Clinician Reviews

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

SAN DIEGO – Even when taken at low doses and over short periods, glucocorticoids (GCs) were linked to a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) over the long term in a Veterans Affairs population of older, mostly male patients with rheumatoid arthritis, a new retrospective cohort study has found.

The analysis of nearly 19,000 patients, presented by rheumatologist Beth Wallace, MD, MSc, at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, showed that the level of risk for MACE rose with the dose, duration, and recency of GC use, in which risk increased significantly at prednisone-equivalent doses as low as 5 mg/day, durations as short as 30 days, and with last use as long as 1 year before MACE.

University of Michigan

“Up to half of RA patients in the United States use long-term glucocorticoids despite previous work suggesting they increase MACE in a dose-dependent way,” said Dr. Wallace, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and a rheumatologist at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare Center. “Our group previously presented work suggesting that less than 14 days of glucocorticoid use in a 6-month period is associated with a two-thirds increase in odds of MACE over the following 6 months, with 90 days of use associated with more than twofold increase.”

In recent years, researchers such as Dr. Wallace have focused attention on the risks of GCs in RA. The American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology emphasize avoiding long-term use of GCs in RA and keeping doses as small and over the shortest amount of time as possible.

When Dr. Wallace and colleagues looked at the clinical pattern of GC use for patients with RA during the past 2 years, those who took 5 mg, 7.5 mg, and 10 mg daily doses for 30 days and had stopped at least a year before had risk for MACE that rose significantly by 3%, 5%, and 7%, respectively, compared with those who didn’t take GCs in the past 2 years.

While those increases were small, risk for MACE rose even more for those who took the same daily doses for 90 days, increasing 10%, 15%, and 21%, respectively. Researchers linked current ongoing use of GCs for the past 90 days to a 13%, 19%, and 27% higher risk for MACE at those respective doses.

The findings “add to the literature suggesting that there is some risk even with low-dose steroids,” said Michael George, MD, assistant professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who did not take part in the research but is familiar with the findings.

“We can see that even glucocorticoids taken several years ago may affect cardiovascular risk but that recent use has a bigger effect on risk,” Dr. George said in an interview. “This study also suggests that very low-dose use affects risk.”

For the new study, Dr. Wallace and colleagues examined a Veterans Affairs database and identified 18,882 patients with RA (mean age, 62.5 years; 84% male; 66% GC users) who met the criteria of being > 40 and < 90 years old. The subjects had an initial VA rheumatology visit during 2010-2018 and were excluded if they had a non-RA rheumatologic disorder, prior MACE, or heart failure. MACE was defined as MI, stroke/TIA, cardiac arrest, coronary revascularization, or death from CV cause.

A total of 16% of the cohort had the largest exposure to GCs, defined as use for 90 days or more; 23% had exposure of 14-89 days, and 14% had exposure of 1-13 days.

The median 5-year MACE risk at baseline was 5.3%, and 3,754 patients (19.9%) had high baseline MACE risk. Incident MACE occurred in 4.1% of patients, and the median time to MACE was 2.67 years (interquartile ratio, 1.26-4.45 years).

Covariates included factors such as age, race, sex, body mass index, smoking status, adjusted Elixhauser index, VA risk score for cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalization for infection, number of rheumatology clinic visits, and use of lipid-lowering drugs, opioids, methotrexate, biologics, and hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Wallace noted limitations including the possibility of residual confounding and the influence of background cardiovascular risk. The study didn’t examine the clinical value of taking GCs or compare that to the potential risk. Nor did it examine cost or the risks and benefits of alternative therapeutic options.

A study released earlier this year suggested that patients taking daily prednisolone doses under 5 mg do not have a higher risk of MACE. Previous studies had reached conflicting results.

“Glucocorticoids can provide major benefits to patients, but these benefits must be balanced with the potential risks,” Dr. George said. At low doses, these risks may be small, but they are present. In many cases, escalating DMARD [disease-modifying antirheumatic drug] therapy may be safer than continuing glucocorticoids.”

He added that the risks of GCs may be especially high in older patients and in those who have cardiovascular risk factors: “Often biologics are avoided in these higher-risk patients. But in fact, in many cases biologics may be the safer choice.”

No study funding was reported. Dr. Wallace reported no relevant financial relationships, and some of the other authors reported various ties with industry. Dr. George reported research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Janssen and consulting fees from AbbVie.

People with diabetes had a 47% increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared with people without diabetes, according to results of a large new study. Getting a colonoscopy dramatically reduced the risk, the results showed.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest that colonoscopies are particularly important for people with diabetes. People diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years have the greatest colorectal cancer risk, the study found, suggesting screening should be part of a person’s health care after they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

Researchers analyzed data for 54,597 people who contributed at least 2 years of health data as part of a study that recruited people from 12 Southeastern states between 2002 and 2009. The people self-reported their diabetes status, and although researchers tried to only include people with type 2 diabetes, it’s possible that some people in the study had type 1 diabetes. The average age of those in the study was 51 years old; 64% were women; more than half of them had an income of less than $15,000 per year; and 66% of them were African American. 

Among the people in the study who had diabetes, the risk of having colorectal cancer was not strongly impacted by their race or ethnicity, gender, weight, or income level, the study showed.

While race didn’t predict whether people with diabetes would get colorectal cancer, the findings are particularly important because most of the people in the study were African American. Diabetes and colorectal cancer disproportionately affect African American people, the authors noted. Medical research studies often struggle to recruit people of color, resulting in a lack of data to help guide health care priorities and decision-making.

The study also provided important guidance for people newly diagnosed with diabetes. People who were diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years were at a particularly increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared to people who had been diagnosed for 5-10 years.

The authors concluded that increased referrals for colonoscopies among people with diabetes, particularly among those newly diagnosed, could greatly reduce the impact of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines suggest most people should begin colorectal cancer screenings at age 45, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The study authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with diabetes had a 47% increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared with people without diabetes, according to results of a large new study. Getting a colonoscopy dramatically reduced the risk, the results showed.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest that colonoscopies are particularly important for people with diabetes. People diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years have the greatest colorectal cancer risk, the study found, suggesting screening should be part of a person’s health care after they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

Researchers analyzed data for 54,597 people who contributed at least 2 years of health data as part of a study that recruited people from 12 Southeastern states between 2002 and 2009. The people self-reported their diabetes status, and although researchers tried to only include people with type 2 diabetes, it’s possible that some people in the study had type 1 diabetes. The average age of those in the study was 51 years old; 64% were women; more than half of them had an income of less than $15,000 per year; and 66% of them were African American. 

Among the people in the study who had diabetes, the risk of having colorectal cancer was not strongly impacted by their race or ethnicity, gender, weight, or income level, the study showed.

While race didn’t predict whether people with diabetes would get colorectal cancer, the findings are particularly important because most of the people in the study were African American. Diabetes and colorectal cancer disproportionately affect African American people, the authors noted. Medical research studies often struggle to recruit people of color, resulting in a lack of data to help guide health care priorities and decision-making.

The study also provided important guidance for people newly diagnosed with diabetes. People who were diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years were at a particularly increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared to people who had been diagnosed for 5-10 years.

The authors concluded that increased referrals for colonoscopies among people with diabetes, particularly among those newly diagnosed, could greatly reduce the impact of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines suggest most people should begin colorectal cancer screenings at age 45, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The study authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

People with diabetes had a 47% increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared with people without diabetes, according to results of a large new study. Getting a colonoscopy dramatically reduced the risk, the results showed.

The findings, published in JAMA Network Open, suggest that colonoscopies are particularly important for people with diabetes. People diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years have the greatest colorectal cancer risk, the study found, suggesting screening should be part of a person’s health care after they’re diagnosed with diabetes.

Researchers analyzed data for 54,597 people who contributed at least 2 years of health data as part of a study that recruited people from 12 Southeastern states between 2002 and 2009. The people self-reported their diabetes status, and although researchers tried to only include people with type 2 diabetes, it’s possible that some people in the study had type 1 diabetes. The average age of those in the study was 51 years old; 64% were women; more than half of them had an income of less than $15,000 per year; and 66% of them were African American. 

Among the people in the study who had diabetes, the risk of having colorectal cancer was not strongly impacted by their race or ethnicity, gender, weight, or income level, the study showed.

While race didn’t predict whether people with diabetes would get colorectal cancer, the findings are particularly important because most of the people in the study were African American. Diabetes and colorectal cancer disproportionately affect African American people, the authors noted. Medical research studies often struggle to recruit people of color, resulting in a lack of data to help guide health care priorities and decision-making.

The study also provided important guidance for people newly diagnosed with diabetes. People who were diagnosed with diabetes within the past 5 years were at a particularly increased risk of getting colorectal cancer, compared to people who had been diagnosed for 5-10 years.

The authors concluded that increased referrals for colonoscopies among people with diabetes, particularly among those newly diagnosed, could greatly reduce the impact of colorectal cancer. Current guidelines suggest most people should begin colorectal cancer screenings at age 45, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was supported by the National Cancer Institute and the University of Wisconsin, Madison. The study authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The Diagnosis: Tinea Capitis

Dermoscopy revealed many black spot signs with broken, corkscrew, and comma hairs, as well as increased single hair follicles and focal polymorphic vascular distribution in the scalp (Figure 1). Fungal microscopy showed large round spores within the hair. A fungal culture demonstrated Trichophyton tonsurans growth in the broken hair. Based on the clinical presentation and laboratory findings, a diagnosis of tinea capitis was rendered. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d was prescribed. At 4-week follow-up, the patient did not report worsening or new symptoms, and there was visible evidence of hair regrowth (Figure 2). There has been no sign of recurrence.

