohort may have experienced COVID-19 rebound but did not communicate this to their health care providers, and, as such, it was not documented in the medical record. The potential development of COVID-19 rebound “is something to counsel your patients about.” COVID-19 rebound is a phenomenon that is being most commonly observed with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as outpatient treatment.
 

Possible confounding factors in study

Katie Bechman, MBChB, clinical lecturer in rheumatology at King’s College London, who coauthored an accompanying editorial about the study and its findings, pointed out that the study is limited by its observational design.

“With any study that looks at the efficacy of treatment, especially in an observational cohort, you’re going to have to consider the unmeasured confounding and the difference between these two groups,” Dr. Bechman said. “I know that they did try to adjust for that in this study, but there’s always going to be factors that we can’t [control for]. That is something that needs to be considered. I think that’s always something we need to consider when we’re looking at observational data.”

In lieu of a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Bechman noted that the study and its associated findings serve as “the best data we have,” and she described the results as “very informative and positive.”

She added that the large number of patients represents a strength of the study, as does the robust method employed for identifying which patients had COVID-19.

The learnings from this study with respect to outpatient treatment can be applied to more common illnesses that patients with rheumatic disease may develop, such as the flu, according to Dr. Bechman.

“One of the positive aspects from this pandemic is that we’ve learned a huge amount about how best to treat certain viruses and prevent them in patients,” she said. “It would be worth thinking towards the future, what we can do for illnesses that we see very commonly in these populations. There may be treatment regimens that we haven’t really considered until now. You could hypothesize that in the next couple of years, if we have an influenza breakout, that we should be providing some prehospital antiviral treatment to patients, especially the ones that are at high risk.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Dr. Bechman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Outpatient COVID-19 treatment with monoclonal antibodies or antiretroviral medications such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid) administered to patients with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease led to lower odds of having severe outcomes when compared with similar patients who received no outpatient treatment in a real-world, retrospective analysis of cases.

The investigators found that there were nine hospitalizations or deaths (2.1%) among 426 patients who received outpatient treatment, compared with 49 (17.6%) among 278 who did not receive outpatient treatment, yielding an odds ratio of 0.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.25), after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and kidney function. The study was published in Lancet Rheumatology.

“Across the board, there was a really strong association with receiving outpatient treatment and lower risk of severe COVID-19,” senior author Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, assistant professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview. “It is pretty powerful evidence that, in this high-risk group, that treatment still matters related to preventing severe COVID. We found almost all patients who had severe COVID-19, either hospitalized or who had died, were in the untreated group.”
 

Early outpatient treatment an important tool in patients with rheumatic disease

Dr. Sparks noted that he and his coinvestigators conducted the study because the benefit of outpatient COVID-19 treatments in individuals with systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease was not adequately determined in clinical trials because they had infrequent enrollment of such patients.

The analysis included 704 patients with a mean age of 58.4 years who were seen at Mass General Brigham Integrated Health Care System, a multicenter health care system that includes 14 hospitals and primary care or specialty outpatient centers in the Boston area. A majority were female (76%) and White (84%). Nearly half had rheumatoid arthritis. Of the 704, 426 (61%) received outpatient treatment, which included nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (n = 307), monoclonal antibodies (n = 105), molnupiravir (n = 5), remdesivir (n = 3), and combination treatment (n = 6).

The findings underline the need to individualize approaches to outpatient treatment in those who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 to fend off severe COVID-19, according to Dr. Sparks. “It seems if you are vaccinated and in the general population that you are way less likely to have severe COVID-19 in the current environment, but that doesn’t necessarily apply to some high-risk groups like patients on immunosuppression. There are still patients at risk of severe COVID-19, and some of them are in this group of rheumatic patients. This should be part of the discussion related to deciding whether or not to treat.”

Dr. Sparks noted that vaccination against COVID-19 confers protection against developing severe COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease as it does in the general population, but patients with rheumatic diseases remain at increased risk for severe presentation. “Certainly, the vaccines really help our patients too, but there’s still a bit of a gap between the risk for our patients with rheumatic diseases and the general population” in developing severe COVID-19.

Dr. Sparks said he hopes the results represent a “call to action” that even among vaccinated patients there are still some who have poor outcomes, and that early outpatient treatment appears to be an important tool in the fight against poor outcomes from SARS-CoV-2 infection.
 

COVID-19 rebound

The study also reported on the phenomenon of COVID-19 rebound (recurrence of symptoms and test positivity after regimen completion) after oral outpatient SARS-CoV-2 treatment. “This [COVID-19 rebound] is a downside to treatment,” he said. COVID rebound was not infrequent: A total of 25 (8%) of 318 patients who received oral outpatient treatment had documented COVID-19 rebound.

“It was reassuring because we found no one who had rebound progressed to have severe COVID-19,” Dr. Sparks said. “On the other hand, [rebound] happened pretty frequently in our data, as 8% of patients are documented to have it.”

Dr. Sparks said he and coinvestigators speculate that more patients in the cohort may have experienced COVID-19 rebound but did not communicate this to their health care providers, and, as such, it was not documented in the medical record. The potential development of COVID-19 rebound “is something to counsel your patients about.” COVID-19 rebound is a phenomenon that is being most commonly observed with nirmatrelvir-ritonavir as outpatient treatment.
 

Possible confounding factors in study

Katie Bechman, MBChB, clinical lecturer in rheumatology at King’s College London, who coauthored an accompanying editorial about the study and its findings, pointed out that the study is limited by its observational design.

“With any study that looks at the efficacy of treatment, especially in an observational cohort, you’re going to have to consider the unmeasured confounding and the difference between these two groups,” Dr. Bechman said. “I know that they did try to adjust for that in this study, but there’s always going to be factors that we can’t [control for]. That is something that needs to be considered. I think that’s always something we need to consider when we’re looking at observational data.”

In lieu of a randomized, controlled trial, Dr. Bechman noted that the study and its associated findings serve as “the best data we have,” and she described the results as “very informative and positive.”

She added that the large number of patients represents a strength of the study, as does the robust method employed for identifying which patients had COVID-19.

The learnings from this study with respect to outpatient treatment can be applied to more common illnesses that patients with rheumatic disease may develop, such as the flu, according to Dr. Bechman.

“One of the positive aspects from this pandemic is that we’ve learned a huge amount about how best to treat certain viruses and prevent them in patients,” she said. “It would be worth thinking towards the future, what we can do for illnesses that we see very commonly in these populations. There may be treatment regimens that we haven’t really considered until now. You could hypothesize that in the next couple of years, if we have an influenza breakout, that we should be providing some prehospital antiviral treatment to patients, especially the ones that are at high risk.”

The study was conducted without outside funding. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulted for AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Dr. Bechman reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mothers with intellectual or developmental disabilities are less likely to initiate breastfeeding and to receive in-hospital breastfeeding support than are those without a disability, new data suggest.

In a population-based cohort study of more than 600,000 mothers, patients with an intellectual or developmental disability were about 18% less likely to have a chance to initiate breastfeeding during their hospital stay.

“Overall, we did see lower rates of breastfeeding practices and supports in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as well as those with multiple disabilities, compared to people without disabilities,” study author Hilary K. Brown, PhD, assistant professor of health and society at University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, told this news organization.

The study was published in The Lancet Public Health.
 

Disparities in breastfeeding

“There hasn’t been a lot of research on breastfeeding outcomes in people with disabilities,” said Dr. Brown, who noted that the study outcomes were based on the WHO-UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative guidelines. “There have been a number of qualitative studies that have suggested that they do experience barriers accessing care related to breastfeeding and different challenges related to breastfeeding. But as far as quantitative outcomes, there has only been a handful of studies.”

To examine these outcomes, the investigators analyzed health administrative data from Ontario. They included in their analysis all birthing parents aged 15-49 years who had a single live birth between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2018. Patients with a physical disability, sensory disability, intellectual or developmental disability, or two or more disabilities were identified via diagnostic algorithms and were compared with individuals without disabilities with respect to the opportunity to initiate breastfeeding, to engage in in-hospital breastfeeding, to engage in exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge, to have skin-to-skin contact, and to be provided with breastfeeding assistance.

The investigators considered a physical disability to encompass conditions such as congenital anomalies, musculoskeletal disorders, neurologic disorders, or permanent injuries. They defined sensory disability as hearing loss or vision loss. Intellectual or developmental disability was defined as having autism spectrum disorder, chromosomal anomaly, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or other intellectual disability. Patients with multiple disabilities had two or more of these conditions.

The study population included 634,111 birthing parents, of whom 54,476 (8.6%) had a physical disability, 19,227 (3.0%) had a sensory disability, 1,048 (0.2%) had an intellectual or developmental disability, 4,050 (0.6%) had multiple disabilities, and 555,310 (87.6%) had no disability.

The investigators found that patients with intellectual or developmental disabilities were less likely than were those without a disability to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.82), to engage in any in-hospital breastfeeding (aRR, 0.85), to be breastfeeding exclusively at hospital discharge (aRR, 0.73), to have skin-to-skin contact (aRR, 0.90), and to receive breastfeeding assistance (aRR, 0.85) compared with patients without a disability.

They also found that individuals with multiple disabilities were less likely to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (aRR, 0.93), to engage in any in-hospital breastfeeding (aRR, 0.93), to be exclusively breastfeeding at hospital discharge (aRR, 0.90), to have skin-to-skin contact (aRR, 0.93), and to receive breastfeeding assistance (aRR, 0.95) compared with patients without a disability.
 

An understudied population

Commenting on the study, Lori Feldman-Winter, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Rowan University in Camden, N.J., said that one of its strengths is that it included patients who may be excluded from studies of breastfeeding practices. The finding of few differences in breastfeeding practices and supports for people with physical and sensory disabilities, compared with those without disabilities, was positive, she added.

“This is an understudied population, and it is important to call out that there may be practices related to breastfeeding care that suffer, due to implicit bias regarding persons with intellectual and multiple disabilities,” said Dr. Feldman-Winter. “The good news is that other disabilities did not show the same disparities. This study also shows how important it is to measure potential gaps in care across multiple sociodemographic and other variables, such as disabilities, to ensure equitable and inclusive care.”

Health care professionals need to be aware of disparities in breastfeeding care, she added. They need to be open to exploring potential biases when it comes to providing equitable care.

R. Douglas Wilson, MD, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, noted that the size of the cohort represents a strength of the study and that the findings suggest the possible need for closer follow-up of a new mother who is breastfeeding and who has an intellectual disability or multiple disabilities.

“You might keep that patient in hospital for an extra day, and then the home care nurse may look in on them more frequently than they would for someone who does not need that extra oversight,” said Dr. Wilson. When their patients are pregnant, obstetricians and gynecologists can find out whether their patients intend to breastfeed and put them in touch with nurses or lactation consultants to assist them, he added.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canada Research Chairs Program. Dr. Brown, Dr. Feldman-Winter, and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mothers with intellectual or developmental disabilities are less likely to initiate breastfeeding and to receive in-hospital breastfeeding support than are those without a disability, new data suggest.

