User login
Sublingual immunotherapy stops onset and worsening of asthma
PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.
These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.
SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.
In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.
The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.
A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.
In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.
The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
Asthma risk reduced
Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).
The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.
said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
Risk for worsening
Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.
“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.
“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.
These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.
SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.
In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.
The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.
A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.
In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.
The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
Asthma risk reduced
Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).
The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.
said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
Risk for worsening
Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.
“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.
“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – The EfficAPSI study showed with real-world data that sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) reduces the risks for asthma onset and the worsening of asthma symptoms for patients with allergic rhinitis. The research was presented at the 18th French-language allergy conference.
These results confirm that allergen immunotherapy, or “desensitization,” is indeed an etiologic treatment of this allergic condition.
SLIT encompasses personalized solutions created for an individual specifically for allergies to dust mites, grass, birch, cats, and so on. These preparations are commonly used by allergy specialists when establishing an AIT treatment plan.
In 2017, the French Health Authority published a report indicating that there was insufficient clinical proof regarding the efficacy of SLIT. It subsequently removed injectable forms of these allergen extracts from the list of drugs reimbursed by the state and reduced state reimbursement of sublingual SLIT preparations from 30% to 15%, a step it confirmed in March 2018 and that led to outrage from allergy specialists. The chair of the French allergy society at the time, Jocelyne Just, MD, PhD, argued that conducting double-blind, placebo-controlled studies for all types (grass pollen, birch pollen, dust mites, asthma, allergic rhinitis, subcutaneous injections, sublingual treatments, tablets, liquid preparations) would take decades. Furthermore, meta-analyses on the subject, despite being heterogeneous and unable to answer all questions, are indeed pointing to the effectiveness of SLIT. To supplement existing data and to answer the queries raised by the HAS, several studies have been launched, including EfficAPSI.
The pharmacoepidemiologic EfficAPSI study is the largest retrospective, real-world, longitudinal cohort study ever carried out regarding liquid SLIT using data stored in the French National Health Data System (SNDS). The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the real-world impact of liquid SLIT on the onset and worsening of asthma for patients with allergic rhinitis and to evaluate the impact of sublingual treatments on public health.
A cohort analysis of patients treated with SLIT and control patients treated for allergic rhinitis with or without treatment for asthma was carried out. The patients treated with SLIT for at least 2 consecutive years were anonymously selected from the SNDS using the Stallergenes Greer prescription database.
In all, 99,538 patients who received SLIT were compared with 333,082 control patients (those who had received treatment for allergic rhinitis without taking SLIT). Participants were stratified according to their treatment history for asthma and were paired using a propensity score to minimize comparison bias.
The main definition of the onset of asthma included the first prescription of an asthma medication, hospital admission for asthma, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma. The secondary definition omitted the prescription of any treatment, and the third (sensitive and specific) took into consideration an initial prescription of omalizumab or a prescription of three inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) associated with or without a long-acting beta-2 agonist (LABA) for a period of 1 year, admission to the hospital, or chronic asthma.
Asthma risk reduced
Among patients with allergic rhinitis without preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk of asthma onset in comparison with the control group (primary hazard ratio: 0.77; secondary HR: 0.66; and tertiary HR: 0.62).
The risk reductions were significant and were consistent regardless of the allergens analyzed (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.57; grass: 0.52) for all age groups. These new results that were based on the tertiary definition corroborate the results from the primary and secondary definitions.
said study co-author Philippe Devillier, MD, PhD, research director at the respiratory tract diseases center of Foch Hospital, Paris. “These results are consistent with previous studies in the same French health care database, as well as in a German database with SLIT preparations in tablet form. This not only confirms the soundness of the methodology but also the benefit of liquid SLIT as an etiological treatment of respiratory allergies.”
Risk for worsening
Furthermore, in the same study, liquid SLIT treatment was associated with a 27% reduced risk for worsening asthma and a 36% reduced risk for severe asthma. Among patients with allergic rhinitis and preexisting asthma, liquid SLIT was associated with a significantly lower risk for worsening of asthma, compared with the control group (primary HR: 0.73; secondary HR: 0.61; and tertiary HR: 0.64). The primary definition was an initial prescription of an ICS-LABA combination in a patient treated with ICS alone, severe exacerbation of asthma symptoms, hospital admission, or a diagnosis of chronic asthma.
“The risk reductions were significant and consistent for the allergens analyzed,” said study co-author Pascal Demoly, MD, PhD, head of pulmonology at Montpellier University Hospital, France (tertiary HR, dust mites: 0.66; grass: 0.59; birch: 0.34; and cats: 0.77). “This was across all age groups,” he added.
“The results of the EfficAPSI real-world study on health data from the SNDS are consistent with outcomes from clinical trials, suggestive of a reduced risk of asthma onset in patients with allergic rhinitis receiving liquid SLIT, as well as a reduced risk of worsening of preexisting asthma,” said Devillier. “SLIT, in this case in the form of a liquid, thus appears to be an effective etiological treatment, since the use of symptomatic drugs, in particular preventer inhalers, but also reliever inhalers, is lower in patients treated with SLIT over at least two consecutive years, compared with paired control subjects. And it’s the same for the risk of treating asthma in nonasthmatic patients at the start of the study. EfficAPSI is the largest study using data from a comprehensive state drug reimbursement database, allowing us to assess the impact of liquid SLIT on public health. These results, also obtained with other allergen preparations, particularly in tablet form in French and German studies using data from health care databases, demonstrate the consistency of the data regarding the efficacy of SLIT.”
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Smoking cessation has many benefits in diabetes
MONTPELLIER, FRANCE – The first expert consensus on smoking and diabetes, coauthored by the Francophone Diabetes Society (SFD) and the French Society for the Study of Nicotine Addiction (SFT), was presented at the SFD’s annual conference.
Alexia Rouland, MD, an endocrinologist at Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France, took the conference as an opportunity to list the many benefits of smoking cessation for patients with diabetes, despite the “slight and temporary” risk for blood sugar imbalance.
Societies target smoking
Diabetes societies around Europe have set their sights on the topic of smoking. Indeed, the guidelines published in 2019 by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the European Society of Cardiology state that “smoking cessation is obligatory for all prediabetic and diabetic patients” (class I, level A).