According to the most recent set of classification criteria published by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) International Collaborating Clinics, nonscarring alopecia is now a diagnostic criterion for SLE that has a specificity of 95.7%.¹ Although discoid lupus erythematosus presents with diffuse scarring alopecia, SLE manifests as nonscarring alopecia in 1 of 3 patterns: diffuse, patchy, or “lupus hair.”² It is commonly believed that lupus-related alopecia is a nonspecific symptom of SLE exacerbation and signals that the disease is active.³ Our patient had a history of SLE with no pruritus or pain accompanying the hair loss; however, we considered hair loss due to SLE disease activity, and dermoscopic examination was performed to further rule out the likelihood of SLE alopecia. The dermoscopic characteristics of lupus-related alopecia and tinea capitis vary. For lupusrelated alopecia, alterations to the hair shaft are visible with dermoscopy, including a reduced number or smaller diameter of hairs, hypopigmentation, the black dot sign, brown scattered pigmentation, blue-gray pigmentation, and thick dendritic capillaries.² Tinea capitis typically displays characteristic dermoscopic manifestations, such as comma, corkscrew, Morse code–like, or jagged hair; black spots; and broken hair.⁴

Included in the differential diagnosis, androgenetic alopecia dermoscopic findings include hair diameter diversity, perifollicular pigmentation/peripilar sign, and yellow dots.⁵ The most common vascular patterns present in seborrheic dermatitis are arborizing red lines, twisted red loops, atypical vessels, and glomerular vessels. Perifollicular scaling may be white or yellow and oily.⁶ There are no specific dermoscopic findings for telogen effluvium; however, the presence of hair regrowth and the predominance of follicular openings with a single sprouting hair shaft may suggest this condition.⁷ Therefore, dermoscopy can assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing a patient’s condition and determining the its etiology, allowing for early and effective treatment.

Tinea capitis is a typical superficial dermatophyte infection that commonly occurs in prepubescent children and is uncommon in adults because the pH level of the scalp shifts during puberty and the amount of sebum that contains saturated fatty acids increases.⁸ The risk for developing tinea capitis is higher in certain individuals with comorbid systemic immune diseases, such as SLE and diabetes mellitus, among others, as well as in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with AIDS, organ transplant recipients, or patients receiving high doses of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs.⁹ The type of dermatophyte entering the hair, the level of host resistance, and the intensity of the inflammatory reaction all affect the clinical picture of tinea capitis in adults, which is pleomorphic and atypical.¹⁰ Although tinea capitis is not highly prevalent in adults, the fact that our patient had SLE and had been on immunosuppressive therapy to keep the condition stable increased the chance of contracting tinea capitis, underscoring the need for clinicians to be alert for fungal infections in this patient population.

Trichophyton tonsurans is the most prevalent form of microorganism that causes tinea capitis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. However, T tonsurans causing tinea capitis is uncommon in China, with one study reporting only 6 cases from 2000 to 2019.¹¹ Tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans typically presents as black spot alopecia with inflammatory erythema and scaling of the scalp.¹² Because most T tonsurans infections have few clinical symptoms, it is challenging to make a clinical diagnosis.¹³ Although not performed in our patient, a potassium hydroxide preparation and direct microscopic inspection of the afflicted hair and scales can help in quickly identifying and treating these infections. Additional fungal cultures can precisely identify the strain and trace its epidemiology, which is clinically significant not only to identify the potential infection source but also to direct the selection of an organized treatment plan.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Capitis

Dermoscopy revealed many black spot signs with broken, corkscrew, and comma hairs, as well as increased single hair follicles and focal polymorphic vascular distribution in the scalp (Figure 1). Fungal microscopy showed large round spores within the hair. A fungal culture demonstrated Trichophyton tonsurans growth in the broken hair. Based on the clinical presentation and laboratory findings, a diagnosis of tinea capitis was rendered. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d was prescribed. At 4-week follow-up, the patient did not report worsening or new symptoms, and there was visible evidence of hair regrowth (Figure 2). There has been no sign of recurrence.

According to the most recent set of classification criteria published by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) International Collaborating Clinics, nonscarring alopecia is now a diagnostic criterion for SLE that has a specificity of 95.7%.¹ Although discoid lupus erythematosus presents with diffuse scarring alopecia, SLE manifests as nonscarring alopecia in 1 of 3 patterns: diffuse, patchy, or “lupus hair.”² It is commonly believed that lupus-related alopecia is a nonspecific symptom of SLE exacerbation and signals that the disease is active.³ Our patient had a history of SLE with no pruritus or pain accompanying the hair loss; however, we considered hair loss due to SLE disease activity, and dermoscopic examination was performed to further rule out the likelihood of SLE alopecia. The dermoscopic characteristics of lupus-related alopecia and tinea capitis vary. For lupusrelated alopecia, alterations to the hair shaft are visible with dermoscopy, including a reduced number or smaller diameter of hairs, hypopigmentation, the black dot sign, brown scattered pigmentation, blue-gray pigmentation, and thick dendritic capillaries.² Tinea capitis typically displays characteristic dermoscopic manifestations, such as comma, corkscrew, Morse code–like, or jagged hair; black spots; and broken hair.⁴

Included in the differential diagnosis, androgenetic alopecia dermoscopic findings include hair diameter diversity, perifollicular pigmentation/peripilar sign, and yellow dots.⁵ The most common vascular patterns present in seborrheic dermatitis are arborizing red lines, twisted red loops, atypical vessels, and glomerular vessels. Perifollicular scaling may be white or yellow and oily.⁶ There are no specific dermoscopic findings for telogen effluvium; however, the presence of hair regrowth and the predominance of follicular openings with a single sprouting hair shaft may suggest this condition.⁷ Therefore, dermoscopy can assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing a patient’s condition and determining the its etiology, allowing for early and effective treatment.

Tinea capitis is a typical superficial dermatophyte infection that commonly occurs in prepubescent children and is uncommon in adults because the pH level of the scalp shifts during puberty and the amount of sebum that contains saturated fatty acids increases.⁸ The risk for developing tinea capitis is higher in certain individuals with comorbid systemic immune diseases, such as SLE and diabetes mellitus, among others, as well as in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with AIDS, organ transplant recipients, or patients receiving high doses of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs.⁹ The type of dermatophyte entering the hair, the level of host resistance, and the intensity of the inflammatory reaction all affect the clinical picture of tinea capitis in adults, which is pleomorphic and atypical.¹⁰ Although tinea capitis is not highly prevalent in adults, the fact that our patient had SLE and had been on immunosuppressive therapy to keep the condition stable increased the chance of contracting tinea capitis, underscoring the need for clinicians to be alert for fungal infections in this patient population.

Trichophyton tonsurans is the most prevalent form of microorganism that causes tinea capitis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. However, T tonsurans causing tinea capitis is uncommon in China, with one study reporting only 6 cases from 2000 to 2019.¹¹ Tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans typically presents as black spot alopecia with inflammatory erythema and scaling of the scalp.¹² Because most T tonsurans infections have few clinical symptoms, it is challenging to make a clinical diagnosis.¹³ Although not performed in our patient, a potassium hydroxide preparation and direct microscopic inspection of the afflicted hair and scales can help in quickly identifying and treating these infections. Additional fungal cultures can precisely identify the strain and trace its epidemiology, which is clinically significant not only to identify the potential infection source but also to direct the selection of an organized treatment plan.

The Diagnosis: Tinea Capitis

Dermoscopy revealed many black spot signs with broken, corkscrew, and comma hairs, as well as increased single hair follicles and focal polymorphic vascular distribution in the scalp (Figure 1). Fungal microscopy showed large round spores within the hair. A fungal culture demonstrated Trichophyton tonsurans growth in the broken hair. Based on the clinical presentation and laboratory findings, a diagnosis of tinea capitis was rendered. Oral terbinafine 250 mg/d was prescribed. At 4-week follow-up, the patient did not report worsening or new symptoms, and there was visible evidence of hair regrowth (Figure 2). There has been no sign of recurrence.

According to the most recent set of classification criteria published by the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE) International Collaborating Clinics, nonscarring alopecia is now a diagnostic criterion for SLE that has a specificity of 95.7%.¹ Although discoid lupus erythematosus presents with diffuse scarring alopecia, SLE manifests as nonscarring alopecia in 1 of 3 patterns: diffuse, patchy, or “lupus hair.”² It is commonly believed that lupus-related alopecia is a nonspecific symptom of SLE exacerbation and signals that the disease is active.³ Our patient had a history of SLE with no pruritus or pain accompanying the hair loss; however, we considered hair loss due to SLE disease activity, and dermoscopic examination was performed to further rule out the likelihood of SLE alopecia. The dermoscopic characteristics of lupus-related alopecia and tinea capitis vary. For lupusrelated alopecia, alterations to the hair shaft are visible with dermoscopy, including a reduced number or smaller diameter of hairs, hypopigmentation, the black dot sign, brown scattered pigmentation, blue-gray pigmentation, and thick dendritic capillaries.² Tinea capitis typically displays characteristic dermoscopic manifestations, such as comma, corkscrew, Morse code–like, or jagged hair; black spots; and broken hair.⁴

Included in the differential diagnosis, androgenetic alopecia dermoscopic findings include hair diameter diversity, perifollicular pigmentation/peripilar sign, and yellow dots.⁵ The most common vascular patterns present in seborrheic dermatitis are arborizing red lines, twisted red loops, atypical vessels, and glomerular vessels. Perifollicular scaling may be white or yellow and oily.⁶ There are no specific dermoscopic findings for telogen effluvium; however, the presence of hair regrowth and the predominance of follicular openings with a single sprouting hair shaft may suggest this condition.⁷ Therefore, dermoscopy can assist clinicians in correctly diagnosing a patient’s condition and determining the its etiology, allowing for early and effective treatment.

Tinea capitis is a typical superficial dermatophyte infection that commonly occurs in prepubescent children and is uncommon in adults because the pH level of the scalp shifts during puberty and the amount of sebum that contains saturated fatty acids increases.⁸ The risk for developing tinea capitis is higher in certain individuals with comorbid systemic immune diseases, such as SLE and diabetes mellitus, among others, as well as in immunocompromised individuals, such as those with AIDS, organ transplant recipients, or patients receiving high doses of steroids or immunosuppressive drugs.⁹ The type of dermatophyte entering the hair, the level of host resistance, and the intensity of the inflammatory reaction all affect the clinical picture of tinea capitis in adults, which is pleomorphic and atypical.¹⁰ Although tinea capitis is not highly prevalent in adults, the fact that our patient had SLE and had been on immunosuppressive therapy to keep the condition stable increased the chance of contracting tinea capitis, underscoring the need for clinicians to be alert for fungal infections in this patient population.

Trichophyton tonsurans is the most prevalent form of microorganism that causes tinea capitis in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. However, T tonsurans causing tinea capitis is uncommon in China, with one study reporting only 6 cases from 2000 to 2019.¹¹ Tinea capitis caused by T tonsurans typically presents as black spot alopecia with inflammatory erythema and scaling of the scalp.¹² Because most T tonsurans infections have few clinical symptoms, it is challenging to make a clinical diagnosis.¹³ Although not performed in our patient, a potassium hydroxide preparation and direct microscopic inspection of the afflicted hair and scales can help in quickly identifying and treating these infections. Additional fungal cultures can precisely identify the strain and trace its epidemiology, which is clinically significant not only to identify the potential infection source but also to direct the selection of an organized treatment plan.