In a population-based cohort study of more than 600,000 mothers, patients with an intellectual or developmental disability were about 18% less likely to have a chance to initiate breastfeeding during their hospital stay.

“Overall, we did see lower rates of breastfeeding practices and supports in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as well as those with multiple disabilities, compared to people without disabilities,” study author Hilary K. Brown, PhD, assistant professor of health and society at University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, told this news organization.

The study was published in The Lancet Public Health.
 

Disparities in breastfeeding

“There hasn’t been a lot of research on breastfeeding outcomes in people with disabilities,” said Dr. Brown, who noted that the study outcomes were based on the WHO-UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative guidelines. “There have been a number of qualitative studies that have suggested that they do experience barriers accessing care related to breastfeeding and different challenges related to breastfeeding. But as far as quantitative outcomes, there has only been a handful of studies.”

To examine these outcomes, the investigators analyzed health administrative data from Ontario. They included in their analysis all birthing parents aged 15-49 years who had a single live birth between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2018. Patients with a physical disability, sensory disability, intellectual or developmental disability, or two or more disabilities were identified via diagnostic algorithms and were compared with individuals without disabilities with respect to the opportunity to initiate breastfeeding, to engage in in-hospital breastfeeding, to engage in exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge, to have skin-to-skin contact, and to be provided with breastfeeding assistance.

The investigators considered a physical disability to encompass conditions such as congenital anomalies, musculoskeletal disorders, neurologic disorders, or permanent injuries. They defined sensory disability as hearing loss or vision loss. Intellectual or developmental disability was defined as having autism spectrum disorder, chromosomal anomaly, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or other intellectual disability. Patients with multiple disabilities had two or more of these conditions.

The study population included 634,111 birthing parents, of whom 54,476 (8.6%) had a physical disability, 19,227 (3.0%) had a sensory disability, 1,048 (0.2%) had an intellectual or developmental disability, 4,050 (0.6%) had multiple disabilities, and 555,310 (87.6%) had no disability.

The investigators found that patients with intellectual or developmental disabilities were less likely than were those without a disability to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.82), to engage in any in-hospital breastfeeding (aRR, 0.85), to be breastfeeding exclusively at hospital discharge (aRR, 0.73), to have skin-to-skin contact (aRR, 0.90), and to receive breastfeeding assistance (aRR, 0.85) compared with patients without a disability.

They also found that individuals with multiple disabilities were less likely to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (aRR, 0.93), to engage in any in-hospital breastfeeding (aRR, 0.93), to be exclusively breastfeeding at hospital discharge (aRR, 0.90), to have skin-to-skin contact (aRR, 0.93), and to receive breastfeeding assistance (aRR, 0.95) compared with patients without a disability.
 

An understudied population

Commenting on the study, Lori Feldman-Winter, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Rowan University in Camden, N.J., said that one of its strengths is that it included patients who may be excluded from studies of breastfeeding practices. The finding of few differences in breastfeeding practices and supports for people with physical and sensory disabilities, compared with those without disabilities, was positive, she added.

“This is an understudied population, and it is important to call out that there may be practices related to breastfeeding care that suffer, due to implicit bias regarding persons with intellectual and multiple disabilities,” said Dr. Feldman-Winter. “The good news is that other disabilities did not show the same disparities. This study also shows how important it is to measure potential gaps in care across multiple sociodemographic and other variables, such as disabilities, to ensure equitable and inclusive care.”

Health care professionals need to be aware of disparities in breastfeeding care, she added. They need to be open to exploring potential biases when it comes to providing equitable care.

R. Douglas Wilson, MD, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, noted that the size of the cohort represents a strength of the study and that the findings suggest the possible need for closer follow-up of a new mother who is breastfeeding and who has an intellectual disability or multiple disabilities.

“You might keep that patient in hospital for an extra day, and then the home care nurse may look in on them more frequently than they would for someone who does not need that extra oversight,” said Dr. Wilson. When their patients are pregnant, obstetricians and gynecologists can find out whether their patients intend to breastfeed and put them in touch with nurses or lactation consultants to assist them, he added.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canada Research Chairs Program. Dr. Brown, Dr. Feldman-Winter, and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Mothers with intellectual or developmental disabilities are less likely to initiate breastfeeding and to receive in-hospital breastfeeding support than are those without a disability, new data suggest.

In a population-based cohort study of more than 600,000 mothers, patients with an intellectual or developmental disability were about 18% less likely to have a chance to initiate breastfeeding during their hospital stay.

“Overall, we did see lower rates of breastfeeding practices and supports in people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, as well as those with multiple disabilities, compared to people without disabilities,” study author Hilary K. Brown, PhD, assistant professor of health and society at University of Toronto Scarborough in Ontario, told this news organization.

The study was published in The Lancet Public Health.
 

Disparities in breastfeeding

“There hasn’t been a lot of research on breastfeeding outcomes in people with disabilities,” said Dr. Brown, who noted that the study outcomes were based on the WHO-UNICEF Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative guidelines. “There have been a number of qualitative studies that have suggested that they do experience barriers accessing care related to breastfeeding and different challenges related to breastfeeding. But as far as quantitative outcomes, there has only been a handful of studies.”

To examine these outcomes, the investigators analyzed health administrative data from Ontario. They included in their analysis all birthing parents aged 15-49 years who had a single live birth between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2018. Patients with a physical disability, sensory disability, intellectual or developmental disability, or two or more disabilities were identified via diagnostic algorithms and were compared with individuals without disabilities with respect to the opportunity to initiate breastfeeding, to engage in in-hospital breastfeeding, to engage in exclusive breastfeeding at hospital discharge, to have skin-to-skin contact, and to be provided with breastfeeding assistance.

The investigators considered a physical disability to encompass conditions such as congenital anomalies, musculoskeletal disorders, neurologic disorders, or permanent injuries. They defined sensory disability as hearing loss or vision loss. Intellectual or developmental disability was defined as having autism spectrum disorder, chromosomal anomaly, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or other intellectual disability. Patients with multiple disabilities had two or more of these conditions.

The study population included 634,111 birthing parents, of whom 54,476 (8.6%) had a physical disability, 19,227 (3.0%) had a sensory disability, 1,048 (0.2%) had an intellectual or developmental disability, 4,050 (0.6%) had multiple disabilities, and 555,310 (87.6%) had no disability.

The investigators found that patients with intellectual or developmental disabilities were less likely than were those without a disability to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 0.82), to engage in any in-hospital breastfeeding (aRR, 0.85), to be breastfeeding exclusively at hospital discharge (aRR, 0.73), to have skin-to-skin contact (aRR, 0.90), and to receive breastfeeding assistance (aRR, 0.85) compared with patients without a disability.

They also found that individuals with multiple disabilities were less likely to have an opportunity to initiate breastfeeding (aRR, 0.93), to engage in any in-hospital breastfeeding (aRR, 0.93), to be exclusively breastfeeding at hospital discharge (aRR, 0.90), to have skin-to-skin contact (aRR, 0.93), and to receive breastfeeding assistance (aRR, 0.95) compared with patients without a disability.
 

An understudied population

Commenting on the study, Lori Feldman-Winter, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics at Rowan University in Camden, N.J., said that one of its strengths is that it included patients who may be excluded from studies of breastfeeding practices. The finding of few differences in breastfeeding practices and supports for people with physical and sensory disabilities, compared with those without disabilities, was positive, she added.

“This is an understudied population, and it is important to call out that there may be practices related to breastfeeding care that suffer, due to implicit bias regarding persons with intellectual and multiple disabilities,” said Dr. Feldman-Winter. “The good news is that other disabilities did not show the same disparities. This study also shows how important it is to measure potential gaps in care across multiple sociodemographic and other variables, such as disabilities, to ensure equitable and inclusive care.”

Health care professionals need to be aware of disparities in breastfeeding care, she added. They need to be open to exploring potential biases when it comes to providing equitable care.

R. Douglas Wilson, MD, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Calgary in Alberta, noted that the size of the cohort represents a strength of the study and that the findings suggest the possible need for closer follow-up of a new mother who is breastfeeding and who has an intellectual disability or multiple disabilities.

“You might keep that patient in hospital for an extra day, and then the home care nurse may look in on them more frequently than they would for someone who does not need that extra oversight,” said Dr. Wilson. When their patients are pregnant, obstetricians and gynecologists can find out whether their patients intend to breastfeed and put them in touch with nurses or lactation consultants to assist them, he added.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canada Research Chairs Program. Dr. Brown, Dr. Feldman-Winter, and Dr. Wilson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

One gene and pathogenic missense variants in that gene account for most cases of uncombable hair syndrome (UHS), a rare hair shaft anomaly that manifests during infancy, investigators have reported.

The findings are from a cohort study published in JAMA Dermatology, which involved 107 unrelated children and adults suspected of having UHS, as well as family members, all of whom were recruited from January 2013 to December 2021. Genetic analyses were conducted in Germany from January 2014 to December 2021 with exome sequencing.
 

Study builds on prior research

Senior author Regina C. Betz, MD, professor of dermatogenetics at the Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Bonn, Germany, said that in 2016, she and her coinvestigators authored a study on the molecular genetics of UHS. That study, which involved 18 people with UHS, identified variants in three genes – PADI3, TCHH, and TGM3 – that encode proteins that play a role in the formation of the hair shaft. The investigators described how a deficiency in the shaping and mechanical strengthening of the hair shaft occurs in the UHS phenotype, which is characterized by dry, frizzy, and wiry hair that cannot be combed flat.

As a result of that previous work, “we base the assignment or confirmation of a clinical diagnosis of UHS on molecular genetic diagnostics,” the authors write in the new study, rather than on the clinical appearance of the hair and the physical examination of the patient, with confirmation on microscopical examination of the hair shaft.
 

Social media as instrument in finding study participants

Following the 2016 study, Dr. Betz and colleagues were contacted by many clinicians and by the public through Facebook and other social media platforms with details about possible cases of UHS, an autosomal recessive disorder. Through these contacts, blood samples, saliva, or DNA was sent to the investigators’ laboratory from 89 unrelated index patients (69 female patients, 20 male patients) suspected of having UHS. This resulted in the identification of pathogenic variants in 69 cases, the investigators write.

“In the first study, we had 18 patients, and then we tried to collect as many as possible” to determine the main mechanism behind UHS, Dr. Betz said. One question is whether there are additional genes responsible for UHS, she noted. “Even now, we are not sure, because in 25% [of cases in the new study], we didn’t find any mutation in the three known genes.”

The current study resulted in the discovery of eight novel pathogenic variants in PADI3, which are responsible for 71.0% (76) of the 107 cases. Of those, “6 were single observations and 2 were observed in 3 and 2 individuals, respectively,” the investigators write.