This year, the France-based SFD and SFT dedicated an expert consensus to the major problem of smoking in patients with diabetes. The aim was to provide health care professionals with convincing, well-supported arguments in favor of smoking cessation in their patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
“Before anything else, diabetic patients need to be made aware of the risks of smoking,” said Dr. Rouland. “It’s not just about the fear factor, though. It’s also about providing a positive incentive – they need to be told about the ways they’ll benefit from quitting smoking. For example, you have all-cause mortality, macro- and microangiopathic complications, and so on.”
Duration of abstinence
“Diabetic patients who have stopped smoking have a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.28 (1.09-1.51), which is less than what you see in active smokers (relative risk = 1.58; 1.42-1.77), but still above that of nonsmokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
A previous study revealed that although the risk does indeed go down after stopping smoking, it is linked to how long ago the person stopped. Patients who stopped smoking less than 10 years ago still had a slightly raised all-cause mortality risk, and this was even higher if they had smoked for 20 years or more.
After 10 years of not smoking, however, the greater all-cause mortality risk was no longer significant in any of the groups monitored (smoking duration, number of cigarettes/day). Concrete evidence of the link between all-cause mortality and the length of time since a person stopped smoking also emerged from the large cohort in the American Nurses’ Health Study.
The relative risk for all-cause mortality in women who stopped smoking less than 5 years ago remained high (RR = 1.96, 1.47-2.67), then decreased over time. After 10 years, it was no longer significant (RR = 1.11, 0.92-1.35).
Macro- and microangiopathic risks
Smoking cessation also has a real benefit in terms of the increased macro- and microangiopathic risks. In type 2 diabetes, a study found an increased relative risk for macro- and microalbuminuria of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.52) in former smokers, compared with an increased relative risk of 2.61 (95% CI, 1.86-2.64) in current smokers.
In type 1 diabetes, the cumulative risk for microalbuminuria in former smokers was 15.1% vs. 18.9% in smokers and 10% in nonsmokers.
A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies determined that smoking is an independent risk factor for diabetic nephropathy, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.
Yet, most of the data for this condition come from subjects with type 2 diabetes. One publication estimated its prevalence after a 1-year follow-up of the smoking cessation program as 10.9% in former smokers and 15% in those who continued smoking.
In regard to macroangiopathy in the context of type 2 diabetes, the aforementioned 2019 meta-analysis focused on coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). It found that smokers face an increased risk for all these outcomes.
The relative risks wavered between 1.53 and 1.66 and decreased after smoking cessation. For coronary artery disease and MI, they became insignificant. There was still a risk for CVA (RR = 1.34; 1.07-1.67) and fatal cardiovascular events (RR = 1.19; 0.02-1.39).
The data are slightly more heterogeneous for type 1 diabetes, where, despite smoking cessation, the increased risk for heart failure and CVA persists in men, yet the same risk for coronary heart disease and CVA drops in women.
Risk for weight gain
Dr. Rouland tried to reassure patients about the risk for gaining weight. “Weight gain is not inevitable. There is a risk for this, but it’s temporary. And, even with some weight gain, the cardiovascular benefits are still indisputable.”
A study carried out in 2013 focused specifically on this point, with an average post-cessation weight gain of 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) seen in diabetic individuals in the first 4 years after stopping smoking and of 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) thereafter. A time-based effect was observed with regulation of excess weight post-cessation over time, as seen in the general population (3 kg [6.6 lb] on average in nondiabetic individuals).
Weight gain tends to occur mainly in the immediate post-cessation period, essentially in the first 3 months, and there is a large variation in weight change. Some people gain a lot (from 5 to 10 kg [11 to 22 lb], or even more than 10 kg); others lose weight (20% of diabetic former smokers in the first month, 7% after 12 months), and 25% gain less than 5 kg (11 lb).
Blood glucose imbalance
“A risk for blood glucose imbalance has been reported after smoking cessation, although this is very slight and only temporary,” said Dr. Rouland.
A British retrospective study examined this question, focusing on glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c increased by 0.21% (95% CI, 0.17-0.25; P < .001) within the first year after quitting. A1c decreased as abstinence continued and became comparable to that of continual smokers after 3 years. This increase in A1c was not mediated by weight change.
Another study published in 2018 on the topic of type 2 diabetes also reported on the risk for poor glycemic control (defined as A1c > 7%) persisting for 10 years after smoking cessation (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Thereafter, between 10 and 19 years post-cessation, the OR decreased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19, NS). Beyond 20 years post-cessation, the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89-1.44, NS) and was therefore no longer significant.
Regardless, “the risk for poor glycemic control is lower in quitters than in active smokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
Quitting and diabetes risk
Will a smoker’s increased risk for diabetes drop when he or she stops smoking? “This is essentially what happens,” Dr. Rouland confirmed, “and his or her increased risk for metabolic syndrome also drops. One meta-analysis revealed a time-based effect.
“Patients who had stopped smoking less than 5 years previously had an increased relative risk for type 2 diabetes, and this risk dropped to 1.11 after more than 10 years of not smoking. Moreover, this relative risk for type 2 diabetes remained lower than that of active smokers, at between 1.19 and 1.60, depending on tobacco use.”
In regard to the risk for metabolic syndrome, those who quit smoking seem to have an increased risk of 10%, compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.10, 1.08-1.11; P < .001). “But yet again, this increased risk is much lower than that of active smokers, whose risk is between 37% (less than 20 cigarettes/day) and 71% (more than 20 cigarettes/day).”
Women with diabetes
“The benefits of quitting appear identical, regardless of the sex of the diabetic person,” said Dr. Rouland. “As in the general population, weight gain after smoking cessation is greater in women. Furthermore, while smoking increases the risk for gestational diabetes (RR, 1.4-1.9) and for the use of insulin in this context, stopping smoking reduces these risks.
“Moreover, smoking during pregnancy not only increases the risk for pregnancy-related complications (early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, birth defects, placental abruption, premature birth, intrauterine fetal demise, cesarean birth, low birth weight), but it also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the newborn. The risk to the newborn is said to be around 34% in cases in which the mother smokes during pregnancy and 22% in cases in which the mother is a passive smoker, thereby justifying the use of measures to help the mother’s family members to stop smoking.”
Dr. Rouland reports no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTPELLIER, FRANCE – The first expert consensus on smoking and diabetes, coauthored by the Francophone Diabetes Society (SFD) and the French Society for the Study of Nicotine Addiction (SFT), was presented at the SFD’s annual conference.
Alexia Rouland, MD, an endocrinologist at Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France, took the conference as an opportunity to list the many benefits of smoking cessation for patients with diabetes, despite the “slight and temporary” risk for blood sugar imbalance.