SAN FRANCISCO – A large observational registry study of almost 100,000 eyes has found that the diabetes drug semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist recently approved for weight loss, does not worsen the progression of potentially vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in the long term in patients taking the drug. However, the researchers said, the findings do not obviate the need for providers to have a conversation about the potential risks to vision posed by the drug.

“In patients that have either no or early or relatively nonadvanced diabetic retinopathy, the absolute risk of having a worsening in their retinopathy is variable,” Zeeshan Haq, MD, a retina specialist at Retinal Consultants of Minnesota, told this news organization. Dr. Hag presented the findings Nov. 3 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Based on this preliminary evidence and what we know so far, it suggests that there is a risk of worsening, but it’s quite low for most patients, and so a conversation needs to be had between anyone considering prescribing the drug, such as a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner, and that patient’s optometrist or comprehensive ophthalmologist or retina specialist.”
 

Methodology and results

Dr. Haq reported on a retrospective case series of 96,462 eyes from the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. Patients had type 2 diabetes and began taking injectable semaglutide between January 2013 and December 2021.

The study evaluated eyes with three levels of retinopathy:

• No retinopathy or background retinopathy (71.8%).
• Mild or moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (18.4%).
• Severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (9.8%).

In eyes with no or background retinopathy, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.6%, and 2.2% experienced a worsening in status of the condition at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

In eyes with mild or moderate NPDR, 2.4%, 3%, 3.4%, and 3.5% showed worsening retinopathy at the respective time intervals.

Improvement of retinopathy rather than worsening was evaluated in the eyes with severe NPDR or PDR. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, improvement was observed in 40%, 37.8%, 47.7%, and 58.7% of these eyes, respectively.

Most patients were aged 51-75 years (77.2%), female (55.0%), and White (63.8%).

The study found low rates of the following complications across the same time intervals: vitreous hemorrhage (from 0.1% to 0.15%); traction retinal detachment (0.02% to 0.05%); and neovascular glaucoma (0.03% to –0.04%), Dr. Haq reported.

Dr. Haq noted that understanding the possible consequences that semaglutide has on vision is important as the drug becomes more widely available for both diabetes and weight control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes; 28.7 million cases have been diagnosed, and 8.5 million are undiagnosed.
 

Clinical implications

“Any patient in the United States with diabetes has to undergo screening for diabetic eye disease, and so they’re usually plugged into the eye-care system,” Dr. Haq said. “But if they’re going to be starting this drug and they don’t have any existing diabetic retinopathy, the discussion should be had between their doctor and the eye-care provider, and if they do have a history of DR, an evaluation with the eye-care provider should probably happen upon starting the drug.”

Vaidehi Dedania, MD, a retina specialist at NYU Langone Health in New York, said the findings underscore the importance of counseling patients who are taking semaglutide about potential vision outcomes.

“We know that when patients get rapid control of their diabetes, their diabetic retinopathy can worsen in the short term, although it always ends up doing better in long term anyway,” Dr. Dedania said in an interview. “We always educate our patients that if they get control of the diabetes to not feel discouraged if their diabetic retinopathy worsens despite getting good control, because we know in the long run it always get better.”

The new findings, however, may have masked some worsening of retinopathy because of how the researchers categorized the condition. “It’s hard to assess changes within a designation because they’re so broad,” Dr. Dedania said.

She also noted potential limitations with the IRIS database itself. “The data collected from it are not always as complete as you might need for the purpose of understanding this, so that’s a limitation,” she said. While the high number of patients is a strength of the study, she added, “I still think the limitations are pretty significant.”

Dr. Haq has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dedania has relationships with Genentech/Roche and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – A large observational registry study of almost 100,000 eyes has found that the diabetes drug semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist recently approved for weight loss, does not worsen the progression of potentially vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in the long term in patients taking the drug. However, the researchers said, the findings do not obviate the need for providers to have a conversation about the potential risks to vision posed by the drug.

“In patients that have either no or early or relatively nonadvanced diabetic retinopathy, the absolute risk of having a worsening in their retinopathy is variable,” Zeeshan Haq, MD, a retina specialist at Retinal Consultants of Minnesota, told this news organization. Dr. Hag presented the findings Nov. 3 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Based on this preliminary evidence and what we know so far, it suggests that there is a risk of worsening, but it’s quite low for most patients, and so a conversation needs to be had between anyone considering prescribing the drug, such as a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner, and that patient’s optometrist or comprehensive ophthalmologist or retina specialist.”
 

Methodology and results

Dr. Haq reported on a retrospective case series of 96,462 eyes from the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. Patients had type 2 diabetes and began taking injectable semaglutide between January 2013 and December 2021.

The study evaluated eyes with three levels of retinopathy:

• No retinopathy or background retinopathy (71.8%).
• Mild or moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (18.4%).
• Severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (9.8%).

In eyes with no or background retinopathy, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.6%, and 2.2% experienced a worsening in status of the condition at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

In eyes with mild or moderate NPDR, 2.4%, 3%, 3.4%, and 3.5% showed worsening retinopathy at the respective time intervals.

Improvement of retinopathy rather than worsening was evaluated in the eyes with severe NPDR or PDR. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, improvement was observed in 40%, 37.8%, 47.7%, and 58.7% of these eyes, respectively.

Most patients were aged 51-75 years (77.2%), female (55.0%), and White (63.8%).

The study found low rates of the following complications across the same time intervals: vitreous hemorrhage (from 0.1% to 0.15%); traction retinal detachment (0.02% to 0.05%); and neovascular glaucoma (0.03% to –0.04%), Dr. Haq reported.

Dr. Haq noted that understanding the possible consequences that semaglutide has on vision is important as the drug becomes more widely available for both diabetes and weight control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes; 28.7 million cases have been diagnosed, and 8.5 million are undiagnosed.
 

Clinical implications

“Any patient in the United States with diabetes has to undergo screening for diabetic eye disease, and so they’re usually plugged into the eye-care system,” Dr. Haq said. “But if they’re going to be starting this drug and they don’t have any existing diabetic retinopathy, the discussion should be had between their doctor and the eye-care provider, and if they do have a history of DR, an evaluation with the eye-care provider should probably happen upon starting the drug.”

Vaidehi Dedania, MD, a retina specialist at NYU Langone Health in New York, said the findings underscore the importance of counseling patients who are taking semaglutide about potential vision outcomes.

“We know that when patients get rapid control of their diabetes, their diabetic retinopathy can worsen in the short term, although it always ends up doing better in long term anyway,” Dr. Dedania said in an interview. “We always educate our patients that if they get control of the diabetes to not feel discouraged if their diabetic retinopathy worsens despite getting good control, because we know in the long run it always get better.”

The new findings, however, may have masked some worsening of retinopathy because of how the researchers categorized the condition. “It’s hard to assess changes within a designation because they’re so broad,” Dr. Dedania said.

She also noted potential limitations with the IRIS database itself. “The data collected from it are not always as complete as you might need for the purpose of understanding this, so that’s a limitation,” she said. While the high number of patients is a strength of the study, she added, “I still think the limitations are pretty significant.”

Dr. Haq has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dedania has relationships with Genentech/Roche and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – A large observational registry study of almost 100,000 eyes has found that the diabetes drug semaglutide, a GLP-1 agonist recently approved for weight loss, does not worsen the progression of potentially vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy in the long term in patients taking the drug. However, the researchers said, the findings do not obviate the need for providers to have a conversation about the potential risks to vision posed by the drug.

“In patients that have either no or early or relatively nonadvanced diabetic retinopathy, the absolute risk of having a worsening in their retinopathy is variable,” Zeeshan Haq, MD, a retina specialist at Retinal Consultants of Minnesota, told this news organization. Dr. Hag presented the findings Nov. 3 at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

“Based on this preliminary evidence and what we know so far, it suggests that there is a risk of worsening, but it’s quite low for most patients, and so a conversation needs to be had between anyone considering prescribing the drug, such as a general practitioner or a nurse practitioner, and that patient’s optometrist or comprehensive ophthalmologist or retina specialist.”
 

Methodology and results

Dr. Haq reported on a retrospective case series of 96,462 eyes from the Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS) registry. Patients had type 2 diabetes and began taking injectable semaglutide between January 2013 and December 2021.

The study evaluated eyes with three levels of retinopathy:

• No retinopathy or background retinopathy (71.8%).
• Mild or moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) (18.4%).
• Severe NPDR or proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (9.8%).

In eyes with no or background retinopathy, 1.3%, 1.2%, 1.6%, and 2.2% experienced a worsening in status of the condition at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively.

In eyes with mild or moderate NPDR, 2.4%, 3%, 3.4%, and 3.5% showed worsening retinopathy at the respective time intervals.

Improvement of retinopathy rather than worsening was evaluated in the eyes with severe NPDR or PDR. At 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, improvement was observed in 40%, 37.8%, 47.7%, and 58.7% of these eyes, respectively.

Most patients were aged 51-75 years (77.2%), female (55.0%), and White (63.8%).

The study found low rates of the following complications across the same time intervals: vitreous hemorrhage (from 0.1% to 0.15%); traction retinal detachment (0.02% to 0.05%); and neovascular glaucoma (0.03% to –0.04%), Dr. Haq reported.

Dr. Haq noted that understanding the possible consequences that semaglutide has on vision is important as the drug becomes more widely available for both diabetes and weight control. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 37.3 million people in the United States have diabetes; 28.7 million cases have been diagnosed, and 8.5 million are undiagnosed.
 

Clinical implications

“Any patient in the United States with diabetes has to undergo screening for diabetic eye disease, and so they’re usually plugged into the eye-care system,” Dr. Haq said. “But if they’re going to be starting this drug and they don’t have any existing diabetic retinopathy, the discussion should be had between their doctor and the eye-care provider, and if they do have a history of DR, an evaluation with the eye-care provider should probably happen upon starting the drug.”

Vaidehi Dedania, MD, a retina specialist at NYU Langone Health in New York, said the findings underscore the importance of counseling patients who are taking semaglutide about potential vision outcomes.

“We know that when patients get rapid control of their diabetes, their diabetic retinopathy can worsen in the short term, although it always ends up doing better in long term anyway,” Dr. Dedania said in an interview. “We always educate our patients that if they get control of the diabetes to not feel discouraged if their diabetic retinopathy worsens despite getting good control, because we know in the long run it always get better.”