Children can grow out of this disorder, but it can also persist into adulthood, Dr. Betz noted. Communication that investigators had with parents of the children with UHS revealed that these children are often the targets of bullying by other children, she added.

She and her and colleagues will continue this research and are currently studying adults who have UHS.
 

Research leads to possible treatment pathways

Jeff Donovan, MD, FRCPC, FAAD, a dermatologist and medical director of the Donovan Hair Clinic in Whistler, British Columbia, described these findings as fundamental to understanding UHS and creating pathways to possible treatments.

The study “identifies more about the genetic basis of this challenging condition,” said Dr. Donovan, who is also clinical instructor in the department of dermatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and president of the Canadian Hair Loss Foundation. “We really need this type of information in order to have any sort of clue in terms of how to treat it,” he told this news organization.

“In the hair loss world, it’s pretty clear that if you can understand the genetic basis of things, or the basic science of a condition, whether it’s the basic genetics or the basic immunology, you give yourself the best chance to develop good treatments,” said Dr. Donovan.

The article provides advanced genetic information of the condition, such that geneticists can test for at least three markers if they are suspecting UHS, Dr. Donovan observed.
 

Condition can lead to bullying

Dr. Donovan also commented that UHS can have a detrimental impact on children with regard to socializing with their peers. “Having hair that sticks out and is very full like this is challenging because kids do get teased,” he said.

“It is often the parents who are the most affected” when a child aged 2-5 years has a hair condition such as UHS. But at age 5-9, “children are developing self-identity and an understanding of various aspects of self-esteem and what they look like and what others look like. And that’s where the teasing really starts. And that’s where it does become troublesome.”

Dr. Betz and Dr. Donovan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One gene and pathogenic missense variants in that gene account for most cases of uncombable hair syndrome (UHS), a rare hair shaft anomaly that manifests during infancy, investigators have reported.

The findings are from a cohort study published in JAMA Dermatology, which involved 107 unrelated children and adults suspected of having UHS, as well as family members, all of whom were recruited from January 2013 to December 2021. Genetic analyses were conducted in Germany from January 2014 to December 2021 with exome sequencing.
 

Study builds on prior research

Senior author Regina C. Betz, MD, professor of dermatogenetics at the Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Bonn, Germany, said that in 2016, she and her coinvestigators authored a study on the molecular genetics of UHS. That study, which involved 18 people with UHS, identified variants in three genes – PADI3, TCHH, and TGM3 – that encode proteins that play a role in the formation of the hair shaft. The investigators described how a deficiency in the shaping and mechanical strengthening of the hair shaft occurs in the UHS phenotype, which is characterized by dry, frizzy, and wiry hair that cannot be combed flat.

As a result of that previous work, “we base the assignment or confirmation of a clinical diagnosis of UHS on molecular genetic diagnostics,” the authors write in the new study, rather than on the clinical appearance of the hair and the physical examination of the patient, with confirmation on microscopical examination of the hair shaft.
 

Social media as instrument in finding study participants

Following the 2016 study, Dr. Betz and colleagues were contacted by many clinicians and by the public through Facebook and other social media platforms with details about possible cases of UHS, an autosomal recessive disorder. Through these contacts, blood samples, saliva, or DNA was sent to the investigators’ laboratory from 89 unrelated index patients (69 female patients, 20 male patients) suspected of having UHS. This resulted in the identification of pathogenic variants in 69 cases, the investigators write.

“In the first study, we had 18 patients, and then we tried to collect as many as possible” to determine the main mechanism behind UHS, Dr. Betz said. One question is whether there are additional genes responsible for UHS, she noted. “Even now, we are not sure, because in 25% [of cases in the new study], we didn’t find any mutation in the three known genes.”

The current study resulted in the discovery of eight novel pathogenic variants in PADI3, which are responsible for 71.0% (76) of the 107 cases. Of those, “6 were single observations and 2 were observed in 3 and 2 individuals, respectively,” the investigators write.

Children can grow out of this disorder, but it can also persist into adulthood, Dr. Betz noted. Communication that investigators had with parents of the children with UHS revealed that these children are often the targets of bullying by other children, she added.

She and her and colleagues will continue this research and are currently studying adults who have UHS.
 

Research leads to possible treatment pathways

Jeff Donovan, MD, FRCPC, FAAD, a dermatologist and medical director of the Donovan Hair Clinic in Whistler, British Columbia, described these findings as fundamental to understanding UHS and creating pathways to possible treatments.

The study “identifies more about the genetic basis of this challenging condition,” said Dr. Donovan, who is also clinical instructor in the department of dermatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and president of the Canadian Hair Loss Foundation. “We really need this type of information in order to have any sort of clue in terms of how to treat it,” he told this news organization.

“In the hair loss world, it’s pretty clear that if you can understand the genetic basis of things, or the basic science of a condition, whether it’s the basic genetics or the basic immunology, you give yourself the best chance to develop good treatments,” said Dr. Donovan.

The article provides advanced genetic information of the condition, such that geneticists can test for at least three markers if they are suspecting UHS, Dr. Donovan observed.
 

Condition can lead to bullying

Dr. Donovan also commented that UHS can have a detrimental impact on children with regard to socializing with their peers. “Having hair that sticks out and is very full like this is challenging because kids do get teased,” he said.

“It is often the parents who are the most affected” when a child aged 2-5 years has a hair condition such as UHS. But at age 5-9, “children are developing self-identity and an understanding of various aspects of self-esteem and what they look like and what others look like. And that’s where the teasing really starts. And that’s where it does become troublesome.”

Dr. Betz and Dr. Donovan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

One gene and pathogenic missense variants in that gene account for most cases of uncombable hair syndrome (UHS), a rare hair shaft anomaly that manifests during infancy, investigators have reported.

The findings are from a cohort study published in JAMA Dermatology, which involved 107 unrelated children and adults suspected of having UHS, as well as family members, all of whom were recruited from January 2013 to December 2021. Genetic analyses were conducted in Germany from January 2014 to December 2021 with exome sequencing.
 

Study builds on prior research

Senior author Regina C. Betz, MD, professor of dermatogenetics at the Institute of Human Genetics, University Hospital Bonn, Germany, said that in 2016, she and her coinvestigators authored a study on the molecular genetics of UHS. That study, which involved 18 people with UHS, identified variants in three genes – PADI3, TCHH, and TGM3 – that encode proteins that play a role in the formation of the hair shaft. The investigators described how a deficiency in the shaping and mechanical strengthening of the hair shaft occurs in the UHS phenotype, which is characterized by dry, frizzy, and wiry hair that cannot be combed flat.

As a result of that previous work, “we base the assignment or confirmation of a clinical diagnosis of UHS on molecular genetic diagnostics,” the authors write in the new study, rather than on the clinical appearance of the hair and the physical examination of the patient, with confirmation on microscopical examination of the hair shaft.
 

Social media as instrument in finding study participants

Following the 2016 study, Dr. Betz and colleagues were contacted by many clinicians and by the public through Facebook and other social media platforms with details about possible cases of UHS, an autosomal recessive disorder. Through these contacts, blood samples, saliva, or DNA was sent to the investigators’ laboratory from 89 unrelated index patients (69 female patients, 20 male patients) suspected of having UHS. This resulted in the identification of pathogenic variants in 69 cases, the investigators write.

“In the first study, we had 18 patients, and then we tried to collect as many as possible” to determine the main mechanism behind UHS, Dr. Betz said. One question is whether there are additional genes responsible for UHS, she noted. “Even now, we are not sure, because in 25% [of cases in the new study], we didn’t find any mutation in the three known genes.”

The current study resulted in the discovery of eight novel pathogenic variants in PADI3, which are responsible for 71.0% (76) of the 107 cases. Of those, “6 were single observations and 2 were observed in 3 and 2 individuals, respectively,” the investigators write.

Children can grow out of this disorder, but it can also persist into adulthood, Dr. Betz noted. Communication that investigators had with parents of the children with UHS revealed that these children are often the targets of bullying by other children, she added.

She and her and colleagues will continue this research and are currently studying adults who have UHS.
 

Research leads to possible treatment pathways

Jeff Donovan, MD, FRCPC, FAAD, a dermatologist and medical director of the Donovan Hair Clinic in Whistler, British Columbia, described these findings as fundamental to understanding UHS and creating pathways to possible treatments.

The study “identifies more about the genetic basis of this challenging condition,” said Dr. Donovan, who is also clinical instructor in the department of dermatology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, and president of the Canadian Hair Loss Foundation. “We really need this type of information in order to have any sort of clue in terms of how to treat it,” he told this news organization.

“In the hair loss world, it’s pretty clear that if you can understand the genetic basis of things, or the basic science of a condition, whether it’s the basic genetics or the basic immunology, you give yourself the best chance to develop good treatments,” said Dr. Donovan.

The article provides advanced genetic information of the condition, such that geneticists can test for at least three markers if they are suspecting UHS, Dr. Donovan observed.
 

Condition can lead to bullying

Dr. Donovan also commented that UHS can have a detrimental impact on children with regard to socializing with their peers. “Having hair that sticks out and is very full like this is challenging because kids do get teased,” he said.

“It is often the parents who are the most affected” when a child aged 2-5 years has a hair condition such as UHS. But at age 5-9, “children are developing self-identity and an understanding of various aspects of self-esteem and what they look like and what others look like. And that’s where the teasing really starts. And that’s where it does become troublesome.”

Dr. Betz and Dr. Donovan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis companies in the United States and Canada have developed corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices that mirror those of the tobacco industry, according to recent data.

A qualitative study of cannabis companies’ CSR practices over 10 years found, for example, that dispensary Trulieve provided $15,000 for internships and $20,000 for scholarships to prepare Black students for careers in the cannabis industry. The tobacco industry has used similar initiatives to foster good will and market its products to minority populations.

“The main message from this paper is that this is an industry selling a product with health impacts,” said study author Tanner Wakefield, an associate specialist at the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have seen how the tobacco industry in the past has used corporate social responsibility practices to insulate itself politically, engender public good will, and encourage consumption of tobacco products with harmful health effects.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

A double agenda

The investigators identified 9 of the 10 largest publicly traded cannabis companies in the United States and Canada and examined the CSR activities that they conducted between Jan. 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2021. The investigators also conducted a systematic review of corporate websites and Nexis Uni articles that identified 153 news stories, press releases, and web pages that communicated about cannabis companies’ charitable and philanthropic activities.

Investigators identified themes in CSR activities by categorizing the language and informational patterns in the evidence they collected. They divided CSR practices into five categories, consisting of campaigns supposedly mitigating the harmful effects of past cannabis prohibition; initiatives characterized as promoting or increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion; charitable contributions; researching therapeutic cannabis uses and increasing medical access; and efforts claiming to address harms related to cannabis legalization.