Societies target smoking
Diabetes societies around Europe have set their sights on the topic of smoking. Indeed, the guidelines published in 2019 by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the European Society of Cardiology state that “smoking cessation is obligatory for all prediabetic and diabetic patients” (class I, level A).
This year, the France-based SFD and SFT dedicated an expert consensus to the major problem of smoking in patients with diabetes. The aim was to provide health care professionals with convincing, well-supported arguments in favor of smoking cessation in their patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
“Before anything else, diabetic patients need to be made aware of the risks of smoking,” said Dr. Rouland. “It’s not just about the fear factor, though. It’s also about providing a positive incentive – they need to be told about the ways they’ll benefit from quitting smoking. For example, you have all-cause mortality, macro- and microangiopathic complications, and so on.”
Duration of abstinence
“Diabetic patients who have stopped smoking have a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.28 (1.09-1.51), which is less than what you see in active smokers (relative risk = 1.58; 1.42-1.77), but still above that of nonsmokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
A previous study revealed that although the risk does indeed go down after stopping smoking, it is linked to how long ago the person stopped. Patients who stopped smoking less than 10 years ago still had a slightly raised all-cause mortality risk, and this was even higher if they had smoked for 20 years or more.
After 10 years of not smoking, however, the greater all-cause mortality risk was no longer significant in any of the groups monitored (smoking duration, number of cigarettes/day). Concrete evidence of the link between all-cause mortality and the length of time since a person stopped smoking also emerged from the large cohort in the American Nurses’ Health Study.
The relative risk for all-cause mortality in women who stopped smoking less than 5 years ago remained high (RR = 1.96, 1.47-2.67), then decreased over time. After 10 years, it was no longer significant (RR = 1.11, 0.92-1.35).
Macro- and microangiopathic risks
Smoking cessation also has a real benefit in terms of the increased macro- and microangiopathic risks. In type 2 diabetes, a study found an increased relative risk for macro- and microalbuminuria of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.52) in former smokers, compared with an increased relative risk of 2.61 (95% CI, 1.86-2.64) in current smokers.
In type 1 diabetes, the cumulative risk for microalbuminuria in former smokers was 15.1% vs. 18.9% in smokers and 10% in nonsmokers.
A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies determined that smoking is an independent risk factor for diabetic nephropathy, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.
Yet, most of the data for this condition come from subjects with type 2 diabetes. One publication estimated its prevalence after a 1-year follow-up of the smoking cessation program as 10.9% in former smokers and 15% in those who continued smoking.
In regard to macroangiopathy in the context of type 2 diabetes, the aforementioned 2019 meta-analysis focused on coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). It found that smokers face an increased risk for all these outcomes.
The relative risks wavered between 1.53 and 1.66 and decreased after smoking cessation. For coronary artery disease and MI, they became insignificant. There was still a risk for CVA (RR = 1.34; 1.07-1.67) and fatal cardiovascular events (RR = 1.19; 0.02-1.39).
The data are slightly more heterogeneous for type 1 diabetes, where, despite smoking cessation, the increased risk for heart failure and CVA persists in men, yet the same risk for coronary heart disease and CVA drops in women.
Risk for weight gain
Dr. Rouland tried to reassure patients about the risk for gaining weight. “Weight gain is not inevitable. There is a risk for this, but it’s temporary. And, even with some weight gain, the cardiovascular benefits are still indisputable.”
A study carried out in 2013 focused specifically on this point, with an average post-cessation weight gain of 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) seen in diabetic individuals in the first 4 years after stopping smoking and of 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) thereafter. A time-based effect was observed with regulation of excess weight post-cessation over time, as seen in the general population (3 kg [6.6 lb] on average in nondiabetic individuals).
Weight gain tends to occur mainly in the immediate post-cessation period, essentially in the first 3 months, and there is a large variation in weight change. Some people gain a lot (from 5 to 10 kg [11 to 22 lb], or even more than 10 kg); others lose weight (20% of diabetic former smokers in the first month, 7% after 12 months), and 25% gain less than 5 kg (11 lb).
Blood glucose imbalance
“A risk for blood glucose imbalance has been reported after smoking cessation, although this is very slight and only temporary,” said Dr. Rouland.
A British retrospective study examined this question, focusing on glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c increased by 0.21% (95% CI, 0.17-0.25; P < .001) within the first year after quitting. A1c decreased as abstinence continued and became comparable to that of continual smokers after 3 years. This increase in A1c was not mediated by weight change.
Another study published in 2018 on the topic of type 2 diabetes also reported on the risk for poor glycemic control (defined as A1c > 7%) persisting for 10 years after smoking cessation (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Thereafter, between 10 and 19 years post-cessation, the OR decreased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19, NS). Beyond 20 years post-cessation, the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89-1.44, NS) and was therefore no longer significant.
Regardless, “the risk for poor glycemic control is lower in quitters than in active smokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
Quitting and diabetes risk
Will a smoker’s increased risk for diabetes drop when he or she stops smoking? “This is essentially what happens,” Dr. Rouland confirmed, “and his or her increased risk for metabolic syndrome also drops. One meta-analysis revealed a time-based effect.
“Patients who had stopped smoking less than 5 years previously had an increased relative risk for type 2 diabetes, and this risk dropped to 1.11 after more than 10 years of not smoking. Moreover, this relative risk for type 2 diabetes remained lower than that of active smokers, at between 1.19 and 1.60, depending on tobacco use.”
In regard to the risk for metabolic syndrome, those who quit smoking seem to have an increased risk of 10%, compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.10, 1.08-1.11; P < .001). “But yet again, this increased risk is much lower than that of active smokers, whose risk is between 37% (less than 20 cigarettes/day) and 71% (more than 20 cigarettes/day).”
Women with diabetes
“The benefits of quitting appear identical, regardless of the sex of the diabetic person,” said Dr. Rouland. “As in the general population, weight gain after smoking cessation is greater in women. Furthermore, while smoking increases the risk for gestational diabetes (RR, 1.4-1.9) and for the use of insulin in this context, stopping smoking reduces these risks.
“Moreover, smoking during pregnancy not only increases the risk for pregnancy-related complications (early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, birth defects, placental abruption, premature birth, intrauterine fetal demise, cesarean birth, low birth weight), but it also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the newborn. The risk to the newborn is said to be around 34% in cases in which the mother smokes during pregnancy and 22% in cases in which the mother is a passive smoker, thereby justifying the use of measures to help the mother’s family members to stop smoking.”