The new findings, however, may have masked some worsening of retinopathy because of how the researchers categorized the condition. “It’s hard to assess changes within a designation because they’re so broad,” Dr. Dedania said.

She also noted potential limitations with the IRIS database itself. “The data collected from it are not always as complete as you might need for the purpose of understanding this, so that’s a limitation,” she said. While the high number of patients is a strength of the study, she added, “I still think the limitations are pretty significant.”

Dr. Haq has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Dedania has relationships with Genentech/Roche and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

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

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists may help clinicians manage uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in some older patients without the need for additional glucose-controlling medications, according to a study presented Nov. 8 at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.

The study analyzed charts of 30 adults aged 65-84 years who were seen in clinic from January 2022 to February 2023 and were started on GLP-1 or GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists. Participants had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes with initial A1c levels ranging from 9.6% to 12.6% and a body mass index between 27 and 48.2. The patients also received education about their conditions as well as counseling on diet and lifestyle modifications.

All participants experienced a reduction in A1c to a range of 5.8% to 7.7%, and a moderate reduction in BMI to between 23 and 39.8 within the year.

“The reduction in BMI that we saw in our patients even though they were still in the category of obesity produces a substantial benefit in the management [of type 2 diabetes],” because weight loss helps to control the condition, said Anna Pendrey, MD, assistant professor of clinical family medicine and geriatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and sole author of the study.

In some cases, the addition of a GLP-1 agonist or GLP-1/GIP agonist allowed for clinicians to deprescribe other medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas, which can cause hypoglycemia in older adults, Dr. Pendrey said.

Approximately 11% of U.S. adults have type 2 diabetes, a percentage that is likely to grow given the prevalence of childhood obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pendrey highlighted the increased incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes in individuals aged 65-79 years.

Previous studies have shown that GLP-1 agonists have the potential to aid in weight reduction, glucose control, and the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in these patients.

The new study is one of many post hoc analyses that mark another step forward in addressing the complex challenges associated with diabetes in older adults, according to Rodolfo Galindo, MD, director of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Miami Health System in Florida.

“I believe this is important because unfortunately many of our older adults have both diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Galindo, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization. “You can induce remission of type 2 diabetes through weight loss that GLP-1s can cause.”

The treatment paradigm has shifted away from focusing only on lowering glucose levels as the primary means to prevent complications from diabetes, Dr. Galindo said.

Indeed, weight loss can modify diseases and prevent other complications associated with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Pendrey said.

“Weight loss and diabetes mellitus control also produces cardiovascular protection that is significant for patients with diabetes, so this group of patients in my opinion are the ones that benefit the most from GLP-1s,” she said.

Side effects of GLP-1 agonists can include nausea and vomiting, which could lead to dehydration. GLP-1s can also increase the risk for pancreatitis. For older adults, weight loss from the drug could cause sarcopenia, or loss of muscle mass, Dr. Galindo said.

“This is the reason why patients in treatment with GLP-1s have to be in close contact with their providers,” Dr. Pendrey said.

This study was independently supported. Dr. Pendrey and Dr. Galindo report no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists may help clinicians manage uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in some older patients without the need for additional glucose-controlling medications, according to a study presented Nov. 8 at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.

The study analyzed charts of 30 adults aged 65-84 years who were seen in clinic from January 2022 to February 2023 and were started on GLP-1 or GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists. Participants had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes with initial A1c levels ranging from 9.6% to 12.6% and a body mass index between 27 and 48.2. The patients also received education about their conditions as well as counseling on diet and lifestyle modifications.

All participants experienced a reduction in A1c to a range of 5.8% to 7.7%, and a moderate reduction in BMI to between 23 and 39.8 within the year.

“The reduction in BMI that we saw in our patients even though they were still in the category of obesity produces a substantial benefit in the management [of type 2 diabetes],” because weight loss helps to control the condition, said Anna Pendrey, MD, assistant professor of clinical family medicine and geriatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and sole author of the study.

In some cases, the addition of a GLP-1 agonist or GLP-1/GIP agonist allowed for clinicians to deprescribe other medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas, which can cause hypoglycemia in older adults, Dr. Pendrey said.

Approximately 11% of U.S. adults have type 2 diabetes, a percentage that is likely to grow given the prevalence of childhood obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pendrey highlighted the increased incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes in individuals aged 65-79 years.

Previous studies have shown that GLP-1 agonists have the potential to aid in weight reduction, glucose control, and the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in these patients.

The new study is one of many post hoc analyses that mark another step forward in addressing the complex challenges associated with diabetes in older adults, according to Rodolfo Galindo, MD, director of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Miami Health System in Florida.

“I believe this is important because unfortunately many of our older adults have both diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Galindo, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization. “You can induce remission of type 2 diabetes through weight loss that GLP-1s can cause.”

The treatment paradigm has shifted away from focusing only on lowering glucose levels as the primary means to prevent complications from diabetes, Dr. Galindo said.

Indeed, weight loss can modify diseases and prevent other complications associated with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Pendrey said.

“Weight loss and diabetes mellitus control also produces cardiovascular protection that is significant for patients with diabetes, so this group of patients in my opinion are the ones that benefit the most from GLP-1s,” she said.

Side effects of GLP-1 agonists can include nausea and vomiting, which could lead to dehydration. GLP-1s can also increase the risk for pancreatitis. For older adults, weight loss from the drug could cause sarcopenia, or loss of muscle mass, Dr. Galindo said.

“This is the reason why patients in treatment with GLP-1s have to be in close contact with their providers,” Dr. Pendrey said.

This study was independently supported. Dr. Pendrey and Dr. Galindo report no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists may help clinicians manage uncontrolled type 2 diabetes in some older patients without the need for additional glucose-controlling medications, according to a study presented Nov. 8 at the annual meeting of the Gerontological Society of America.

The study analyzed charts of 30 adults aged 65-84 years who were seen in clinic from January 2022 to February 2023 and were started on GLP-1 or GLP-1 and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) agonists. Participants had uncontrolled type 2 diabetes with initial A1c levels ranging from 9.6% to 12.6% and a body mass index between 27 and 48.2. The patients also received education about their conditions as well as counseling on diet and lifestyle modifications.

All participants experienced a reduction in A1c to a range of 5.8% to 7.7%, and a moderate reduction in BMI to between 23 and 39.8 within the year.

“The reduction in BMI that we saw in our patients even though they were still in the category of obesity produces a substantial benefit in the management [of type 2 diabetes],” because weight loss helps to control the condition, said Anna Pendrey, MD, assistant professor of clinical family medicine and geriatrics at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and sole author of the study.

In some cases, the addition of a GLP-1 agonist or GLP-1/GIP agonist allowed for clinicians to deprescribe other medications such as insulin and sulfonylureas, which can cause hypoglycemia in older adults, Dr. Pendrey said.

Approximately 11% of U.S. adults have type 2 diabetes, a percentage that is likely to grow given the prevalence of childhood obesity, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Dr. Pendrey highlighted the increased incidence of newly diagnosed diabetes in individuals aged 65-79 years.

Previous studies have shown that GLP-1 agonists have the potential to aid in weight reduction, glucose control, and the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in these patients.

The new study is one of many post hoc analyses that mark another step forward in addressing the complex challenges associated with diabetes in older adults, according to Rodolfo Galindo, MD, director of the Comprehensive Diabetes Center at the University of Miami Health System in Florida.

“I believe this is important because unfortunately many of our older adults have both diabetes and obesity,” Dr. Galindo, who was not involved with the research, told this news organization. “You can induce remission of type 2 diabetes through weight loss that GLP-1s can cause.”

The treatment paradigm has shifted away from focusing only on lowering glucose levels as the primary means to prevent complications from diabetes, Dr. Galindo said.

Indeed, weight loss can modify diseases and prevent other complications associated with type 2 diabetes, Dr. Pendrey said.

“Weight loss and diabetes mellitus control also produces cardiovascular protection that is significant for patients with diabetes, so this group of patients in my opinion are the ones that benefit the most from GLP-1s,” she said.

Side effects of GLP-1 agonists can include nausea and vomiting, which could lead to dehydration. GLP-1s can also increase the risk for pancreatitis. For older adults, weight loss from the drug could cause sarcopenia, or loss of muscle mass, Dr. Galindo said.

“This is the reason why patients in treatment with GLP-1s have to be in close contact with their providers,” Dr. Pendrey said.

This study was independently supported. Dr. Pendrey and Dr. Galindo report no relevant conflicts.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Most diarrhea that leads patients to seek medical advice is actually a false alarm, said gastroenterologist Nassim Hammoudi, MD, PhD, of the Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, during France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2023). He said that doctors need to understand the characteristics of chronic diarrhea and adapt its management accordingly. In his presentation, Dr. Hammoudi highlighted the clinical signs that should be considered.

Mechanisms of chronic diarrhea

Chronic diarrhea can result from different mechanisms, such as motility disorders related to accelerated intestinal transit, malabsorption, osmotic diarrhea, and secretory diarrhea, which are often interlinked. When an endoscopy is performed, it is recommended to conduct multilevel biopsies to detect microscopic colitis, which Dr. Hammoudi believes is “probably underdiagnosed.”

Diarrhea is defined as the passage of frequent stools (more than three a day), soft to liquid in consistency, and a daily weight exceeding 300 g. It is considered chronic when it persists for more than a month.
 

Identifying false diarrhea

Practitioners must first distinguish between genuine and false diarrhea, with the latter presenting in most consultations. “Thorough questioning is fundamental,” Dr. Hammoudi emphasized. It is essential to determine the daily stool count, the presence of nocturnal stools, and stool consistency. “A soft stool passed once a day is not diarrhea,” he said.

The most challenging form of false diarrhea to identify is what he called “constipated person’s diarrhea.” These patients, who are typically elderly, reside in care homes, and are bed-bound and taking morphine, have daily liquid stools but are actually constipated. “Taking antidiarrheal medications makes the situation worse,” said Dr. Hammoudi.

Another type of false diarrhea is tenesmus, in which patients feel like they have a full rectum, even though it is physiologically empty. The recurring urge to defecate results in mucus discharges that resemble diarrhea. Inflammatory rectal involvement could be the cause, necessitating a gastroenterology consultation.

Anal incontinence can also cause false diarrhea. It is more common in elderly people residing in care homes and in women in the postpartum period. This condition is difficult to manage and requires referral to a gastroenterologist.
 