The investigators observed that Green Thumb Industries and Cresco Labs set up “business incubators” and licensing assistance programs targeted toward members of racial and ethnic minority populations and communities most affected by cannabis prohibition. Canopy Growth Corporation supported research into whether medical cannabis could alleviate sleep disorders or treat mental health conditions. The company also collaborated with Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Parent Action on Drugs to create materials for preventing cannabis abuse among youth.

“I think we need to remember that this is an industry selling a product,” said Mr. Wakefield. “And just because there is merit to addressing certain issues or harms, that doesn’t mean we should forget that they are businesses seeking to make a profit. While CSR activities may have some potential benefits or apparent legitimacy, we have to remember that CSR is also a form of marketing and political influence.”

The investigators concluded that these CSR activities were similar to CSR strategies that the tobacco industry previously had used to encourage consumption, target marginalized communities, influence regulation, and advance corporate interests.

“A similarity to the tobacco industry is that they would provide funding or assistance to nonprofit groups that are not necessarily tied to cannabis or tobacco,” said Mr. Wakefield. For example, the investigators noted that cannabis companies contributed funding for breast cancer research and for veterans.

Moreover, the investigators observed “similarities in terms of focus and orientation toward special interest populations,” said Mr. Wakefield. Those special populations included the LGBTQ communities, and activities included sponsoring or participating in pride celebrations and releasing limited-edition pride products.

Overall, the cannabis industry engages in CSR activities that appear to mitigate the harmful effects of its products and operations, said Mr. Wakefield.
 

‘Incomplete information’

Jason W. Busse, DC, PhD, associate director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., described the study as rigorous, but with limitations acknowledged by the authors.

“Understanding how these companies are promoting themselves and justifying themselves as good corporate citizens is important,” said Dr. Busse. “The investigators have undertaken a comprehensive study and identified CSR activities that cannabis companies are engaging in. We know from past experiences with tobacco companies that these activities may be used in part to encourage less regulation and increase market access.”

One constraint of the study is that the investigators used documents that were in the public domain, as opposed to internal company information. “The investigators were limited to the information that they were able to access,” said Dr. Busse. “Unless you use the Freedom of Information Act to compel companies to release internal documents, you don’t have that information. They haven’t done that, and it is almost a certainty that the authors had to work with incomplete information.”

The investigators suggest a need for oversight of the cannabis industry’s CSR practices, and Dr. Busse agreed with this assessment. “While engagement in social responsibility activities by cannabis corporations may have positive results, there should be independent assessment of outcomes. For example, sponsoring research may be problematic if such support comes with strings attached, such as suppressing or modifying unfavorable findings.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis companies in the United States and Canada have developed corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices that mirror those of the tobacco industry, according to recent data.

A qualitative study of cannabis companies’ CSR practices over 10 years found, for example, that dispensary Trulieve provided $15,000 for internships and $20,000 for scholarships to prepare Black students for careers in the cannabis industry. The tobacco industry has used similar initiatives to foster good will and market its products to minority populations.

“The main message from this paper is that this is an industry selling a product with health impacts,” said study author Tanner Wakefield, an associate specialist at the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have seen how the tobacco industry in the past has used corporate social responsibility practices to insulate itself politically, engender public good will, and encourage consumption of tobacco products with harmful health effects.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

A double agenda

The investigators identified 9 of the 10 largest publicly traded cannabis companies in the United States and Canada and examined the CSR activities that they conducted between Jan. 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2021. The investigators also conducted a systematic review of corporate websites and Nexis Uni articles that identified 153 news stories, press releases, and web pages that communicated about cannabis companies’ charitable and philanthropic activities.

Investigators identified themes in CSR activities by categorizing the language and informational patterns in the evidence they collected. They divided CSR practices into five categories, consisting of campaigns supposedly mitigating the harmful effects of past cannabis prohibition; initiatives characterized as promoting or increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion; charitable contributions; researching therapeutic cannabis uses and increasing medical access; and efforts claiming to address harms related to cannabis legalization.

The investigators observed that Green Thumb Industries and Cresco Labs set up “business incubators” and licensing assistance programs targeted toward members of racial and ethnic minority populations and communities most affected by cannabis prohibition. Canopy Growth Corporation supported research into whether medical cannabis could alleviate sleep disorders or treat mental health conditions. The company also collaborated with Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Parent Action on Drugs to create materials for preventing cannabis abuse among youth.

“I think we need to remember that this is an industry selling a product,” said Mr. Wakefield. “And just because there is merit to addressing certain issues or harms, that doesn’t mean we should forget that they are businesses seeking to make a profit. While CSR activities may have some potential benefits or apparent legitimacy, we have to remember that CSR is also a form of marketing and political influence.”

The investigators concluded that these CSR activities were similar to CSR strategies that the tobacco industry previously had used to encourage consumption, target marginalized communities, influence regulation, and advance corporate interests.

“A similarity to the tobacco industry is that they would provide funding or assistance to nonprofit groups that are not necessarily tied to cannabis or tobacco,” said Mr. Wakefield. For example, the investigators noted that cannabis companies contributed funding for breast cancer research and for veterans.

Moreover, the investigators observed “similarities in terms of focus and orientation toward special interest populations,” said Mr. Wakefield. Those special populations included the LGBTQ communities, and activities included sponsoring or participating in pride celebrations and releasing limited-edition pride products.

Overall, the cannabis industry engages in CSR activities that appear to mitigate the harmful effects of its products and operations, said Mr. Wakefield.
 

‘Incomplete information’

Jason W. Busse, DC, PhD, associate director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., described the study as rigorous, but with limitations acknowledged by the authors.

“Understanding how these companies are promoting themselves and justifying themselves as good corporate citizens is important,” said Dr. Busse. “The investigators have undertaken a comprehensive study and identified CSR activities that cannabis companies are engaging in. We know from past experiences with tobacco companies that these activities may be used in part to encourage less regulation and increase market access.”

One constraint of the study is that the investigators used documents that were in the public domain, as opposed to internal company information. “The investigators were limited to the information that they were able to access,” said Dr. Busse. “Unless you use the Freedom of Information Act to compel companies to release internal documents, you don’t have that information. They haven’t done that, and it is almost a certainty that the authors had to work with incomplete information.”

The investigators suggest a need for oversight of the cannabis industry’s CSR practices, and Dr. Busse agreed with this assessment. “While engagement in social responsibility activities by cannabis corporations may have positive results, there should be independent assessment of outcomes. For example, sponsoring research may be problematic if such support comes with strings attached, such as suppressing or modifying unfavorable findings.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cannabis companies in the United States and Canada have developed corporate social responsibility (CSR) practices that mirror those of the tobacco industry, according to recent data.

A qualitative study of cannabis companies’ CSR practices over 10 years found, for example, that dispensary Trulieve provided $15,000 for internships and $20,000 for scholarships to prepare Black students for careers in the cannabis industry. The tobacco industry has used similar initiatives to foster good will and market its products to minority populations.

“The main message from this paper is that this is an industry selling a product with health impacts,” said study author Tanner Wakefield, an associate specialist at the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. “We have seen how the tobacco industry in the past has used corporate social responsibility practices to insulate itself politically, engender public good will, and encourage consumption of tobacco products with harmful health effects.”

The study was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

A double agenda

The investigators identified 9 of the 10 largest publicly traded cannabis companies in the United States and Canada and examined the CSR activities that they conducted between Jan. 1, 2012, and Dec. 31, 2021. The investigators also conducted a systematic review of corporate websites and Nexis Uni articles that identified 153 news stories, press releases, and web pages that communicated about cannabis companies’ charitable and philanthropic activities.

Investigators identified themes in CSR activities by categorizing the language and informational patterns in the evidence they collected. They divided CSR practices into five categories, consisting of campaigns supposedly mitigating the harmful effects of past cannabis prohibition; initiatives characterized as promoting or increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion; charitable contributions; researching therapeutic cannabis uses and increasing medical access; and efforts claiming to address harms related to cannabis legalization.

The investigators observed that Green Thumb Industries and Cresco Labs set up “business incubators” and licensing assistance programs targeted toward members of racial and ethnic minority populations and communities most affected by cannabis prohibition. Canopy Growth Corporation supported research into whether medical cannabis could alleviate sleep disorders or treat mental health conditions. The company also collaborated with Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy and Parent Action on Drugs to create materials for preventing cannabis abuse among youth.

“I think we need to remember that this is an industry selling a product,” said Mr. Wakefield. “And just because there is merit to addressing certain issues or harms, that doesn’t mean we should forget that they are businesses seeking to make a profit. While CSR activities may have some potential benefits or apparent legitimacy, we have to remember that CSR is also a form of marketing and political influence.”

The investigators concluded that these CSR activities were similar to CSR strategies that the tobacco industry previously had used to encourage consumption, target marginalized communities, influence regulation, and advance corporate interests.

“A similarity to the tobacco industry is that they would provide funding or assistance to nonprofit groups that are not necessarily tied to cannabis or tobacco,” said Mr. Wakefield. For example, the investigators noted that cannabis companies contributed funding for breast cancer research and for veterans.

Moreover, the investigators observed “similarities in terms of focus and orientation toward special interest populations,” said Mr. Wakefield. Those special populations included the LGBTQ communities, and activities included sponsoring or participating in pride celebrations and releasing limited-edition pride products.

Overall, the cannabis industry engages in CSR activities that appear to mitigate the harmful effects of its products and operations, said Mr. Wakefield.
 

‘Incomplete information’

Jason W. Busse, DC, PhD, associate director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., described the study as rigorous, but with limitations acknowledged by the authors.

“Understanding how these companies are promoting themselves and justifying themselves as good corporate citizens is important,” said Dr. Busse. “The investigators have undertaken a comprehensive study and identified CSR activities that cannabis companies are engaging in. We know from past experiences with tobacco companies that these activities may be used in part to encourage less regulation and increase market access.”

One constraint of the study is that the investigators used documents that were in the public domain, as opposed to internal company information. “The investigators were limited to the information that they were able to access,” said Dr. Busse. “Unless you use the Freedom of Information Act to compel companies to release internal documents, you don’t have that information. They haven’t done that, and it is almost a certainty that the authors had to work with incomplete information.”

The investigators suggest a need for oversight of the cannabis industry’s CSR practices, and Dr. Busse agreed with this assessment. “While engagement in social responsibility activities by cannabis corporations may have positive results, there should be independent assessment of outcomes. For example, sponsoring research may be problematic if such support comes with strings attached, such as suppressing or modifying unfavorable findings.”

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakefield and Dr. Busse reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty in accessing a family physician is associated with a higher risk for unplanned return visits to the emergency department among patients aged 75 years and older, new data indicate.