Dr. Rouland reports no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
MONTPELLIER, FRANCE – The first expert consensus on smoking and diabetes, coauthored by the Francophone Diabetes Society (SFD) and the French Society for the Study of Nicotine Addiction (SFT), was presented at the SFD’s annual conference.
Alexia Rouland, MD, an endocrinologist at Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital, Dijon, France, took the conference as an opportunity to list the many benefits of smoking cessation for patients with diabetes, despite the “slight and temporary” risk for blood sugar imbalance.
Societies target smoking
Diabetes societies around Europe have set their sights on the topic of smoking. Indeed, the guidelines published in 2019 by the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and the European Society of Cardiology state that “smoking cessation is obligatory for all prediabetic and diabetic patients” (class I, level A).
This year, the France-based SFD and SFT dedicated an expert consensus to the major problem of smoking in patients with diabetes. The aim was to provide health care professionals with convincing, well-supported arguments in favor of smoking cessation in their patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
“Before anything else, diabetic patients need to be made aware of the risks of smoking,” said Dr. Rouland. “It’s not just about the fear factor, though. It’s also about providing a positive incentive – they need to be told about the ways they’ll benefit from quitting smoking. For example, you have all-cause mortality, macro- and microangiopathic complications, and so on.”
Duration of abstinence
“Diabetic patients who have stopped smoking have a relative risk for all-cause mortality of 1.28 (1.09-1.51), which is less than what you see in active smokers (relative risk = 1.58; 1.42-1.77), but still above that of nonsmokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
A previous study revealed that although the risk does indeed go down after stopping smoking, it is linked to how long ago the person stopped. Patients who stopped smoking less than 10 years ago still had a slightly raised all-cause mortality risk, and this was even higher if they had smoked for 20 years or more.
After 10 years of not smoking, however, the greater all-cause mortality risk was no longer significant in any of the groups monitored (smoking duration, number of cigarettes/day). Concrete evidence of the link between all-cause mortality and the length of time since a person stopped smoking also emerged from the large cohort in the American Nurses’ Health Study.
The relative risk for all-cause mortality in women who stopped smoking less than 5 years ago remained high (RR = 1.96, 1.47-2.67), then decreased over time. After 10 years, it was no longer significant (RR = 1.11, 0.92-1.35).
Macro- and microangiopathic risks
Smoking cessation also has a real benefit in terms of the increased macro- and microangiopathic risks. In type 2 diabetes, a study found an increased relative risk for macro- and microalbuminuria of 1.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.37-2.52) in former smokers, compared with an increased relative risk of 2.61 (95% CI, 1.86-2.64) in current smokers.
In type 1 diabetes, the cumulative risk for microalbuminuria in former smokers was 15.1% vs. 18.9% in smokers and 10% in nonsmokers.
A 2019 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies determined that smoking is an independent risk factor for diabetic nephropathy, especially in patients with type 1 diabetes.
Yet, most of the data for this condition come from subjects with type 2 diabetes. One publication estimated its prevalence after a 1-year follow-up of the smoking cessation program as 10.9% in former smokers and 15% in those who continued smoking.
In regard to macroangiopathy in the context of type 2 diabetes, the aforementioned 2019 meta-analysis focused on coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident (CVA), cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI). It found that smokers face an increased risk for all these outcomes.
The relative risks wavered between 1.53 and 1.66 and decreased after smoking cessation. For coronary artery disease and MI, they became insignificant. There was still a risk for CVA (RR = 1.34; 1.07-1.67) and fatal cardiovascular events (RR = 1.19; 0.02-1.39).
The data are slightly more heterogeneous for type 1 diabetes, where, despite smoking cessation, the increased risk for heart failure and CVA persists in men, yet the same risk for coronary heart disease and CVA drops in women.
Risk for weight gain
Dr. Rouland tried to reassure patients about the risk for gaining weight. “Weight gain is not inevitable. There is a risk for this, but it’s temporary. And, even with some weight gain, the cardiovascular benefits are still indisputable.”
A study carried out in 2013 focused specifically on this point, with an average post-cessation weight gain of 3.8 kg (8.4 lb) seen in diabetic individuals in the first 4 years after stopping smoking and of 0.1 kg (0.2 lb) thereafter. A time-based effect was observed with regulation of excess weight post-cessation over time, as seen in the general population (3 kg [6.6 lb] on average in nondiabetic individuals).
Weight gain tends to occur mainly in the immediate post-cessation period, essentially in the first 3 months, and there is a large variation in weight change. Some people gain a lot (from 5 to 10 kg [11 to 22 lb], or even more than 10 kg); others lose weight (20% of diabetic former smokers in the first month, 7% after 12 months), and 25% gain less than 5 kg (11 lb).
Blood glucose imbalance
“A risk for blood glucose imbalance has been reported after smoking cessation, although this is very slight and only temporary,” said Dr. Rouland.
A British retrospective study examined this question, focusing on glycated hemoglobin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hemoglobin A1c increased by 0.21% (95% CI, 0.17-0.25; P < .001) within the first year after quitting. A1c decreased as abstinence continued and became comparable to that of continual smokers after 3 years. This increase in A1c was not mediated by weight change.
Another study published in 2018 on the topic of type 2 diabetes also reported on the risk for poor glycemic control (defined as A1c > 7%) persisting for 10 years after smoking cessation (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.06-1.42). Thereafter, between 10 and 19 years post-cessation, the OR decreased to 0.97 (95% CI, 0.80-1.19, NS). Beyond 20 years post-cessation, the OR was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.89-1.44, NS) and was therefore no longer significant.
Regardless, “the risk for poor glycemic control is lower in quitters than in active smokers,” said Dr. Rouland.
Quitting and diabetes risk
Will a smoker’s increased risk for diabetes drop when he or she stops smoking? “This is essentially what happens,” Dr. Rouland confirmed, “and his or her increased risk for metabolic syndrome also drops. One meta-analysis revealed a time-based effect.
“Patients who had stopped smoking less than 5 years previously had an increased relative risk for type 2 diabetes, and this risk dropped to 1.11 after more than 10 years of not smoking. Moreover, this relative risk for type 2 diabetes remained lower than that of active smokers, at between 1.19 and 1.60, depending on tobacco use.”