Chronic diarrhea: Could cancer be the culprit?

After ruling out false diarrhea, clinicians should be vigilant for warning signs. The first question to consider, said Dr. Hammoudi, is whether the chronic diarrhea is associated with a lesion. Several criteria should prompt a colonoscopy, especially to search for colorectal cancer lesions:

• Age greater than 50 years
• Personal or family history of colorectal cancer
• Recent changes in bowel habits
• Rectal bleeding
• Nighttime stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Iron-deficiency anemia

Obvious causes of chronic diarrhea should be prioritized in the management plan. Medications top the list, with more than 500 treatments – for example, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antidiabetic drugs, colchicine, magnesium, laxatives – known to have diarrhea as a side effect.

Certain dietary habits can also exacerbate diarrhea, such as milk consumption in cases of lactose intolerance, or excessive sugar intake, which can lead to osmotic diarrhea.
 

IBS is often at play

Once these causes have been ruled out, several etiological pathways should be investigated. The first relates to motility issues, which are the most common diarrhea-related problem, said Dr. Hammoudi.

This type of diarrhea is linked to rapid intestinal transit time and is characterized by postprandial bowel movements (occurring shortly after a meal). Here, patients experience urgency and notice identifiable food debris in their stools. It tends to stop when fasting and can be treated effectively with antidiarrheals.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the main cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It is defined as recurrent abdominal pain (at least 1 day/week) over a period of 3 months, associated with two of the following criteria: pain eases or worsens on passing feces, change in frequency of bowel movements, change in the consistency of stools.

Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis.

IBS medications treat the symptoms. Antispasmodics, such as trimebutine, phloroglucinol (Spasfon), or pinaverium bromide (Dicetel) are recommended, even there can be a placebo effect. The antidiarrheal medication loperamide (Imodium) can also be used. Probiotics may be beneficial, as an imbalanced intestinal microbiota is often implicated.

Dietary changes can also have a positive impact. Encouraging a diet rich in fruit and vegetables to enhance fiber intake is advised. A low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, targeting short-chain carbohydrates, can also be tried to identify foods to avoid, although it may be challenging to stick to.

Postinfectious IBS is a frequent cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It generally follows an episode of acute infectious diarrhea. “Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis,” said Dr. Hammoudi. This type of IBS often resolves spontaneously within 6 months.
 

Consider the possibility of SIBO

Another cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is difficult to distinguish between IBS and SIBO. Often, affected patients are diabetic, overweight, or have had bowel surgery.

The only way to diagnose SIBO is by conducting a breath test to measure the production of hydrogen and methane by the microbiota after ingesting sugar. However, the test is difficult to access and not fully covered by social security plans in France, said Dr. Hammoudi.

In cases of suspected SIBO and severe symptoms, a 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics can be attempted to provide relief, although a diagnosis should be confirmed before considering this option, Dr. Hammoudi said.
 

Malabsorption diarrhea

Another major cause of chronic diarrhea is malabsorption, characterized by large, fatty stools that are difficult to flush. Despite a normal diet, this type of diarrhea is associated with weight loss and nutritional deficiencies.

Its diagnosis involves measuring fat in the stools (steatorrhea) and possibly testing fecal elastase, an enzyme produced by the pancreas that is involved in digestion.

The most important causes of malabsorption diarrhea are pancreatic insufficiency, celiac disease, and Crohn’s disease. Generally, any lesion in the small intestine can lead to malabsorption-related diarrhea.

Celiac disease, or gluten intolerance, is an autoimmune condition triggered by a reaction to gluten proteins. Several antibodies can be produced in the presence of gluten proteins. Diagnosis is confirmed by positive antitransglutaminase antibodies and a duodenal biopsy through esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Celiac disease is increasingly diagnosed in adults, said Dr. Hammoudi, and should be considered as a possibility. This condition must be distinguished from gluten sensitivity, which can cause digestive issues, possibly leading to rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. “The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet,” Dr. Hammoudi added.

Crohn’s disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, affects the entire digestive tract, particularly the terminal small intestine, which promotes malabsorption. In ulcerative colitis, another IBD affecting the rectum, any associated rectal syndrome can result in false diarrhea with stools containing blood and mucus.

Osmotic diarrhea, on the other hand, is linked to the presence of highly osmotic agents in the digestive tract. This type of diarrhea is watery and short-lived, stopping once the agents are no longer absorbed. The main culprits are lactose (in cases of lactose intolerance) and laxatives.
 

Drug-induced microscopic colitis

Secretory diarrhea is characterized by excessive secretions by the digestive tract, leading to significant potassium loss. This type of diarrhea is not related to food intake and is resistant to fasting.

Major causes of secretory diarrhea include microscopic colitis, parasitic infections, and endocrine tumors. Between 10% and 15% of patients with chronic diarrhea and apparently normal colonoscopy have microscopic colitis.

Dr. Hammoudi advised specialists seeking to determine the cause of chronic diarrhea to routinely collect multilevel bowel biopsies during colonoscopies from macroscopically normal mucosa to rule out microscopic colitis.

Microscopic colitis is mainly linked to the use of medications like PPIs and NSAIDs. These drugs can induce malabsorption-related diarrhea by damaging the intestinal wall.

In addition to discontinuing the implicated medication, the treatment for microscopic colitis includes low-dose budesonide (multiple brands). Biologics used in IBD may also be considered in cases of recurrent colitis.

Finally, exudative enteropathy can be a distinct cause of chronic diarrhea. It is characterized by albumin leakage (Waldmann’s disease) and manifests with edema, malnutrition, and significant hypoalbuminemia.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Most diarrhea that leads patients to seek medical advice is actually a false alarm, said gastroenterologist Nassim Hammoudi, MD, PhD, of the Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, during France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2023). He said that doctors need to understand the characteristics of chronic diarrhea and adapt its management accordingly. In his presentation, Dr. Hammoudi highlighted the clinical signs that should be considered.

Mechanisms of chronic diarrhea

Chronic diarrhea can result from different mechanisms, such as motility disorders related to accelerated intestinal transit, malabsorption, osmotic diarrhea, and secretory diarrhea, which are often interlinked. When an endoscopy is performed, it is recommended to conduct multilevel biopsies to detect microscopic colitis, which Dr. Hammoudi believes is “probably underdiagnosed.”

Diarrhea is defined as the passage of frequent stools (more than three a day), soft to liquid in consistency, and a daily weight exceeding 300 g. It is considered chronic when it persists for more than a month.
 

Identifying false diarrhea

Practitioners must first distinguish between genuine and false diarrhea, with the latter presenting in most consultations. “Thorough questioning is fundamental,” Dr. Hammoudi emphasized. It is essential to determine the daily stool count, the presence of nocturnal stools, and stool consistency. “A soft stool passed once a day is not diarrhea,” he said.

The most challenging form of false diarrhea to identify is what he called “constipated person’s diarrhea.” These patients, who are typically elderly, reside in care homes, and are bed-bound and taking morphine, have daily liquid stools but are actually constipated. “Taking antidiarrheal medications makes the situation worse,” said Dr. Hammoudi.

Another type of false diarrhea is tenesmus, in which patients feel like they have a full rectum, even though it is physiologically empty. The recurring urge to defecate results in mucus discharges that resemble diarrhea. Inflammatory rectal involvement could be the cause, necessitating a gastroenterology consultation.

Anal incontinence can also cause false diarrhea. It is more common in elderly people residing in care homes and in women in the postpartum period. This condition is difficult to manage and requires referral to a gastroenterologist.
 

Chronic diarrhea: Could cancer be the culprit?

After ruling out false diarrhea, clinicians should be vigilant for warning signs. The first question to consider, said Dr. Hammoudi, is whether the chronic diarrhea is associated with a lesion. Several criteria should prompt a colonoscopy, especially to search for colorectal cancer lesions:

• Age greater than 50 years
• Personal or family history of colorectal cancer
• Recent changes in bowel habits
• Rectal bleeding
• Nighttime stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Iron-deficiency anemia

Obvious causes of chronic diarrhea should be prioritized in the management plan. Medications top the list, with more than 500 treatments – for example, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antidiabetic drugs, colchicine, magnesium, laxatives – known to have diarrhea as a side effect.

Certain dietary habits can also exacerbate diarrhea, such as milk consumption in cases of lactose intolerance, or excessive sugar intake, which can lead to osmotic diarrhea.
 

IBS is often at play

Once these causes have been ruled out, several etiological pathways should be investigated. The first relates to motility issues, which are the most common diarrhea-related problem, said Dr. Hammoudi.

This type of diarrhea is linked to rapid intestinal transit time and is characterized by postprandial bowel movements (occurring shortly after a meal). Here, patients experience urgency and notice identifiable food debris in their stools. It tends to stop when fasting and can be treated effectively with antidiarrheals.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the main cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It is defined as recurrent abdominal pain (at least 1 day/week) over a period of 3 months, associated with two of the following criteria: pain eases or worsens on passing feces, change in frequency of bowel movements, change in the consistency of stools.

Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis.

IBS medications treat the symptoms. Antispasmodics, such as trimebutine, phloroglucinol (Spasfon), or pinaverium bromide (Dicetel) are recommended, even there can be a placebo effect. The antidiarrheal medication loperamide (Imodium) can also be used. Probiotics may be beneficial, as an imbalanced intestinal microbiota is often implicated.

Dietary changes can also have a positive impact. Encouraging a diet rich in fruit and vegetables to enhance fiber intake is advised. A low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, targeting short-chain carbohydrates, can also be tried to identify foods to avoid, although it may be challenging to stick to.

Postinfectious IBS is a frequent cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It generally follows an episode of acute infectious diarrhea. “Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis,” said Dr. Hammoudi. This type of IBS often resolves spontaneously within 6 months.
 

Consider the possibility of SIBO

Another cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is difficult to distinguish between IBS and SIBO. Often, affected patients are diabetic, overweight, or have had bowel surgery.

The only way to diagnose SIBO is by conducting a breath test to measure the production of hydrogen and methane by the microbiota after ingesting sugar. However, the test is difficult to access and not fully covered by social security plans in France, said Dr. Hammoudi.

In cases of suspected SIBO and severe symptoms, a 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics can be attempted to provide relief, although a diagnosis should be confirmed before considering this option, Dr. Hammoudi said.
 

Malabsorption diarrhea

Another major cause of chronic diarrhea is malabsorption, characterized by large, fatty stools that are difficult to flush. Despite a normal diet, this type of diarrhea is associated with weight loss and nutritional deficiencies.