In a prospective, observational study that included almost 2,000 patients in this age group, 16% of participants attempted to contact their family physicians before their ED visits. Of this group, more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

“Difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population,” write study author Marc Afilalo, MD, director of the ED at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, and colleagues. “Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.”

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Comorbidities increased risk

Researchers have estimated that half of Canadians aged 75 years or older use emergency services. Data indicate that the number of unplanned return visits to the ED is associated with increased functional decline and death. But the question of how patient access to primary care services affects unplanned ED return visits has received little attention, according to the investigators.

They conducted a multicenter study at three tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montreal. From 2012 to 2014, they recruited patients aged 75 years and older who had visited the ED and who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence.

Investigators collected data through structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical chart reviews. They followed up with participants at 3 months by telephone. The study’s main outcome was return visit to the ED.

The researchers identified 4,577 patients and included 1,998 in their analysis. Of that total, 33% were 85 or older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits to the ED.

Among patients aged 85 years or older (relative risk, 0.80), as well as those whose triage score was less severe (RR, 0.83) and those who were admitted during the index ED visit (RR, 0.76), rates of return ED visits were lower. Among patients who had trouble booking appointments with their family doctors to address new problems (RR, 1.19), as well as those who had made ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR, 1.47) or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR, 1.06 for every 1-unit increase), rates of return visits were higher.

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of return visits were visits to the ED in the previous 6 months (odds ratio, 2.11), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR, 1.41 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR, 3.00).
 

Primary care access

The study suggests that improvements in primary care access are needed to decrease return visits to the ED, Samir Sinha, MD, DPhil, director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals in Toronto, told this news organization. Dr. Sinha was not involved in the study.

“It reminds us of the importance of having a strong primary care system,” he added. “Of this population, 91% had primary care providers. And what the paper demonstrates is that those who are having trouble accessing their primary care providers are more likely to be readmitted to an ED. We can only imagine how much worse the outcomes are for people who don’t have a primary care provider.”

Patients are frequently advised to visit the ED when they contact their primary care providers, said Mark Rosenberg, PhD, professor of geography and planning and the Canada Research Chair in Aging, Health, and Development at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. He noted that primary care is organized as an appointment-based system. Dr. Rosenberg did not participate in the study.

“If I were to call my primary care provider in the middle of the afternoon and say that I have got chest pains, they are going to simply tell me to go to emergency,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “It is not just older people. Many people end up in the ED because they are told to go to the ED.”
 

Associations with age

“The higher your Charlson comorbidity index, the more multiple, complex health issues you’re dealing with,” said Sinha. He added that the data suggest the frailty of the study population.

The association between age 85 years or older and a lower rate of a return ED visits might mean that the patient did not return to independent living after the ED visit, Dr. Rosenberg speculated. “If it’s a serious health problem, you’re more likely to end up going into long-term care at that stage, and you are not going back to living in the community in your home,” he said. “You’re likely going into some sort of transition care or alternative care.”

People aged 85 years or older who are hospitalized are more likely not to survive their index hospital admission, compared with patients who are aged 75-85 years. There would be no possibility that such patients would revisit the ED in the future, said Dr. Sinha.
 

Expanding primary care

The major solution to decreasing reliance on the ED lies in revamping primary health care so that it offers an expanded level of care and 24/7 access, said Dr. Rosenberg.

Providing continuity of care, identifying problems, and managing them in the community before they become urgent or require a hospitalization are priorities for primary care and will help shift away from return visits to the ED, which should be a last resort for patients, said Dr. Sinha.

Moreover, patients must be able to access primary care in various ways, be it a telephone consultation, a video consultation, or a face-to-face consultation, he added. Face-to-face consultations can take place in a provider’s office or even in a patient’s home when warranted, he said. “What we need to make sure of is that all three types of consultations are available, so that people can actually get the most appropriate care at the time they’re calling.”

The study had no external funding. Dr. Afilalo, Dr. Sinha, and Dr. Rosenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty in accessing a family physician is associated with a higher risk for unplanned return visits to the emergency department among patients aged 75 years and older, new data indicate.

In a prospective, observational study that included almost 2,000 patients in this age group, 16% of participants attempted to contact their family physicians before their ED visits. Of this group, more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

“Difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population,” write study author Marc Afilalo, MD, director of the ED at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, and colleagues. “Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.”

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Comorbidities increased risk

Researchers have estimated that half of Canadians aged 75 years or older use emergency services. Data indicate that the number of unplanned return visits to the ED is associated with increased functional decline and death. But the question of how patient access to primary care services affects unplanned ED return visits has received little attention, according to the investigators.

They conducted a multicenter study at three tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montreal. From 2012 to 2014, they recruited patients aged 75 years and older who had visited the ED and who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence.

Investigators collected data through structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical chart reviews. They followed up with participants at 3 months by telephone. The study’s main outcome was return visit to the ED.

The researchers identified 4,577 patients and included 1,998 in their analysis. Of that total, 33% were 85 or older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits to the ED.

Among patients aged 85 years or older (relative risk, 0.80), as well as those whose triage score was less severe (RR, 0.83) and those who were admitted during the index ED visit (RR, 0.76), rates of return ED visits were lower. Among patients who had trouble booking appointments with their family doctors to address new problems (RR, 1.19), as well as those who had made ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR, 1.47) or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR, 1.06 for every 1-unit increase), rates of return visits were higher.

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of return visits were visits to the ED in the previous 6 months (odds ratio, 2.11), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR, 1.41 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR, 3.00).
 

Primary care access

The study suggests that improvements in primary care access are needed to decrease return visits to the ED, Samir Sinha, MD, DPhil, director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals in Toronto, told this news organization. Dr. Sinha was not involved in the study.

“It reminds us of the importance of having a strong primary care system,” he added. “Of this population, 91% had primary care providers. And what the paper demonstrates is that those who are having trouble accessing their primary care providers are more likely to be readmitted to an ED. We can only imagine how much worse the outcomes are for people who don’t have a primary care provider.”

Patients are frequently advised to visit the ED when they contact their primary care providers, said Mark Rosenberg, PhD, professor of geography and planning and the Canada Research Chair in Aging, Health, and Development at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. He noted that primary care is organized as an appointment-based system. Dr. Rosenberg did not participate in the study.

“If I were to call my primary care provider in the middle of the afternoon and say that I have got chest pains, they are going to simply tell me to go to emergency,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “It is not just older people. Many people end up in the ED because they are told to go to the ED.”
 

Associations with age

“The higher your Charlson comorbidity index, the more multiple, complex health issues you’re dealing with,” said Sinha. He added that the data suggest the frailty of the study population.

The association between age 85 years or older and a lower rate of a return ED visits might mean that the patient did not return to independent living after the ED visit, Dr. Rosenberg speculated. “If it’s a serious health problem, you’re more likely to end up going into long-term care at that stage, and you are not going back to living in the community in your home,” he said. “You’re likely going into some sort of transition care or alternative care.”

People aged 85 years or older who are hospitalized are more likely not to survive their index hospital admission, compared with patients who are aged 75-85 years. There would be no possibility that such patients would revisit the ED in the future, said Dr. Sinha.
 

Expanding primary care

The major solution to decreasing reliance on the ED lies in revamping primary health care so that it offers an expanded level of care and 24/7 access, said Dr. Rosenberg.

Providing continuity of care, identifying problems, and managing them in the community before they become urgent or require a hospitalization are priorities for primary care and will help shift away from return visits to the ED, which should be a last resort for patients, said Dr. Sinha.

Moreover, patients must be able to access primary care in various ways, be it a telephone consultation, a video consultation, or a face-to-face consultation, he added. Face-to-face consultations can take place in a provider’s office or even in a patient’s home when warranted, he said. “What we need to make sure of is that all three types of consultations are available, so that people can actually get the most appropriate care at the time they’re calling.”

The study had no external funding. Dr. Afilalo, Dr. Sinha, and Dr. Rosenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty in accessing a family physician is associated with a higher risk for unplanned return visits to the emergency department among patients aged 75 years and older, new data indicate.

In a prospective, observational study that included almost 2,000 patients in this age group, 16% of participants attempted to contact their family physicians before their ED visits. Of this group, more than half reported having difficulty seeing their physicians for urgent problems, more than 40% had difficulty speaking with their family physicians by telephone, and more than one-third had difficulty booking appointments for new health problems.

“Difficulty in accessing primary care was associated with a higher rate of return visits to the ED within an elderly population,” write study author Marc Afilalo, MD, director of the ED at Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, and colleagues. “Therefore, community-based programs that target patient education and improved access to primary care are necessary not only for reducing return visits to the ED, but also for continuity of care and patient satisfaction.”

The study was published in Canadian Family Physician.
 

Comorbidities increased risk

Researchers have estimated that half of Canadians aged 75 years or older use emergency services. Data indicate that the number of unplanned return visits to the ED is associated with increased functional decline and death. But the question of how patient access to primary care services affects unplanned ED return visits has received little attention, according to the investigators.

They conducted a multicenter study at three tertiary adult teaching hospitals in Montreal. From 2012 to 2014, they recruited patients aged 75 years and older who had visited the ED and who lived in their own homes or in an autonomous residence.

Investigators collected data through structured interviews, administrative databases, and medical chart reviews. They followed up with participants at 3 months by telephone. The study’s main outcome was return visit to the ED.

The researchers identified 4,577 patients and included 1,998 in their analysis. Of that total, 33% were 85 or older, 34% lived alone, and 91% had a family physician. Within 3 months, 562 patients (28%) had made 894 return visits to the ED.

Among patients aged 85 years or older (relative risk, 0.80), as well as those whose triage score was less severe (RR, 0.83) and those who were admitted during the index ED visit (RR, 0.76), rates of return ED visits were lower. Among patients who had trouble booking appointments with their family doctors to address new problems (RR, 1.19), as well as those who had made ED visits within the previous 6 months (RR, 1.47) or had a higher Charlson comorbidity index score (RR, 1.06 for every 1-unit increase), rates of return visits were higher.

Factors associated with a higher likelihood of return visits were visits to the ED in the previous 6 months (odds ratio, 2.11), increased Charlson comorbidity index score (OR, 1.41 for every 1-unit increase), and having received help from local community services (OR, 3.00).
 

Primary care access

The study suggests that improvements in primary care access are needed to decrease return visits to the ED, Samir Sinha, MD, DPhil, director of geriatrics at Mount Sinai and the University Health Network Hospitals in Toronto, told this news organization. Dr. Sinha was not involved in the study.

“It reminds us of the importance of having a strong primary care system,” he added. “Of this population, 91% had primary care providers. And what the paper demonstrates is that those who are having trouble accessing their primary care providers are more likely to be readmitted to an ED. We can only imagine how much worse the outcomes are for people who don’t have a primary care provider.”