In regard to the risk for metabolic syndrome, those who quit smoking seem to have an increased risk of 10%, compared with nonsmokers (RR = 1.10, 1.08-1.11; P < .001). “But yet again, this increased risk is much lower than that of active smokers, whose risk is between 37% (less than 20 cigarettes/day) and 71% (more than 20 cigarettes/day).”
Women with diabetes
“The benefits of quitting appear identical, regardless of the sex of the diabetic person,” said Dr. Rouland. “As in the general population, weight gain after smoking cessation is greater in women. Furthermore, while smoking increases the risk for gestational diabetes (RR, 1.4-1.9) and for the use of insulin in this context, stopping smoking reduces these risks.
“Moreover, smoking during pregnancy not only increases the risk for pregnancy-related complications (early miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, birth defects, placental abruption, premature birth, intrauterine fetal demise, cesarean birth, low birth weight), but it also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes in the newborn. The risk to the newborn is said to be around 34% in cases in which the mother smokes during pregnancy and 22% in cases in which the mother is a passive smoker, thereby justifying the use of measures to help the mother’s family members to stop smoking.”
Dr. Rouland reports no relevant financial relationships.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Does exercise help or hinder GERD?
PARIS – Frank Zerbib, MD, head of the department of gastroenterology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, broke them down during a session dedicated to exercise, which was the common theme of the JFHOD 2023, a French-speaking hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology conference held this year in Paris.
A contributing factor
Several factors can affect how exercise causes gastroesophageal reflux.
“Vigorous,” or mainly sports-related, exercise has a detrimental effect on GERD. Approximately 60% of athletes are said to report GERD symptoms connected to an increase in abdominal pressure. This is not because of obesity, but because of the abdominal contraction that occurs during exercise.
Other pathophysiological factors at the root of exercise-induced GERD can be involved in this phenomenon, namely a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and esophageal motility, in addition to phases of dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, which is when most GERD episodes occur.
In such contexts, “it would appear that sports-related exercise has a relatively detrimental effect on the gastroesophageal junction and anti-GERD mechanisms,” said Dr. Zerbib. Meta-analyses provide answers to some questions, but not all; the situation is much less clear when it comes to non–sports-related exercise.”
Not so simple
“Taking into account only patients whose GERD has been confirmed through esophageal pH monitoring, exercise does not appear to significantly impact GERD symptoms or the characteristics seen on pH monitoring,” said Dr. Zerbib.
These results come from a study of 100 patients whose exercise level was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and expressed using the standard metric of metabolic rate by minutes of performance during a week (METs-minute/week).
This questionnaire is used for most studies that assess exercise and separates patients into three groups (low, moderate, or high) based on their level of exercise. In essence, it considers the duration of exercise but not the type (that is, professional, recreational, and so on) or intensity, resulting in a key methodological issue to consider during the analysis, for example, of the results of a large meta-analysis on the topic.
The meta-analysis in question included 78,000 patients, of whom 10,000 had GERD symptoms.
Based on the results, exercise decreases the risk of GERD by about one-third, after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). “This last point is important,” Dr. Zerbib noted, “since adjusting for BMI without providing the nonadjusted data fails to identify whether exercise decreases the risk of GERD because of the effect on the BMI.* What’s more, when it comes to complications of GERD, like Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma, the data are far fewer and less robust, with negative case-control studies for the most part.”
One of these two studies, which concerned non–sports-related exercise and the onset of Barrett’s esophagus, reported no association (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73).
“Exercise considered vigorous (sports-related) contributes to GERD by altering the antireflux barrier (LES/diaphragm dissociation) and increasing constraints on the esophageal junction (abdominal pressure). In the general population, regular exercise likely decreases the risk of pathological GERD. When it comes to complications of GERD, the data are not very robust, mostly because the studies omitted several exercise-related (healthy lifestyle) factors,” said Dr. Zerbib.
Several confounding factors
It’s difficult to issue an opinion under these conditions. There are several confounding factors that studies rarely address. Although the studies always included factors such as age, sex, or BMI, other parameters related to a healthy lifestyle, whether directly or indirectly connected to exercise, were never mentioned. Indeed, diet (such as high calorie or high fat) is known to lead to an increased incidence of GERD. The same goes for alcohol use. Occupation also likely plays a role, but the studies do not mention this.
“So, it’s easy to imagine that a patient who regularly exercises likely eats healthier than a sedentary patient, which comes with the likelihood of a lower risk of developing GERD symptoms,” said Dr. Zerbib. “Overall, evaluating the impact of exercise on GERD is no small feat. It can be said with relative certainty that exercise contributes to GERD through a proven pathophysiology. In the general population, however, exercise likely reduces the risk of GERD but not of its complications. Other than the impact on weight and abdominal obesity, the reality is that a lack of exercise is associated with a less healthy lifestyle and, therefore, behaviors that contribute to GERD.”
Dr. Zerbib reported no conflicts of interest connected to this presentation.
* From a pathophysiological standpoint, the evidence is clear that a high BMI increases the gastroesophageal pressure gradient and dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, whether temporarily or permanently, as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Abdominal obesity increases constraints on the gastroesophageal junction and results in a two- to threefold increase in the risk of GERD and its complications.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – Frank Zerbib, MD, head of the department of gastroenterology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, broke them down during a session dedicated to exercise, which was the common theme of the JFHOD 2023, a French-speaking hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology conference held this year in Paris.
A contributing factor
Several factors can affect how exercise causes gastroesophageal reflux.
“Vigorous,” or mainly sports-related, exercise has a detrimental effect on GERD. Approximately 60% of athletes are said to report GERD symptoms connected to an increase in abdominal pressure. This is not because of obesity, but because of the abdominal contraction that occurs during exercise.
Other pathophysiological factors at the root of exercise-induced GERD can be involved in this phenomenon, namely a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and esophageal motility, in addition to phases of dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, which is when most GERD episodes occur.
In such contexts, “it would appear that sports-related exercise has a relatively detrimental effect on the gastroesophageal junction and anti-GERD mechanisms,” said Dr. Zerbib. Meta-analyses provide answers to some questions, but not all; the situation is much less clear when it comes to non–sports-related exercise.”
Not so simple
“Taking into account only patients whose GERD has been confirmed through esophageal pH monitoring, exercise does not appear to significantly impact GERD symptoms or the characteristics seen on pH monitoring,” said Dr. Zerbib.
These results come from a study of 100 patients whose exercise level was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and expressed using the standard metric of metabolic rate by minutes of performance during a week (METs-minute/week).