Its diagnosis involves measuring fat in the stools (steatorrhea) and possibly testing fecal elastase, an enzyme produced by the pancreas that is involved in digestion.

The most important causes of malabsorption diarrhea are pancreatic insufficiency, celiac disease, and Crohn’s disease. Generally, any lesion in the small intestine can lead to malabsorption-related diarrhea.

Celiac disease, or gluten intolerance, is an autoimmune condition triggered by a reaction to gluten proteins. Several antibodies can be produced in the presence of gluten proteins. Diagnosis is confirmed by positive antitransglutaminase antibodies and a duodenal biopsy through esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Celiac disease is increasingly diagnosed in adults, said Dr. Hammoudi, and should be considered as a possibility. This condition must be distinguished from gluten sensitivity, which can cause digestive issues, possibly leading to rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. “The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet,” Dr. Hammoudi added.

Crohn’s disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, affects the entire digestive tract, particularly the terminal small intestine, which promotes malabsorption. In ulcerative colitis, another IBD affecting the rectum, any associated rectal syndrome can result in false diarrhea with stools containing blood and mucus.

Osmotic diarrhea, on the other hand, is linked to the presence of highly osmotic agents in the digestive tract. This type of diarrhea is watery and short-lived, stopping once the agents are no longer absorbed. The main culprits are lactose (in cases of lactose intolerance) and laxatives.
 

Drug-induced microscopic colitis

Secretory diarrhea is characterized by excessive secretions by the digestive tract, leading to significant potassium loss. This type of diarrhea is not related to food intake and is resistant to fasting.

Major causes of secretory diarrhea include microscopic colitis, parasitic infections, and endocrine tumors. Between 10% and 15% of patients with chronic diarrhea and apparently normal colonoscopy have microscopic colitis.

Dr. Hammoudi advised specialists seeking to determine the cause of chronic diarrhea to routinely collect multilevel bowel biopsies during colonoscopies from macroscopically normal mucosa to rule out microscopic colitis.

Microscopic colitis is mainly linked to the use of medications like PPIs and NSAIDs. These drugs can induce malabsorption-related diarrhea by damaging the intestinal wall.

In addition to discontinuing the implicated medication, the treatment for microscopic colitis includes low-dose budesonide (multiple brands). Biologics used in IBD may also be considered in cases of recurrent colitis.

Finally, exudative enteropathy can be a distinct cause of chronic diarrhea. It is characterized by albumin leakage (Waldmann’s disease) and manifests with edema, malnutrition, and significant hypoalbuminemia.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – Most diarrhea that leads patients to seek medical advice is actually a false alarm, said gastroenterologist Nassim Hammoudi, MD, PhD, of the Lariboisière Hospital in Paris, during France’s annual general medicine conference (JNMG 2023). He said that doctors need to understand the characteristics of chronic diarrhea and adapt its management accordingly. In his presentation, Dr. Hammoudi highlighted the clinical signs that should be considered.

Mechanisms of chronic diarrhea

Chronic diarrhea can result from different mechanisms, such as motility disorders related to accelerated intestinal transit, malabsorption, osmotic diarrhea, and secretory diarrhea, which are often interlinked. When an endoscopy is performed, it is recommended to conduct multilevel biopsies to detect microscopic colitis, which Dr. Hammoudi believes is “probably underdiagnosed.”

Diarrhea is defined as the passage of frequent stools (more than three a day), soft to liquid in consistency, and a daily weight exceeding 300 g. It is considered chronic when it persists for more than a month.
 

Identifying false diarrhea

Practitioners must first distinguish between genuine and false diarrhea, with the latter presenting in most consultations. “Thorough questioning is fundamental,” Dr. Hammoudi emphasized. It is essential to determine the daily stool count, the presence of nocturnal stools, and stool consistency. “A soft stool passed once a day is not diarrhea,” he said.

The most challenging form of false diarrhea to identify is what he called “constipated person’s diarrhea.” These patients, who are typically elderly, reside in care homes, and are bed-bound and taking morphine, have daily liquid stools but are actually constipated. “Taking antidiarrheal medications makes the situation worse,” said Dr. Hammoudi.

Another type of false diarrhea is tenesmus, in which patients feel like they have a full rectum, even though it is physiologically empty. The recurring urge to defecate results in mucus discharges that resemble diarrhea. Inflammatory rectal involvement could be the cause, necessitating a gastroenterology consultation.

Anal incontinence can also cause false diarrhea. It is more common in elderly people residing in care homes and in women in the postpartum period. This condition is difficult to manage and requires referral to a gastroenterologist.
 

Chronic diarrhea: Could cancer be the culprit?

After ruling out false diarrhea, clinicians should be vigilant for warning signs. The first question to consider, said Dr. Hammoudi, is whether the chronic diarrhea is associated with a lesion. Several criteria should prompt a colonoscopy, especially to search for colorectal cancer lesions:

• Age greater than 50 years
• Personal or family history of colorectal cancer
• Recent changes in bowel habits
• Rectal bleeding
• Nighttime stools
• Unexplained weight loss
• Iron-deficiency anemia

Obvious causes of chronic diarrhea should be prioritized in the management plan. Medications top the list, with more than 500 treatments – for example, ACE inhibitors, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), antidiabetic drugs, colchicine, magnesium, laxatives – known to have diarrhea as a side effect.

Certain dietary habits can also exacerbate diarrhea, such as milk consumption in cases of lactose intolerance, or excessive sugar intake, which can lead to osmotic diarrhea.
 

IBS is often at play

Once these causes have been ruled out, several etiological pathways should be investigated. The first relates to motility issues, which are the most common diarrhea-related problem, said Dr. Hammoudi.

This type of diarrhea is linked to rapid intestinal transit time and is characterized by postprandial bowel movements (occurring shortly after a meal). Here, patients experience urgency and notice identifiable food debris in their stools. It tends to stop when fasting and can be treated effectively with antidiarrheals.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the main cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It is defined as recurrent abdominal pain (at least 1 day/week) over a period of 3 months, associated with two of the following criteria: pain eases or worsens on passing feces, change in frequency of bowel movements, change in the consistency of stools.

Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis.

IBS medications treat the symptoms. Antispasmodics, such as trimebutine, phloroglucinol (Spasfon), or pinaverium bromide (Dicetel) are recommended, even there can be a placebo effect. The antidiarrheal medication loperamide (Imodium) can also be used. Probiotics may be beneficial, as an imbalanced intestinal microbiota is often implicated.

Dietary changes can also have a positive impact. Encouraging a diet rich in fruit and vegetables to enhance fiber intake is advised. A low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols) diet, targeting short-chain carbohydrates, can also be tried to identify foods to avoid, although it may be challenging to stick to.

Postinfectious IBS is a frequent cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. It generally follows an episode of acute infectious diarrhea. “Symptoms may come on suddenly, sometimes after taking antibiotics, and may result in misdiagnosis,” said Dr. Hammoudi. This type of IBS often resolves spontaneously within 6 months.
 

Consider the possibility of SIBO

Another cause of rapid intestinal transit diarrhea is small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). It is difficult to distinguish between IBS and SIBO. Often, affected patients are diabetic, overweight, or have had bowel surgery.

The only way to diagnose SIBO is by conducting a breath test to measure the production of hydrogen and methane by the microbiota after ingesting sugar. However, the test is difficult to access and not fully covered by social security plans in France, said Dr. Hammoudi.

In cases of suspected SIBO and severe symptoms, a 7- to 10-day course of antibiotics can be attempted to provide relief, although a diagnosis should be confirmed before considering this option, Dr. Hammoudi said.
 

Malabsorption diarrhea

Another major cause of chronic diarrhea is malabsorption, characterized by large, fatty stools that are difficult to flush. Despite a normal diet, this type of diarrhea is associated with weight loss and nutritional deficiencies.

Its diagnosis involves measuring fat in the stools (steatorrhea) and possibly testing fecal elastase, an enzyme produced by the pancreas that is involved in digestion.

The most important causes of malabsorption diarrhea are pancreatic insufficiency, celiac disease, and Crohn’s disease. Generally, any lesion in the small intestine can lead to malabsorption-related diarrhea.

Celiac disease, or gluten intolerance, is an autoimmune condition triggered by a reaction to gluten proteins. Several antibodies can be produced in the presence of gluten proteins. Diagnosis is confirmed by positive antitransglutaminase antibodies and a duodenal biopsy through esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet. Celiac disease is increasingly diagnosed in adults, said Dr. Hammoudi, and should be considered as a possibility. This condition must be distinguished from gluten sensitivity, which can cause digestive issues, possibly leading to rapid intestinal transit diarrhea. “The only treatment for celiac disease is a lifelong gluten-free diet,” Dr. Hammoudi added.

Crohn’s disease, a type of inflammatory bowel disease, affects the entire digestive tract, particularly the terminal small intestine, which promotes malabsorption. In ulcerative colitis, another IBD affecting the rectum, any associated rectal syndrome can result in false diarrhea with stools containing blood and mucus.

Osmotic diarrhea, on the other hand, is linked to the presence of highly osmotic agents in the digestive tract. This type of diarrhea is watery and short-lived, stopping once the agents are no longer absorbed. The main culprits are lactose (in cases of lactose intolerance) and laxatives.
 

Drug-induced microscopic colitis

Secretory diarrhea is characterized by excessive secretions by the digestive tract, leading to significant potassium loss. This type of diarrhea is not related to food intake and is resistant to fasting.

Major causes of secretory diarrhea include microscopic colitis, parasitic infections, and endocrine tumors. Between 10% and 15% of patients with chronic diarrhea and apparently normal colonoscopy have microscopic colitis.

Dr. Hammoudi advised specialists seeking to determine the cause of chronic diarrhea to routinely collect multilevel bowel biopsies during colonoscopies from macroscopically normal mucosa to rule out microscopic colitis.

Microscopic colitis is mainly linked to the use of medications like PPIs and NSAIDs. These drugs can induce malabsorption-related diarrhea by damaging the intestinal wall.

In addition to discontinuing the implicated medication, the treatment for microscopic colitis includes low-dose budesonide (multiple brands). Biologics used in IBD may also be considered in cases of recurrent colitis.

Finally, exudative enteropathy can be a distinct cause of chronic diarrhea. It is characterized by albumin leakage (Waldmann’s disease) and manifests with edema, malnutrition, and significant hypoalbuminemia.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – With the current demand for type 2 diabetes drugs that both improve glycemic control and help patients shed large amounts of weight, liver specialists have speculated that the metabolic benefits could also extend to the liver.