Patients are frequently advised to visit the ED when they contact their primary care providers, said Mark Rosenberg, PhD, professor of geography and planning and the Canada Research Chair in Aging, Health, and Development at Queens University in Kingston, Ont., said in an interview. He noted that primary care is organized as an appointment-based system. Dr. Rosenberg did not participate in the study.

“If I were to call my primary care provider in the middle of the afternoon and say that I have got chest pains, they are going to simply tell me to go to emergency,” said Dr. Rosenberg. “It is not just older people. Many people end up in the ED because they are told to go to the ED.”
 

Associations with age

“The higher your Charlson comorbidity index, the more multiple, complex health issues you’re dealing with,” said Sinha. He added that the data suggest the frailty of the study population.

The association between age 85 years or older and a lower rate of a return ED visits might mean that the patient did not return to independent living after the ED visit, Dr. Rosenberg speculated. “If it’s a serious health problem, you’re more likely to end up going into long-term care at that stage, and you are not going back to living in the community in your home,” he said. “You’re likely going into some sort of transition care or alternative care.”

People aged 85 years or older who are hospitalized are more likely not to survive their index hospital admission, compared with patients who are aged 75-85 years. There would be no possibility that such patients would revisit the ED in the future, said Dr. Sinha.
 

Expanding primary care

The major solution to decreasing reliance on the ED lies in revamping primary health care so that it offers an expanded level of care and 24/7 access, said Dr. Rosenberg.

Providing continuity of care, identifying problems, and managing them in the community before they become urgent or require a hospitalization are priorities for primary care and will help shift away from return visits to the ED, which should be a last resort for patients, said Dr. Sinha.

Moreover, patients must be able to access primary care in various ways, be it a telephone consultation, a video consultation, or a face-to-face consultation, he added. Face-to-face consultations can take place in a provider’s office or even in a patient’s home when warranted, he said. “What we need to make sure of is that all three types of consultations are available, so that people can actually get the most appropriate care at the time they’re calling.”

The study had no external funding. Dr. Afilalo, Dr. Sinha, and Dr. Rosenberg have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gout prevalence is more common in Black Americans than White Americans, and the disparity in prevalence is attributable to social determinants of health, according to a recently published article in JAMA Network Open.

“There has been evidence from recent cohort studies in the U.S. that was suggesting that the prevalence and incidence [of gout] was growing among non-White populations,” said Natalie McCormick, PhD, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral research fellow in medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “We wanted to do this at the general population level to see how generalizable [that evidence] is.”

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Medical Group, Franklin, Wisc., noted the findings highlight inequities in care for patients with gout that could be improved with greater emphasis on educating patients about their condition.

“I think that what this shows is that in the U.S. ... there still are some disparities in treating gout,” said Dr. Wells, who was not involved with the study. “And that we have ways to mitigate that, with not only aggressive therapy, but also with other tools like counseling patients. At the end of the day, people all want to be educated about the disease.”
 

Greater prevalence disappears with adjustment for socioclinical factors

The cross-sectional analysis involved data from U.S. adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2016 who self-reported Black or White race.

Investigators considered factors such as excess body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), poverty, poor-quality diet, lower educational level, alcohol consumption, and diuretic use in their analysis.

Dr. McCormick and coinvestigators included a total of 18,693 participants, consisting of 3,304 Black women, 6,195 White women, 3,085 Black men, and 6,109 White men.

They determined that the age-standardized prevalence of gout was 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.3%) in Black women and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5% - 2.5%) in White women (age-adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.29-2.53). They calculated that the prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-7.9%) in Black men and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.7%-6.2%) in White men (age-adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55). They found similar differences in the prevalence of hyperuricemia between Black and White Americans.

The increased prevalence of gout in Black Americans, compared with White Americans, does not arise from genetics, according to McCormick. “Our conclusion was that it was due to social determinants of health,” she said. “When we adjusted for all socioclinical risk factors, the racial differences in gout and hyperuricemia prevalence disappeared. Importantly, stepwise regression analysis showed the two biggest drivers of the racial difference in gout prevalence among women were poverty itself, and excess BMI, which can be influenced by poverty.”

Dr. McCormick pointed out that in contrast to the current data, there was no racial difference in the prevalence of gout approximately 2 decades earlier, looking at data from the 1988-1994 NHANES III.

Given the findings, which included the fact that significantly more Black women and men were currently taking diuretics, compared with their White counterparts, Dr. McCormick pointed out clinicians should give more thought to medical therapies prescribed for conditions like high blood pressure to patients with gout or at risk for gout.

“One thing we found was that diuretic use was a driver” of gout, Dr. McCormick said. A prescriber “may want to consider different therapies that present a lower risk of gout if someone has hypertension. There could be greater consideration for prescribing alternatives to diuretics.”

More patient education and rheumatology referrals needed

An impediment to providing that education to patients with gout is unconscious bias on the part of the primary care provider, Dr. Wells said.

“It is about what your perspectives are and what you bring to the table,” he explained. “If you saw [a patient] who looked like someone in your family, that person will be treated differently [than someone who does not look like a family member]. That is where the whole concept [of unconscious bias] comes in.”

Primary care providers need to adopt a holistic approach to gout management that involves counseling about good nutrition, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and limiting alcohol consumption, in addition to medication adherence. Primary care providers may have a bias in treating their Black patients, failing to devote sufficient time and attention to assist them in getting their disease under control, he said.

“Gout should be just like any other chronic disease,” Dr. Wells said. “You need to have a target in mind, and you and your patient need to work together to get to that target. When [patients] end up in rheumatology offices, it is almost too late. I think the take-home message here is that in 2022 ... for any patient who has gout, that patient probably needs to be seen by a rheumatologist because, indeed, with aggressive therapy, preventive therapy, [and] education, and if they are on the right medications, they won’t end up with these crippling joints that we see all the time.”

Dr. McCormick and Dr. Wells disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gout prevalence is more common in Black Americans than White Americans, and the disparity in prevalence is attributable to social determinants of health, according to a recently published article in JAMA Network Open.

“There has been evidence from recent cohort studies in the U.S. that was suggesting that the prevalence and incidence [of gout] was growing among non-White populations,” said Natalie McCormick, PhD, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral research fellow in medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “We wanted to do this at the general population level to see how generalizable [that evidence] is.”

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Medical Group, Franklin, Wisc., noted the findings highlight inequities in care for patients with gout that could be improved with greater emphasis on educating patients about their condition.

“I think that what this shows is that in the U.S. ... there still are some disparities in treating gout,” said Dr. Wells, who was not involved with the study. “And that we have ways to mitigate that, with not only aggressive therapy, but also with other tools like counseling patients. At the end of the day, people all want to be educated about the disease.”
 

Greater prevalence disappears with adjustment for socioclinical factors

The cross-sectional analysis involved data from U.S. adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2016 who self-reported Black or White race.

Investigators considered factors such as excess body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), poverty, poor-quality diet, lower educational level, alcohol consumption, and diuretic use in their analysis.

Dr. McCormick and coinvestigators included a total of 18,693 participants, consisting of 3,304 Black women, 6,195 White women, 3,085 Black men, and 6,109 White men.

They determined that the age-standardized prevalence of gout was 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.3%) in Black women and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5% - 2.5%) in White women (age-adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.29-2.53). They calculated that the prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-7.9%) in Black men and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.7%-6.2%) in White men (age-adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55). They found similar differences in the prevalence of hyperuricemia between Black and White Americans.

The increased prevalence of gout in Black Americans, compared with White Americans, does not arise from genetics, according to McCormick. “Our conclusion was that it was due to social determinants of health,” she said. “When we adjusted for all socioclinical risk factors, the racial differences in gout and hyperuricemia prevalence disappeared. Importantly, stepwise regression analysis showed the two biggest drivers of the racial difference in gout prevalence among women were poverty itself, and excess BMI, which can be influenced by poverty.”

Dr. McCormick pointed out that in contrast to the current data, there was no racial difference in the prevalence of gout approximately 2 decades earlier, looking at data from the 1988-1994 NHANES III.

Given the findings, which included the fact that significantly more Black women and men were currently taking diuretics, compared with their White counterparts, Dr. McCormick pointed out clinicians should give more thought to medical therapies prescribed for conditions like high blood pressure to patients with gout or at risk for gout.

“One thing we found was that diuretic use was a driver” of gout, Dr. McCormick said. A prescriber “may want to consider different therapies that present a lower risk of gout if someone has hypertension. There could be greater consideration for prescribing alternatives to diuretics.”

More patient education and rheumatology referrals needed

An impediment to providing that education to patients with gout is unconscious bias on the part of the primary care provider, Dr. Wells said.

“It is about what your perspectives are and what you bring to the table,” he explained. “If you saw [a patient] who looked like someone in your family, that person will be treated differently [than someone who does not look like a family member]. That is where the whole concept [of unconscious bias] comes in.”

Primary care providers need to adopt a holistic approach to gout management that involves counseling about good nutrition, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and limiting alcohol consumption, in addition to medication adherence. Primary care providers may have a bias in treating their Black patients, failing to devote sufficient time and attention to assist them in getting their disease under control, he said.

“Gout should be just like any other chronic disease,” Dr. Wells said. “You need to have a target in mind, and you and your patient need to work together to get to that target. When [patients] end up in rheumatology offices, it is almost too late. I think the take-home message here is that in 2022 ... for any patient who has gout, that patient probably needs to be seen by a rheumatologist because, indeed, with aggressive therapy, preventive therapy, [and] education, and if they are on the right medications, they won’t end up with these crippling joints that we see all the time.”

Dr. McCormick and Dr. Wells disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Gout prevalence is more common in Black Americans than White Americans, and the disparity in prevalence is attributable to social determinants of health, according to a recently published article in JAMA Network Open.

“There has been evidence from recent cohort studies in the U.S. that was suggesting that the prevalence and incidence [of gout] was growing among non-White populations,” said Natalie McCormick, PhD, the study’s lead author and postdoctoral research fellow in medicine in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. “We wanted to do this at the general population level to see how generalizable [that evidence] is.”

Alvin Wells, MD, PhD, director of the department of rheumatology at Advocate Aurora Medical Group, Franklin, Wisc., noted the findings highlight inequities in care for patients with gout that could be improved with greater emphasis on educating patients about their condition.

“I think that what this shows is that in the U.S. ... there still are some disparities in treating gout,” said Dr. Wells, who was not involved with the study. “And that we have ways to mitigate that, with not only aggressive therapy, but also with other tools like counseling patients. At the end of the day, people all want to be educated about the disease.”
 

Greater prevalence disappears with adjustment for socioclinical factors

The cross-sectional analysis involved data from U.S. adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2007 to 2016 who self-reported Black or White race.

Investigators considered factors such as excess body mass index (BMI), chronic kidney disease (defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²), poverty, poor-quality diet, lower educational level, alcohol consumption, and diuretic use in their analysis.