This questionnaire is used for most studies that assess exercise and separates patients into three groups (low, moderate, or high) based on their level of exercise. In essence, it considers the duration of exercise but not the type (that is, professional, recreational, and so on) or intensity, resulting in a key methodological issue to consider during the analysis, for example, of the results of a large meta-analysis on the topic.
The meta-analysis in question included 78,000 patients, of whom 10,000 had GERD symptoms.
Based on the results, exercise decreases the risk of GERD by about one-third, after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). “This last point is important,” Dr. Zerbib noted, “since adjusting for BMI without providing the nonadjusted data fails to identify whether exercise decreases the risk of GERD because of the effect on the BMI.* What’s more, when it comes to complications of GERD, like Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma, the data are far fewer and less robust, with negative case-control studies for the most part.”
One of these two studies, which concerned non–sports-related exercise and the onset of Barrett’s esophagus, reported no association (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73).
“Exercise considered vigorous (sports-related) contributes to GERD by altering the antireflux barrier (LES/diaphragm dissociation) and increasing constraints on the esophageal junction (abdominal pressure). In the general population, regular exercise likely decreases the risk of pathological GERD. When it comes to complications of GERD, the data are not very robust, mostly because the studies omitted several exercise-related (healthy lifestyle) factors,” said Dr. Zerbib.
Several confounding factors
It’s difficult to issue an opinion under these conditions. There are several confounding factors that studies rarely address. Although the studies always included factors such as age, sex, or BMI, other parameters related to a healthy lifestyle, whether directly or indirectly connected to exercise, were never mentioned. Indeed, diet (such as high calorie or high fat) is known to lead to an increased incidence of GERD. The same goes for alcohol use. Occupation also likely plays a role, but the studies do not mention this.
“So, it’s easy to imagine that a patient who regularly exercises likely eats healthier than a sedentary patient, which comes with the likelihood of a lower risk of developing GERD symptoms,” said Dr. Zerbib. “Overall, evaluating the impact of exercise on GERD is no small feat. It can be said with relative certainty that exercise contributes to GERD through a proven pathophysiology. In the general population, however, exercise likely reduces the risk of GERD but not of its complications. Other than the impact on weight and abdominal obesity, the reality is that a lack of exercise is associated with a less healthy lifestyle and, therefore, behaviors that contribute to GERD.”
Dr. Zerbib reported no conflicts of interest connected to this presentation.
* From a pathophysiological standpoint, the evidence is clear that a high BMI increases the gastroesophageal pressure gradient and dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, whether temporarily or permanently, as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Abdominal obesity increases constraints on the gastroesophageal junction and results in a two- to threefold increase in the risk of GERD and its complications.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – Frank Zerbib, MD, head of the department of gastroenterology at Bordeaux (France) University Hospital, broke them down during a session dedicated to exercise, which was the common theme of the JFHOD 2023, a French-speaking hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology conference held this year in Paris.
A contributing factor
Several factors can affect how exercise causes gastroesophageal reflux.
“Vigorous,” or mainly sports-related, exercise has a detrimental effect on GERD. Approximately 60% of athletes are said to report GERD symptoms connected to an increase in abdominal pressure. This is not because of obesity, but because of the abdominal contraction that occurs during exercise.
Other pathophysiological factors at the root of exercise-induced GERD can be involved in this phenomenon, namely a decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure and esophageal motility, in addition to phases of dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, which is when most GERD episodes occur.
In such contexts, “it would appear that sports-related exercise has a relatively detrimental effect on the gastroesophageal junction and anti-GERD mechanisms,” said Dr. Zerbib. Meta-analyses provide answers to some questions, but not all; the situation is much less clear when it comes to non–sports-related exercise.”
Not so simple
“Taking into account only patients whose GERD has been confirmed through esophageal pH monitoring, exercise does not appear to significantly impact GERD symptoms or the characteristics seen on pH monitoring,” said Dr. Zerbib.
These results come from a study of 100 patients whose exercise level was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire and expressed using the standard metric of metabolic rate by minutes of performance during a week (METs-minute/week).
This questionnaire is used for most studies that assess exercise and separates patients into three groups (low, moderate, or high) based on their level of exercise. In essence, it considers the duration of exercise but not the type (that is, professional, recreational, and so on) or intensity, resulting in a key methodological issue to consider during the analysis, for example, of the results of a large meta-analysis on the topic.
The meta-analysis in question included 78,000 patients, of whom 10,000 had GERD symptoms.
Based on the results, exercise decreases the risk of GERD by about one-third, after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). “This last point is important,” Dr. Zerbib noted, “since adjusting for BMI without providing the nonadjusted data fails to identify whether exercise decreases the risk of GERD because of the effect on the BMI.* What’s more, when it comes to complications of GERD, like Barrett’s esophagus or adenocarcinoma, the data are far fewer and less robust, with negative case-control studies for the most part.”
One of these two studies, which concerned non–sports-related exercise and the onset of Barrett’s esophagus, reported no association (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.73).
“Exercise considered vigorous (sports-related) contributes to GERD by altering the antireflux barrier (LES/diaphragm dissociation) and increasing constraints on the esophageal junction (abdominal pressure). In the general population, regular exercise likely decreases the risk of pathological GERD. When it comes to complications of GERD, the data are not very robust, mostly because the studies omitted several exercise-related (healthy lifestyle) factors,” said Dr. Zerbib.
Several confounding factors
It’s difficult to issue an opinion under these conditions. There are several confounding factors that studies rarely address. Although the studies always included factors such as age, sex, or BMI, other parameters related to a healthy lifestyle, whether directly or indirectly connected to exercise, were never mentioned. Indeed, diet (such as high calorie or high fat) is known to lead to an increased incidence of GERD. The same goes for alcohol use. Occupation also likely plays a role, but the studies do not mention this.
“So, it’s easy to imagine that a patient who regularly exercises likely eats healthier than a sedentary patient, which comes with the likelihood of a lower risk of developing GERD symptoms,” said Dr. Zerbib. “Overall, evaluating the impact of exercise on GERD is no small feat. It can be said with relative certainty that exercise contributes to GERD through a proven pathophysiology. In the general population, however, exercise likely reduces the risk of GERD but not of its complications. Other than the impact on weight and abdominal obesity, the reality is that a lack of exercise is associated with a less healthy lifestyle and, therefore, behaviors that contribute to GERD.”
Dr. Zerbib reported no conflicts of interest connected to this presentation.