Spoiler alert: they do.

In a retrospective study of patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who received either a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, 87% of those who lost at least 3% of body weight within 8 weeks eventually experienced normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, reported Takamasa Ohki, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the department of gastroenterology at Mitsui Memorial Hospital in Tokyo.

“Body weight reduction within 8 weeks after administration of these agents was an independent factor [that] contributed to rapid improvement of ALT. Maintenance of body weight and T2DM after normalization of ALT was also very important,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

The biggest losers benefit most

Dr. Ohki and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as treatment of MAFLD for patients with T2DM.

They conducted a retrospective study of 233 patients who had both conditions and who received either of the drug classes at their institution from June 2010 through December 2021; the most recent follow-up was in December 2022. The primary endpoint of the study was normalization of ALT values.

A total of 54 patients had a 3% or greater reduction in body weight within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with their respective drugs. The researchers found that for 47 of these patients (87%), ALT values normalized; the 12-, 24-, and 36-month cumulative normalization rates were 61%, 73%, and 80%, respectively.

In contrast, among the 179 patients who did not lose weight as robustly or rapidly, 137 (76.5%) demonstrated normalization of ALT, with cumulative normalization rates of 41%, 59% and 69%, respectively (P < .01).

In multivariate analysis that controlled for age, sex, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, weight reduction, and antidiabetes drug use, body weight reduction of at least 3% within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with either an SLT-2 or GLP-1 agent was associated independently with normalization of ALT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (P = .028).

Improvement of T2DM was an independent predictor for ALT normalization (HR, 0.64; P = .015).

Other factors contributing to ALT normalization included use of sulfonylurea (HR, 0.63; P < .01) and insulin (HR, 0.54; P < .01).

In all, 103 of the 184 patients with initial normalization of ALT values experienced a recurrence of ALT elevation during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, body weight gain and exacerbation of T2DM were independent factors for ALT reexacerbation (HR, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P < .01 for both comparisons).
 

Duration of effect uncertain

Philip A. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, professor of experimental hepatology and honorary consultant hepatologist at the University of Birmingham, England, who was not involved in the study, has conducted research into the metabolic effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. In an interview, he said that both drug classes are likely to have positive near-term effects on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through their effects on glucose control and reduction in associated comorbidities.

“The unknown question,” he added, is what will happen in the long term. “I think there are some uncertainties around what proportion of patients will essentially be downstaged or downgraded such that they don’t develop any other problem; I suspect that will be the case in very many patients. However, I suspect there will also be a large proportion that end up requiring additional therapy above and beyond weight loss,” said Dr. Newsome.

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Ohki and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Newsome has consulted on behalf of his institution with Novo Nordisk, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Poxel, and Intercept and has received a grant from Pharmaxis and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – With the current demand for type 2 diabetes drugs that both improve glycemic control and help patients shed large amounts of weight, liver specialists have speculated that the metabolic benefits could also extend to the liver.

Spoiler alert: they do.

In a retrospective study of patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who received either a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, 87% of those who lost at least 3% of body weight within 8 weeks eventually experienced normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, reported Takamasa Ohki, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the department of gastroenterology at Mitsui Memorial Hospital in Tokyo.

“Body weight reduction within 8 weeks after administration of these agents was an independent factor [that] contributed to rapid improvement of ALT. Maintenance of body weight and T2DM after normalization of ALT was also very important,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

The biggest losers benefit most

Dr. Ohki and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as treatment of MAFLD for patients with T2DM.

They conducted a retrospective study of 233 patients who had both conditions and who received either of the drug classes at their institution from June 2010 through December 2021; the most recent follow-up was in December 2022. The primary endpoint of the study was normalization of ALT values.

A total of 54 patients had a 3% or greater reduction in body weight within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with their respective drugs. The researchers found that for 47 of these patients (87%), ALT values normalized; the 12-, 24-, and 36-month cumulative normalization rates were 61%, 73%, and 80%, respectively.

In contrast, among the 179 patients who did not lose weight as robustly or rapidly, 137 (76.5%) demonstrated normalization of ALT, with cumulative normalization rates of 41%, 59% and 69%, respectively (P < .01).

In multivariate analysis that controlled for age, sex, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, weight reduction, and antidiabetes drug use, body weight reduction of at least 3% within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with either an SLT-2 or GLP-1 agent was associated independently with normalization of ALT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (P = .028).

Improvement of T2DM was an independent predictor for ALT normalization (HR, 0.64; P = .015).

Other factors contributing to ALT normalization included use of sulfonylurea (HR, 0.63; P < .01) and insulin (HR, 0.54; P < .01).

In all, 103 of the 184 patients with initial normalization of ALT values experienced a recurrence of ALT elevation during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, body weight gain and exacerbation of T2DM were independent factors for ALT reexacerbation (HR, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P < .01 for both comparisons).
 

Duration of effect uncertain

Philip A. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, professor of experimental hepatology and honorary consultant hepatologist at the University of Birmingham, England, who was not involved in the study, has conducted research into the metabolic effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. In an interview, he said that both drug classes are likely to have positive near-term effects on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through their effects on glucose control and reduction in associated comorbidities.

“The unknown question,” he added, is what will happen in the long term. “I think there are some uncertainties around what proportion of patients will essentially be downstaged or downgraded such that they don’t develop any other problem; I suspect that will be the case in very many patients. However, I suspect there will also be a large proportion that end up requiring additional therapy above and beyond weight loss,” said Dr. Newsome.

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Ohki and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Newsome has consulted on behalf of his institution with Novo Nordisk, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Poxel, and Intercept and has received a grant from Pharmaxis and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – With the current demand for type 2 diabetes drugs that both improve glycemic control and help patients shed large amounts of weight, liver specialists have speculated that the metabolic benefits could also extend to the liver.

Spoiler alert: they do.

In a retrospective study of patients with metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who received either a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist, 87% of those who lost at least 3% of body weight within 8 weeks eventually experienced normalization of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, reported Takamasa Ohki, MD, PhD, and colleagues from the department of gastroenterology at Mitsui Memorial Hospital in Tokyo.

“Body weight reduction within 8 weeks after administration of these agents was an independent factor [that] contributed to rapid improvement of ALT. Maintenance of body weight and T2DM after normalization of ALT was also very important,” they wrote in a scientific poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.
 

The biggest losers benefit most

Dr. Ohki and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists as treatment of MAFLD for patients with T2DM.

They conducted a retrospective study of 233 patients who had both conditions and who received either of the drug classes at their institution from June 2010 through December 2021; the most recent follow-up was in December 2022. The primary endpoint of the study was normalization of ALT values.

A total of 54 patients had a 3% or greater reduction in body weight within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with their respective drugs. The researchers found that for 47 of these patients (87%), ALT values normalized; the 12-, 24-, and 36-month cumulative normalization rates were 61%, 73%, and 80%, respectively.

In contrast, among the 179 patients who did not lose weight as robustly or rapidly, 137 (76.5%) demonstrated normalization of ALT, with cumulative normalization rates of 41%, 59% and 69%, respectively (P < .01).

In multivariate analysis that controlled for age, sex, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, weight reduction, and antidiabetes drug use, body weight reduction of at least 3% within 8 weeks of beginning treatment with either an SLT-2 or GLP-1 agent was associated independently with normalization of ALT, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 (P = .028).

Improvement of T2DM was an independent predictor for ALT normalization (HR, 0.64; P = .015).

Other factors contributing to ALT normalization included use of sulfonylurea (HR, 0.63; P < .01) and insulin (HR, 0.54; P < .01).

In all, 103 of the 184 patients with initial normalization of ALT values experienced a recurrence of ALT elevation during follow-up. In multivariate analysis, body weight gain and exacerbation of T2DM were independent factors for ALT reexacerbation (HR, 0.52 and 0.48, respectively; P < .01 for both comparisons).
 

Duration of effect uncertain

Philip A. Newsome, PhD, FRCPE, professor of experimental hepatology and honorary consultant hepatologist at the University of Birmingham, England, who was not involved in the study, has conducted research into the metabolic effects of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 agonists. In an interview, he said that both drug classes are likely to have positive near-term effects on metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH, formerly NASH) through their effects on glucose control and reduction in associated comorbidities.

“The unknown question,” he added, is what will happen in the long term. “I think there are some uncertainties around what proportion of patients will essentially be downstaged or downgraded such that they don’t develop any other problem; I suspect that will be the case in very many patients. However, I suspect there will also be a large proportion that end up requiring additional therapy above and beyond weight loss,” said Dr. Newsome.

The investigators did not report a funding source for the study. Dr. Ohki and colleagues have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Newsome has consulted on behalf of his institution with Novo Nordisk, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Poxel, and Intercept and has received a grant from Pharmaxis and Boehringer Ingelheim.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Lower-extremity (LE) lymphedema increases the risk for all types of skin cancer on the lower extremities.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the retrospective cohort study, researchers reviewed reports at Mayo Clinic for all patients who had LE lymphedema, limiting the review to those who had an ICD code for lymphedema.
• 4,437 patients with the ICD code from 2000 to 2020 were compared with 4,437 matched controls.
• The records of patients with skin cancer diagnoses were reviewed manually to determine whether the skin cancer, its management, or both were a cause of lymphedema; cancers that caused secondary lymphedema were excluded.
• This is the first large-scale study evaluating the association between LE lymphedema and LE skin cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• 211 patients (4.6%) in the LE lymphedema group had any ICD code for LE skin cancer, compared with 89 (2%) in the control group.
• Among those with LE lymphedema, the risk for skin cancer was 1.98 times greater compared with those without lymphedema (95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.74; P < .001). Cases included all types of skin cancer.
• Nineteen of 24 patients with unilateral LE lymphedema had a history of immunosuppression.
• In the group of 24 patients with unilateral LE lymphedema, the lymphedematous LE was more likely to have one or more skin cancers than were the unaffected LE (87.5% vs. 33.3%; P < .05), and skin cancer was 2.65 times more likely to develop on the affected LE than in the unaffected LE (95% CI, 1.17-5.99; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest the need for a relatively high degree of suspicion of skin cancer at sites with lymphedema,” senior author, Afsaneh Alavi, MD, professor of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, said in a Mayo Clinic press release reporting the results.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Meharry Medical College, Nashville. It was published in the November 2023 Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