Dr. McCormick and coinvestigators included a total of 18,693 participants, consisting of 3,304 Black women, 6,195 White women, 3,085 Black men, and 6,109 White men.

They determined that the age-standardized prevalence of gout was 3.5% (95% confidence interval, 2.7%-4.3%) in Black women and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.5% - 2.5%) in White women (age-adjusted odds ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.29-2.53). They calculated that the prevalence was 7.0% (95% CI, 6.2%-7.9%) in Black men and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.7%-6.2%) in White men (age-adjusted OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.02-1.55). They found similar differences in the prevalence of hyperuricemia between Black and White Americans.

The increased prevalence of gout in Black Americans, compared with White Americans, does not arise from genetics, according to McCormick. “Our conclusion was that it was due to social determinants of health,” she said. “When we adjusted for all socioclinical risk factors, the racial differences in gout and hyperuricemia prevalence disappeared. Importantly, stepwise regression analysis showed the two biggest drivers of the racial difference in gout prevalence among women were poverty itself, and excess BMI, which can be influenced by poverty.”

Dr. McCormick pointed out that in contrast to the current data, there was no racial difference in the prevalence of gout approximately 2 decades earlier, looking at data from the 1988-1994 NHANES III.

Given the findings, which included the fact that significantly more Black women and men were currently taking diuretics, compared with their White counterparts, Dr. McCormick pointed out clinicians should give more thought to medical therapies prescribed for conditions like high blood pressure to patients with gout or at risk for gout.

“One thing we found was that diuretic use was a driver” of gout, Dr. McCormick said. A prescriber “may want to consider different therapies that present a lower risk of gout if someone has hypertension. There could be greater consideration for prescribing alternatives to diuretics.”

More patient education and rheumatology referrals needed

An impediment to providing that education to patients with gout is unconscious bias on the part of the primary care provider, Dr. Wells said.

“It is about what your perspectives are and what you bring to the table,” he explained. “If you saw [a patient] who looked like someone in your family, that person will be treated differently [than someone who does not look like a family member]. That is where the whole concept [of unconscious bias] comes in.”

Primary care providers need to adopt a holistic approach to gout management that involves counseling about good nutrition, smoking cessation, regular exercise, and limiting alcohol consumption, in addition to medication adherence. Primary care providers may have a bias in treating their Black patients, failing to devote sufficient time and attention to assist them in getting their disease under control, he said.

“Gout should be just like any other chronic disease,” Dr. Wells said. “You need to have a target in mind, and you and your patient need to work together to get to that target. When [patients] end up in rheumatology offices, it is almost too late. I think the take-home message here is that in 2022 ... for any patient who has gout, that patient probably needs to be seen by a rheumatologist because, indeed, with aggressive therapy, preventive therapy, [and] education, and if they are on the right medications, they won’t end up with these crippling joints that we see all the time.”

Dr. McCormick and Dr. Wells disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A retrospective investigation using medical claims data found no elevated risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.

The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.

They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.

Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.

Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.

Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.

A retrospective investigation using medical claims data found no elevated risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.

The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.

They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.

Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.

Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.

Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.

A retrospective investigation using medical claims data found no elevated risk of disease flares in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) who received the recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV), according to research published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

The authors of the study noted that individuals with IMIDs are at increased risk for herpes zoster and related complications, including postherpetic neuralgia, and that vaccination has been recommended for certain groups of patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis, by the American College of Rheumatology and other professional organizations for individuals aged 50 and older.

The study investigators used medical claims from IBM MarketScan, which provided data on patients aged 50-64 years, and data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Medicare on patients aged 65 and older.

They defined presumed flares in three ways: hospitalization/emergency department visits for IMIDs, steroid treatment with a short-acting oral glucocorticoid, or treatment with a parenteral glucocorticoid injection. The investigators conducted a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis to examine any temporal link between the RZV and disease flares.

Among enrollees with IMIDs, 14.8% of the 55,654 patients in the MarketScan database and 43.2% of the 160,545 patients in the Medicare database received at least one dose of RZV during 2018-2019. The two-dose series completion within 6 months was 76.6% in the MarketScan group (age range, 50-64 years) and 85.4% among Medicare enrollees (age range, 65 years and older). In the SCCS analysis, 10% and 13% of patients developed flares in the control group as compared to 9%, and 11%-12% in the risk window following one or two doses of RZV among MarketScan and Medicare enrollees, respectively.

Based on these findings, the investigators concluded there was no statistically significant increase in flares subsequent to RZV administration for any IMID in either patients aged 50-64 years or patients aged 65 years and older following the first dose or second dose.

Nilanjana Bose, MD, a rheumatologist with Lonestar Rheumatology, Houston, Texas, who was not involved with the study, said that the research addresses a topic where there is uneasiness, namely vaccination in patients with IMIDs.

Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).

The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.

One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.

“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.

These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.

The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.

Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.

“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”

The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.

The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.

“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”

The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”

Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.

“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”

These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.

“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”

The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.

Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.

“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”

Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.

She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.

In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).

The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.

One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.

“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.

These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.

The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.

Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.

“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”

The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.

The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.

“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”

The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”

Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.

“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”

These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.

“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”

The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.

Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.

“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”

Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.

She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.

In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Glucocorticoids should be bridging therapies in the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis–associated uveitis (JIAU) and idiopathic chronic anterior uveitis (CAU), according to recently released recommendations from the Multinational Interdisciplinary Working Group for Uveitis in Childhood (MIWGUC).

The recommendations cover literature from December 2014 to June 2020 and represent an update of previously published treatment guidelines from 2018. The MIWGUC work group that formulated the new recommendations consisted of eight pediatric rheumatologists and eight ophthalmologists with expertise in pediatric uveitis.

One major shift from the previous guidelines is the lack of distinction between JIAU and CAU, said lead author Ivan Foeldvari, MD, head of the Hamburg (Germany) Center for Pediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology.

“We are considering these two conditions equivalent regarding the ophthalmological presentation,” Dr. Foeldvari said in an interview.

These guidelines have also expanded possible treatment options for these conditions in light of data from clinical trials that have pointed to new options, Dr. Foeldvari noted.

The guidelines also present new options, compared with the 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation JIA-associated uveitis guideline. The data cutoff for that guideline was 2014. “Many key papers were published since 2014,” Dr. Foeldvari said.

Another major change is in the escalation of therapy, he noted.

“We view glucocorticoids as a bridging agent, which is very important to emphasize,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “We do not want oral glucocorticoids used as a monotherapy. If you consider a child who has severe uveitis and you want to give an oral glucocorticoid treatment, then it should be considered only for bridging. We suggest to start a DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug].”

The specific recommendation is that methotrexate be the first DMARD that clinicians choose after using glucocorticoids as a bridging therapy; adalimumab is recommended as the next treatment choice for patients who do not respond to methotrexate.

The working group also calls for limited use of topical glucocorticoids in the affected eye, he said.

“We recommend no more than two or three drops long term in the eye, because there are studies that show continuous local therapy is the main reason that children may develop blindness,” Dr. Foeldvari said. “With respect to oral corticosteroids, they have a lot of systemic effects. Those effects include a high risk of infection, weight gain, and growth disturbance.”

The new recommendations can guide treatment decisions for rheumatologists and ophthalmologists alike, according to Daniel J. Lovell, MD, MPH, the Joseph E. Levinson Endowed Chair of Pediatric Rheumatology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Cincinnati and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. He was one of the authors of the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“We [rheumatologists] comanage these patients with ophthalmologists,” Dr. Lovell said in an interview. “Ophthalmologists are oftentimes not as experienced in using biologics or methotrexate in terms of monitoring for safety and dosing.”

Dr. Lovell pointed out that the key message from this set of recommendations is to curb the use of topical steroids.

“Topical steroids should be used sparingly and as monotherapy for a very short period of time,” Dr. Lovell said. “Any guidelines agree that if eye inflammation is still present at 3 months, we need to move beyond topical steroid monotherapy.”

These new recommendations from MIWGUC are fairly consistent with the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline, he noted.

“The differences are very minor,” Dr. Lovell said. “In both instances, systemic corticosteroids should be bridging therapy. If you have a patient who needs systemic corticosteroids in addition to topical at the same time, you should be talking about adding other anti-inflammatory treatments, such as traditional and/or biologic DMARDs. Both MIWGUC and the ACR guidelines agree on that.”

The 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline did not mention rituximab as an option, nor Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, Dr. Lovell said, noting there was no literature on JAK inhibitors as a possible option for JIAU when the guideline was being formulated.

Both sets of guidelines point out that there is a dearth of literature with respect to determining the safe dose of maintenance topical corticosteroids, Dr. Lovell said.

“The ACR 2019 guidelines state you should add systemic therapy if there is persistent eye inflammation despite use of up to two drops per day of topical corticosteroids, while the European [MIWGUC] guideline states you can allow up to three drops,” he said. “In both instances, they are quoting the same two sources. Both guidelines indicate that the literature is very scant as to defining a true, safe dose of topical ocular corticosteroids. They differ by one drop allowed per day. In both instances, in the presence of active uveitis, at 3 months on topical steroid monotherapy, both [guidelines] strongly recommend adding systemic therapy.”

Marinka Twilt, MD, MSCE, PhD, associate professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted in an interview that these latest recommendations from MIWGUC have included consensus views on what to do if certain medications fail to lead to remission, which is not addressed in the 2019 ACR/Arthritis Foundation guideline.

“The new manuscript provides consensus on the use of abatacept, JAK inhibitors, and rituximab if patients are refractory to adalimumab and tocilizumab, which is not discussed in the 2019 recommendations,” Dr. Twilt said.

She also pointed out that these recommendations suggest adalimumab as treatment before infliximab, whereas the 2019 guideline did not recommend using one or the other first.

In compiling the recommendations, the authors received no outside financial support. Dr. Foeldvari is a member of advisory boards for Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, and Medac. Dr. Lovell and Dr. Twilt disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The use of isotretinoin to treat acne was not associated with an increase in adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, compared with the use of oral antibiotics, in a large retrospective cohort study published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Although severe neuropsychiatric effects associated with isotretinoin therapy in patients with acne have been reported, “the evidence base ... is mixed and inconclusive,” and many studies are small, Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Oxford University, England, and co-authors write in the study.

The study results suggest that isotretinoin is conferring protection against adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, particularly when compared with using oral antibiotics to treat acne, Dr. Fazel, professor of forensic psychiatry at Oxford University and the study’s senior author, said in an interview.

In the study, the investigators reviewed electronic health records (2013-2019) from a primarily United States–based dataset (TriNetX) of patients with acne aged 12-27 who had been followed for up to 1 year after their prescriptions had been dispensed.

There were four arms: those prescribed isotretinoin (30,866), oral antibiotics (44,748), topical anti-acne treatments (108,367), and those who had not been prescribed any acne treatment (78,666). The primary outcomes were diagnoses of a neuropsychiatric disorder (psychotic, mood, anxiety, personality, behavioral, and sleep disorders; and non-fatal self-harm) within one year of being prescribed treatment.