* From a pathophysiological standpoint, the evidence is clear that a high BMI increases the gastroesophageal pressure gradient and dissociation between the LES and the diaphragm, whether temporarily or permanently, as in the case of a hiatal hernia. Abdominal obesity increases constraints on the gastroesophageal junction and results in a two- to threefold increase in the risk of GERD and its complications.
This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Are early childhood viral infections linked with asthma?
MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?
The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
RV and RSV
Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.
Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.
Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
RSV infection
During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”
Asthma development
The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”
However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.
“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”
Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
Reaching adulthood
Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.
Mechanisms of action
“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.
It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).
Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?
The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
RV and RSV
Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.
Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.
Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
RSV infection
During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”
Asthma development
The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”
However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.
“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”
Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
Reaching adulthood
Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.
Mechanisms of action
“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.
It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).
Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
MARSEILLE, France – It is well known that viral infections, especially respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and rhinovirus (RV), exacerbate symptoms of asthma. But could they also play a part in triggering the onset of asthma?
The link between RSV and RV infections in early childhood and the development of asthma symptoms is well established, said Camille Taillé, MD, PhD, of the department of respiratory medicine and the rare diseases center of excellence at Bichat Hospital, Paris. But getting asthma is probably not just a matter of having a viral infection at a young age or of having a severe form of it. Gene polymorphisms, immune system disorders, and preexisting atopy are also associated with the risk of asthma. This was the focus of the 27th French-language respiratory medicine conference, held in Marseille, France.
RV and RSV
Persons with asthma are vulnerable to certain viral respiratory infections, in particular the flu and RV, which can exacerbate asthma symptoms. Inhaled corticosteroids have an overall protective effect against viral-induced exacerbations. For worsening asthma symptoms during an epidemic or pandemic, there is no contraindication to inhaled or oral corticosteroids.
Young children from the time of birth to 4 years of age are particularly susceptible to viral respiratory infections. According to data from France’s clinical surveillance network, Sentinelles, from the period covering winter 2021-2022, the rate of incidence per 100,000 inhabitants was systematically greater for the 0 to 4-year age range than for older age ranges.
Of the most common viruses that infect young children, RV, the virus that causes the common cold, is a nonenveloped RNA virus from the enterovirus family. There are 160 types, which are classified into three strains (A, B, and C). Of those strains, A and C confer the most severe infections. The virus is highly variable, which makes developing a vaccine challenging. The virus circulates year round, usually peaking in the fall and at the end of spring. RSV is an RNA virus that is classed as a respiratory virus. It comprises two serotypes: type A and B. Almost all children will have been infected with RSV by the time they are 2 years old. Epidemics occur each year during winter or in early spring in temperate climates. Vaccines are currently being developed and will soon be marketed. A monoclonal antibody (palivizumab), which targets fusion proteins of the virus, is available as prophylactic treatment for at-risk children.
RSV infection
During an RSV infection, the severe inflammation of the bronchial and alveolar wall causes acute respiratory distress. “But not all infants will develop severe forms of bronchiolitis,” said Dr. Taillé. “The risk factors for the severe form of the illness are well known: being under 6 months of age, prematurity, comorbidities (neurovascular, cardiovascular, respiratory, etc.), history of a stay in a neonatal intensive care unit at birth, living in low socioeconomic status towns, and exposure to smoking.”
Asthma development
The issue of whether or not viral diseases cause asthma has been the subject of intense debate. The studies are starting to stack up, however. They seem to show that RSV or RV infections are associated with the risk of subsequent asthma development. “For example, in a study published in 2022,” said Dr. Taillé, “in children admitted with an RSV infection, 60% of those who had been admitted to neonatal intensive care presented with symptoms of asthma between 3 and 6 years of age, compared with 18% of those who had had a milder case of RSV (admitted to nonintensive care settings). A serious RSV infection is a risk factor for later development of asthma.”
However, the link between RSV and later onset of asthma is also seen in milder cases of the infection. The American COAST study was designed to examine the effect of childhood respiratory infections on the risk of developing asthma. Researchers followed 259 newborns prospectively for 1, 3, and 6 years. To qualify, at least one parent was required to have respiratory allergies (defined as one or more positive aeroallergen skin tests) or a history of physician-diagnosed asthma. Regular samples taken during infectious episodes identified a virus in 90% of cases.
“We now know that RSV is not the only pathogen responsible for bronchiolitis. RV is often found, now that it can routinely be detected by PCR tests,” said Dr. Taillé. In the COAST study, the onset of wheezing during an RSV or RV infection in children aged 0-3 years was associated with an increased risk of asthma at 6 years of age. Globally, 28% of children infected by either virus were deemed to have asthma at 6 years of age. “There is clearly a link between having had a respiratory virus like RV or RSV and getting asthma symptoms at 6 years of age,” said Dr. Taillé. “What’s more, the effect of RV is not changed in this study by allergic sensitization.”
Many articles have been published on this topic. The results of cohort studies, from Japan to Finland and the United States, Italy, and Australia, are consistent with each other. Persons who have contracted RV or RSV are more likely to suffer from recurrent wheezing or asthma, especially if the infection is contracted in infancy or if it is severe. “Some studies even suggest that viral-induced asthma is more severe,” said Dr. Taillé. “For example, a Scottish study ... showed that children with a previous history of RSV infection had more hospital admissions and required more medication than asthmatics with no history of an RSV infection, suggesting the link between a previous history of RSV infection and the development of a more severe form of asthma.”
Reaching adulthood
Few longitudinal cohorts explore this issue in adulthood. A relatively old study reported an increased rate of asthma among adults who had required hospital admission for bronchiolitis in early childhood, as well as the effect on respiratory function. A 2023 study of the effects of respiratory illnesses in childhood reported similar findings. The authors evaluated lung structure and function via CT scans of 39 patients aged 26 years and concluded that participants who had been infected with RSV in childhood presented with increased air trapping, which is suggestive of airway abnormalities, possibly linked to a direct effect of viruses on lung development.
Mechanisms of action
“The real question is understanding if it’s the virus itself that causes asthma, or if the virus is simply uncovering underlying asthma in predisposed children,” said Dr. Taillé. From 30% to 40% of children who have had RSV will go on to develop wheezing or asthma in childhood. This observation suggests that there are factors favoring the development of asthma after infection with RSV. It has been shown that there is a genetic predisposition for RV. The roles of cigarette smoke, air pollution, environmental exposures to allergens, rapid urbanization, low vitamin D levels, low maternal omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid levels, maternal stress, and depression have also been highlighted.