This was a single-center retrospective study, and patients with LE lymphedema may be overdiagnosed with LE skin cancer because they have a greater number of examinations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Alavi reports having been a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB SA and an investigator for Processa Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other authors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Lower-extremity (LE) lymphedema increases the risk for all types of skin cancer on the lower extremities.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the retrospective cohort study, researchers reviewed reports at Mayo Clinic for all patients who had LE lymphedema, limiting the review to those who had an ICD code for lymphedema.
• 4,437 patients with the ICD code from 2000 to 2020 were compared with 4,437 matched controls.
• The records of patients with skin cancer diagnoses were reviewed manually to determine whether the skin cancer, its management, or both were a cause of lymphedema; cancers that caused secondary lymphedema were excluded.
• This is the first large-scale study evaluating the association between LE lymphedema and LE skin cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• 211 patients (4.6%) in the LE lymphedema group had any ICD code for LE skin cancer, compared with 89 (2%) in the control group.
• Among those with LE lymphedema, the risk for skin cancer was 1.98 times greater compared with those without lymphedema (95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.74; P < .001). Cases included all types of skin cancer.
• Nineteen of 24 patients with unilateral LE lymphedema had a history of immunosuppression.
• In the group of 24 patients with unilateral LE lymphedema, the lymphedematous LE was more likely to have one or more skin cancers than were the unaffected LE (87.5% vs. 33.3%; P < .05), and skin cancer was 2.65 times more likely to develop on the affected LE than in the unaffected LE (95% CI, 1.17-5.99; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest the need for a relatively high degree of suspicion of skin cancer at sites with lymphedema,” senior author, Afsaneh Alavi, MD, professor of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, said in a Mayo Clinic press release reporting the results.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Meharry Medical College, Nashville. It was published in the November 2023 Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

This was a single-center retrospective study, and patients with LE lymphedema may be overdiagnosed with LE skin cancer because they have a greater number of examinations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Alavi reports having been a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB SA and an investigator for Processa Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other authors had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Lower-extremity (LE) lymphedema increases the risk for all types of skin cancer on the lower extremities.

METHODOLOGY:

• In the retrospective cohort study, researchers reviewed reports at Mayo Clinic for all patients who had LE lymphedema, limiting the review to those who had an ICD code for lymphedema.
• 4,437 patients with the ICD code from 2000 to 2020 were compared with 4,437 matched controls.
• The records of patients with skin cancer diagnoses were reviewed manually to determine whether the skin cancer, its management, or both were a cause of lymphedema; cancers that caused secondary lymphedema were excluded.
• This is the first large-scale study evaluating the association between LE lymphedema and LE skin cancer.

TAKEAWAY:

• 211 patients (4.6%) in the LE lymphedema group had any ICD code for LE skin cancer, compared with 89 (2%) in the control group.
• Among those with LE lymphedema, the risk for skin cancer was 1.98 times greater compared with those without lymphedema (95% confidence interval, 1.43-2.74; P < .001). Cases included all types of skin cancer.
• Nineteen of 24 patients with unilateral LE lymphedema had a history of immunosuppression.
• In the group of 24 patients with unilateral LE lymphedema, the lymphedematous LE was more likely to have one or more skin cancers than were the unaffected LE (87.5% vs. 33.3%; P < .05), and skin cancer was 2.65 times more likely to develop on the affected LE than in the unaffected LE (95% CI, 1.17-5.99; P = .02).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest the need for a relatively high degree of suspicion of skin cancer at sites with lymphedema,” senior author, Afsaneh Alavi, MD, professor of dermatology at the Mayo Clinic, said in a Mayo Clinic press release reporting the results.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by researchers at the Mayo Clinic and Meharry Medical College, Nashville. It was published in the November 2023 Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

LIMITATIONS:

This was a single-center retrospective study, and patients with LE lymphedema may be overdiagnosed with LE skin cancer because they have a greater number of examinations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Alavi reports having been a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, InflaRx, Novartis, and UCB SA and an investigator for Processa Pharmaceuticals and Boehringer Ingelheim. The other authors had no disclosures.

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

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Artificial intelligence can distinguish overlapping inflammatory conditions with total accuracy, according to a new study presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Texas pediatricians faced a conundrum during the pandemic. Endemic typhus, a flea-borne tropical infection common to the region, is nearly indistinguishable from multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a rare condition set in motion by SARS-CoV-2 infection. Children with either ailment had seemingly identical symptoms: fever, rash, gastrointestinal issues, and in need of swift treatment. A diagnosis of endemic typhus can take 4-6 days to confirm.

Tiphanie Vogel, MD, PhD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, and colleagues sought to create a tool to hasten diagnosis and, ideally, treatment. To do so, they incorporated machine learning and clinical factors available within the first 6 hours of the onset of symptoms.

The team analyzed 49 demographic, clinical, and laboratory measures from the medical records of 133 children with MIS-C and 87 with endemic typhus. Using deep learning, they narrowed the model to 30 essential features that became the backbone of AI-MET, a two-phase clinical-decision support system.

Phase 1 uses 17 clinical factors and can be performed on paper. If a patient’s score in phase 1 is not determinative, clinicians proceed to phase 2, which uses an additional 13 weighted factors and machine learning.

In testing, the two-part tool classified each of the 220 test patients perfectly. And it diagnosed a second group of 111 patients with MIS-C with 99% (110/111) accuracy.

Of note, “that first step classifies [a patient] correctly half of the time,” Dr. Vogel said, so the second, AI phase of the tool was necessary for only half of cases. Dr. Vogel said that’s a good sign; it means that the tool is useful in settings where AI may not always be feasible, like in a busy ED.

Melissa Mizesko, MD, a pediatric rheumatologist at Driscoll Children’s Hospital in Corpus Christi, Tex., said that the new tool could help clinicians streamline care. When cases of MIS-C peaked in Texas, clinicians often would start sick children on doxycycline and treat for MIS-C at the same time, then wait to see whether the antibiotic brought the fever down.

“This [new tool] is helpful if you live in a part of the country that has typhus,” said Jane Burns, MD, director of the Kawasaki Disease Research Center at the University of California, San Diego, who helped develop a similar AI-based tool to distinguish MIS-C from Kawasaki disease. But she encouraged the researchers to expand their testing to include other conditions. Although the AI model Dr. Vogel’s group developed can pinpoint MIS-C or endemic typhus, what if a child has neither condition? “It’s not often you’re dealing with a diagnosis between just two specific diseases,” Dr. Burns said.

Dr. Vogel is also interested in making AI-MET more efficient. “This go-round we prioritized perfect accuracy,” she said. But 30 clinical factors, with 17 of them recorded and calculated by hand, is a lot. “Could we still get this to be very accurate, maybe not perfect, with less inputs?”

In addition to refining AI-MET, which Texas Children’s eventually hopes to make available to other institutions, Dr. Vogel and associates are also considering other use cases for AI. Lupus is one option. “Maybe with machine learning we could identify clues at diagnosis that would help recommend targeted treatment,” she said

Dr. Vogel disclosed potential conflicts of interest with Moderna, Novartis, Pfizer, and SOBI. Dr. Burns and Dr. Mizesko disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

Can green tea lower your risk of colorectal cancer? It depends on who – and what research – you believe. 

Evidence that links green tea and a lower risk of colorectal cancer goes both ways. Some researchers have found little or no significant risk from drinking the popular tea, while others point to a potential benefit. Now add two more studies – one that found no reduced risk and another that seems to strengthen the link between green tea and a lower risk of colon cancer. 

Randomized controlled trials – where some people get randomly assigned to drink green tea and others do not – are considered the gold standard of medical research. Combine the findings from several of these trials, the thinking goes, and the findings get even stronger. 

Combining random trials so far shows no advantage from green tea. But there may still be a benefit, said lead researcher Vishal Chandel, MD, who is affiliated with Suburban Community Hospital in Norristown, Pa. It could be that there are just not enough randomized controlled trials yet to show green tea has a protective effect.

“Many, many factors contribute to colorectal cancer, and one of them is diet. One thing which struck me was tea, because tea is something that people consume all over the world, and it has shown some stronger effects in Japan and in China,” said Dr. Chandel. 
 

Comparing hundreds of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues found three randomized controlled trials that looked at the link between green tea and colorectal cancer risk. Combined, the data included 451 people with colorectal cancer and 460 others without cancer who made up a control, or comparison, group. 

They found green tea consumption did not reduce the risk of colorectal cancer in a statically significant way. 

“There are only three randomized controlled trials from anywhere concerning green tea and colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. “We really need more. If we had 7, 8, or 10 … I’m very positive we will have a much stronger association to say that green tea can have a positive effect.”
 

Comparing thousands of people 

Dr. Chandel and colleagues also performed another study where they looked at less rigorous evidence – 10 cohort studies and 15 prospective case-control studies. These studies included 198,488 cancer cases and 581,556 controls. This time, they found a stronger link between green tea and a reduced risk of colorectal cancer. 

The “meta-analysis results indicate a lower tendency to develop colorectal cancer with green tea consumption, with reduced risk of colorectal cancer more pronounced in Asia than America or Europe,” the authors note. “Although there is insufficient epidemiological data to conclude at present that green tea can have protective effects in human beings.”

Dr. Chandel presented the findings of both studies in Vancouver at the American College of Gastroenterology annual scientific meeting.
 

Why green tea?

Dr. Chandel said he studied colorectal cancer because it is the third most diagnosed cancer worldwide, accounting for about 10% of all new cancer cases in 2020, according to the World Health Organization’s Global Cancer Observatory data. It is also a common cause of cancer death globally, second only to lung cancer. 

Green tea contains high level of polyphenols known as catechins. The main catechin in green tea believed to provide cancer protective effects is epigallocatechin-3 gallate (EGCG). EGCG “has been shown in some studies to inhibit or prevent colon cancer,” Dr. Chandel said. 

EGCG is present in higher amounts in green tea, compared with black or oolong tea, because green tea is made from unfermented, unoxidized tea leaves.
 

Difficult to read the tea leaves

These studies “add to the literature, which remains undefined regarding the role of green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer,” Catherine Eng, MD, a spokesperson for the American Society of Clinical Oncology, said when asked to comment.

Although combining three trials did not reveal a significant benefit, looking at a greater number of studies did in some populations, said Dr. Eng, codirector of gastrointestinal oncology and chair of surgical and medical oncology at Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center in Nashville. 

“Potential benefit for green tea in reducing the risk of colorectal cancer was noted in the Asian cases but was not found to be statistically significant in the European or U.S. studies,” she said. “Currently, the role of dietary consumption of green tea on reducing the risk of colorectal cancer is not well established and requires further investigation.”

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.