After using propensity score matching to adjust for confounders at baseline, the investigators determined that the odds ratio for any incident neuropsychiatric outcomes among patients with acne treated with isotretinoin was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.87), compared with patients on oral antibiotics; 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.02), compared with patients on topical anti-acne medications; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.97-1.16), compared with those without a prescription for anti-acne medicines.

Side effects of isotretinoin – such as headache, dry mouth, and fatigue – were higher among those on isotretinoin than in the other three groups.

The authors concluded that isotretinoin was not independently linked to excess adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes at a population level. “We observed a consistent association between increasing acne severity as indicated by anti-acne treatment options and incidence of adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, but the findings showed that isotretinoin exposure did not add to the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse outcomes over and above what was associated with oral antibiotics,” they write.

Isotretinoin treatment “appeared to mitigate the excess neuropsychiatric risk associated with recalcitrant moderate-to-severe acne,” they add.

The dermatology community has been interested in the impact isotretinoin has on mental health, and “I think clinically, they see that people get better on isotretinoin and their mental health improves,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

Asked to comment on the study results, John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commended the investigators for the design of the trial.

“One of the strengths of this study is that they use a technique called propensity-score matching, where you try to make the groups of patients similar with respect to their other characteristics to minimize the risks of confounding and bias in the study, which I think is a real strength,” he told this news organization. “The other thing that they do, which I think is a strength, is to think about the impact of acne severity on these outcomes, because we know acne itself is associated with depression and risk for suicide and other neuropsychiatric outcomes.”

Including a cohort of patients who had acne and received oral antibiotics for comparison “is a nice way to address the potential for confounding by severity and confounding by indication,” Dr. Barbieri said. “Those who get antibiotics usually have more severe acne. They may not have it as severely as those who get isotretinoin, but it is a nice approach to account for background levels of depression and neuropsychiatric outcomes in patients with acne. I think that is a real strength of the study. This is one of the best studies to have looked at this question.” 

However, although the study found that isotretinoin decreased the excess psychiatric risk associated with refractory moderate-to-severe acne, it does not rule out the possibility that individuals may experience an adverse psychiatric outcome while on isotretinoin, Dr. Barbieri said.

“While I think on a population level, we absolutely can feel reassured by these data, I do think there are individual patients who have idiosyncratic, unpredictable reactions to isotretinoin where they have mood changes, whether it be irritability, depression, or other mood changes,” he cautioned. “Given the association of acne itself with mental health comorbidities, it is important to screen for comorbidities such as depression in all patients with acne.”

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, which provided Dr. Fazel and the first author with financial support for the study. One author is an employee of TriNetX; the other authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Barbieri reported no financial disclosures. He is cochair of the AAD’s Acne Guidelines Workgroup and associate editor at JAMA Dermatology.

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

The use of isotretinoin to treat acne was not associated with an increase in adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, compared with the use of oral antibiotics, in a large retrospective cohort study published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Although severe neuropsychiatric effects associated with isotretinoin therapy in patients with acne have been reported, “the evidence base ... is mixed and inconclusive,” and many studies are small, Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Oxford University, England, and co-authors write in the study.

The study results suggest that isotretinoin is conferring protection against adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, particularly when compared with using oral antibiotics to treat acne, Dr. Fazel, professor of forensic psychiatry at Oxford University and the study’s senior author, said in an interview.

In the study, the investigators reviewed electronic health records (2013-2019) from a primarily United States–based dataset (TriNetX) of patients with acne aged 12-27 who had been followed for up to 1 year after their prescriptions had been dispensed.

There were four arms: those prescribed isotretinoin (30,866), oral antibiotics (44,748), topical anti-acne treatments (108,367), and those who had not been prescribed any acne treatment (78,666). The primary outcomes were diagnoses of a neuropsychiatric disorder (psychotic, mood, anxiety, personality, behavioral, and sleep disorders; and non-fatal self-harm) within one year of being prescribed treatment.

After using propensity score matching to adjust for confounders at baseline, the investigators determined that the odds ratio for any incident neuropsychiatric outcomes among patients with acne treated with isotretinoin was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.87), compared with patients on oral antibiotics; 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.02), compared with patients on topical anti-acne medications; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.97-1.16), compared with those without a prescription for anti-acne medicines.

Side effects of isotretinoin – such as headache, dry mouth, and fatigue – were higher among those on isotretinoin than in the other three groups.

The authors concluded that isotretinoin was not independently linked to excess adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes at a population level. “We observed a consistent association between increasing acne severity as indicated by anti-acne treatment options and incidence of adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, but the findings showed that isotretinoin exposure did not add to the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse outcomes over and above what was associated with oral antibiotics,” they write.

Isotretinoin treatment “appeared to mitigate the excess neuropsychiatric risk associated with recalcitrant moderate-to-severe acne,” they add.

The dermatology community has been interested in the impact isotretinoin has on mental health, and “I think clinically, they see that people get better on isotretinoin and their mental health improves,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

Asked to comment on the study results, John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commended the investigators for the design of the trial.

“One of the strengths of this study is that they use a technique called propensity-score matching, where you try to make the groups of patients similar with respect to their other characteristics to minimize the risks of confounding and bias in the study, which I think is a real strength,” he told this news organization. “The other thing that they do, which I think is a strength, is to think about the impact of acne severity on these outcomes, because we know acne itself is associated with depression and risk for suicide and other neuropsychiatric outcomes.”

Including a cohort of patients who had acne and received oral antibiotics for comparison “is a nice way to address the potential for confounding by severity and confounding by indication,” Dr. Barbieri said. “Those who get antibiotics usually have more severe acne. They may not have it as severely as those who get isotretinoin, but it is a nice approach to account for background levels of depression and neuropsychiatric outcomes in patients with acne. I think that is a real strength of the study. This is one of the best studies to have looked at this question.” 

However, although the study found that isotretinoin decreased the excess psychiatric risk associated with refractory moderate-to-severe acne, it does not rule out the possibility that individuals may experience an adverse psychiatric outcome while on isotretinoin, Dr. Barbieri said.

“While I think on a population level, we absolutely can feel reassured by these data, I do think there are individual patients who have idiosyncratic, unpredictable reactions to isotretinoin where they have mood changes, whether it be irritability, depression, or other mood changes,” he cautioned. “Given the association of acne itself with mental health comorbidities, it is important to screen for comorbidities such as depression in all patients with acne.”

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, which provided Dr. Fazel and the first author with financial support for the study. One author is an employee of TriNetX; the other authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Barbieri reported no financial disclosures. He is cochair of the AAD’s Acne Guidelines Workgroup and associate editor at JAMA Dermatology.

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

The use of isotretinoin to treat acne was not associated with an increase in adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, compared with the use of oral antibiotics, in a large retrospective cohort study published in the British Journal of Dermatology.

Although severe neuropsychiatric effects associated with isotretinoin therapy in patients with acne have been reported, “the evidence base ... is mixed and inconclusive,” and many studies are small, Seena Fazel, MBChB, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Oxford University, England, and co-authors write in the study.

The study results suggest that isotretinoin is conferring protection against adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, particularly when compared with using oral antibiotics to treat acne, Dr. Fazel, professor of forensic psychiatry at Oxford University and the study’s senior author, said in an interview.

In the study, the investigators reviewed electronic health records (2013-2019) from a primarily United States–based dataset (TriNetX) of patients with acne aged 12-27 who had been followed for up to 1 year after their prescriptions had been dispensed.

There were four arms: those prescribed isotretinoin (30,866), oral antibiotics (44,748), topical anti-acne treatments (108,367), and those who had not been prescribed any acne treatment (78,666). The primary outcomes were diagnoses of a neuropsychiatric disorder (psychotic, mood, anxiety, personality, behavioral, and sleep disorders; and non-fatal self-harm) within one year of being prescribed treatment.

After using propensity score matching to adjust for confounders at baseline, the investigators determined that the odds ratio for any incident neuropsychiatric outcomes among patients with acne treated with isotretinoin was 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.87), compared with patients on oral antibiotics; 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87-1.02), compared with patients on topical anti-acne medications; and 1.06 (95% CI, 0.97-1.16), compared with those without a prescription for anti-acne medicines.

Side effects of isotretinoin – such as headache, dry mouth, and fatigue – were higher among those on isotretinoin than in the other three groups.

The authors concluded that isotretinoin was not independently linked to excess adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes at a population level. “We observed a consistent association between increasing acne severity as indicated by anti-acne treatment options and incidence of adverse neuropsychiatric outcomes, but the findings showed that isotretinoin exposure did not add to the risk of neuropsychiatric adverse outcomes over and above what was associated with oral antibiotics,” they write.

Isotretinoin treatment “appeared to mitigate the excess neuropsychiatric risk associated with recalcitrant moderate-to-severe acne,” they add.

The dermatology community has been interested in the impact isotretinoin has on mental health, and “I think clinically, they see that people get better on isotretinoin and their mental health improves,” Dr. Fazel told this news organization.

Asked to comment on the study results, John Barbieri, MD, MBA, director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, commended the investigators for the design of the trial.

“One of the strengths of this study is that they use a technique called propensity-score matching, where you try to make the groups of patients similar with respect to their other characteristics to minimize the risks of confounding and bias in the study, which I think is a real strength,” he told this news organization. “The other thing that they do, which I think is a strength, is to think about the impact of acne severity on these outcomes, because we know acne itself is associated with depression and risk for suicide and other neuropsychiatric outcomes.”

Including a cohort of patients who had acne and received oral antibiotics for comparison “is a nice way to address the potential for confounding by severity and confounding by indication,” Dr. Barbieri said. “Those who get antibiotics usually have more severe acne. They may not have it as severely as those who get isotretinoin, but it is a nice approach to account for background levels of depression and neuropsychiatric outcomes in patients with acne. I think that is a real strength of the study. This is one of the best studies to have looked at this question.” 

However, although the study found that isotretinoin decreased the excess psychiatric risk associated with refractory moderate-to-severe acne, it does not rule out the possibility that individuals may experience an adverse psychiatric outcome while on isotretinoin, Dr. Barbieri said.

“While I think on a population level, we absolutely can feel reassured by these data, I do think there are individual patients who have idiosyncratic, unpredictable reactions to isotretinoin where they have mood changes, whether it be irritability, depression, or other mood changes,” he cautioned. “Given the association of acne itself with mental health comorbidities, it is important to screen for comorbidities such as depression in all patients with acne.”

The study was funded by the Wellcome Trust, which provided Dr. Fazel and the first author with financial support for the study. One author is an employee of TriNetX; the other authors had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Barbieri reported no financial disclosures. He is cochair of the AAD’s Acne Guidelines Workgroup and associate editor at JAMA Dermatology.

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