It would seem that RSV and RV are a bit different. RV is thought to be associated with the development of asthma and wheezing, especially in people with a preexisting atopy or a reduced interferon immune response, while RSV, which occurs at a younger age and among the most vulnerable populations, seems to act independently of a person’s predisposition to allergies. RV stands out from other viral factors, owing to its tendency to create a Th2-biased inflammatory environment and its association with specific risk genes in people predisposed to asthma development (CDHR3).
Dr. Taillé has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
What length antibiotic course for prostatitis?
PARIS – To date, studies of antibiotic course length for treating urinary tract infections in men have been patchy and retrospective.
Through recent randomized trials, guidelines can now be based on more solid data.
In sum, to maximize clinical and microbiologic success, a nonfebrile urinary tract infection is treated for 7 days, and a febrile urinary tract infection is treated for a minimum of 14 days.
At the 116th conference of the French urology association, Matthieu Lafaurie, MD, of the Multidisciplinary Infectious Diseases Unit U21, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, reviewed the literature on this subject.
Guidelines for men
The European Association of Urology made its position clear in a text updated in 2022. It stated: Therefore, treatment with antimicrobial drugs that penetrate the prostate tissue is needed in men presenting with symptoms of a urinary tract infection.” In its classification of prostatitis, the National Institutes of Health distinguishes between acute prostatitis (symptoms of a urinary tract infection; stage I) and chronic prostatitis (recurrent infection with the same microorganism; stage II).
Although the French-language Society of Infectious Diseases distinguishes between febrile and nonfebrile urinary tract infections in males, the academic body does not take into account whether the patient has a fever when determining which antibiotic should be given and how long the course should be: A minimum of 14 days’ treatment is recommended when opting for fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (cotrimoxazole), or injectable beta-lactam antibiotics, and at least 21 days is recommended for other drugs or in cases in which there is an underlying urologic condition that has not been treated.
Yet the EAU recommends treating cystitis with antibiotics for at least 7 days, preferably with cotrimoxazole or fluoroquinolone, depending on the results of sensitivity testing. For acute prostatitis, the length of treatment with fluoroquinolones should be at least 14 days.
Nonfebrile infections
Participation of men in studies of the treatment of complicated cystitis is variable; at most only 10% of patients in such trials are men. There are few data specific to men with nonfebrile urinary tract infections, and most studies are retrospective and involve small cohorts. One of these is a community-based study that involved 422 men aged 18-104 years who presented with nonfebrile urinary tract infection (acute dysuria, frequency of urination and/or urgency of urination, temperature < 38° C, no general symptoms). Antibiotic treatment was prescribed in 60% of cases. In more than 55% of cases, the length of the course of treatment was 1–7 days. Treatment was with cotrimoxazole, quinolones, and nitrofurantoin.
Another observational retrospective study showed benefit with nitrofurantoin (50 mg/8 h in 94% of cases; 69 patients) and pivmecillinam (200 mg/8 h in 65% of cases; 200 mg/12 h in 30% of patients; 57 patients) in treating lower urinary tract infections in men. The median treatment duration was 7 days. The failure rate was 1.4% and 12%, respectively, for these treatments. Compared to the so-called gold-standard treatment, trimethoprim (10 days/800 mg/12 h; 45 patients), the recurrence rate was 11% and 26% for nitrofurantoin and pivmecillinam versus 7% for trimethoprim. The most significant relapse rate with pivmecillinam was when treatment was given for fewer than 7 days.
This is the only risk factor for further antibiotic treatment and/or recurrence. There was no significant difference between the three drugs with regard to other parameters (urinary tract infection symptoms, benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostate cancer, gram-positive bacteria, etc).
Another retrospective, European study of nitrofurantoin that was published in 2015 included 485 patients (100 mg twice daily in 71% of cases). Clinical cure was defined as an absence of signs or symptoms of a urinary tract infection for 14 days after stopping nitrofurantoin, without use of other antibiotics. The cure rate was 77%. Better efficacy was achieved for patients with gram-negative (vs. gram-positive) bacteria. The treatment duration did not differ significantly (clinical success was achieved when the treatment was taken for 8.6 ± 3.6 days; clinical failure occurred when the treatment was taken for 9.3 ± 6.9 days; P = .28).
Regarding pivmecillinam, a retrospective 2010-2016 study involved 21,864 adults and included 2,524 men who had been treated empirically with pivmecillinam (400 mg three times daily) for significant bacteriuria (Escherichia coli) and a lower urinary tract infection. The researchers concluded that for men, the success rate was identical whether the treatment lasted 5 or 7 days.
An American community-based (urologists, primary care physicians, general medicine services) retrospective cohort study involving 573 men with nonfebrile lower urinary tract infections was conducted from 2011 to 2015. The patients received antibiotic treatment with fluoroquinolones (69.7%), cotrimoxazole (21.2%), nitrofurantoin (5.3%), trimethoprim, beta-lactam antibiotics, or aminoglycosides. No clinical advantage was seen in treating men with urinary tract infections for longer than 7 days.
There are some data on the use of fosfomycin. In an observational retrospective study, 25 men of 52 male adults with leukocyturia and E. coli greater than 105, ESBL, were treated with fosfomycin trometamol 3 g on days 1, 3, 5. Clinical and microbiologic success was achieved for 94% and 78.5%, respectively. No distinction was made between the sexes.
These results were confirmed in a retrospective, observational study involving 18 men (of a total of 75 adults) with no fever or hyperleukocytosis who received the same fosfomycin trometamol regimen. The rate of clinical cure or sterile urine microscopy and culture was 69% at 13 days. The risk failure factor was, as expected, infection with Klebsiella pneumoniae, which was slightly susceptible to fosfomycin, unlike E. coli.
The most recent study in this field was published in 2021. It was also the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In all, 272 men older than 18 years were prescribed either ciprofloxacin or cotrimoxazole for 7-14 days to treat a nonfebrile urinary tract infection. To be eligible for the trial, patients were required to have disease of new onset with at least one of the following symptoms: dysuria, frequency of urination, urgency of urination, hematuria, costovertebral angle tenderness, or perineal, flank, or suprapubic pain. Urine microscopy and culture were not necessary; the approach was wholly symptomatic. Treatment was prescribed for 7 days. Patients were randomly allocated on day 8 to receive treatment for the following 7 days (molecule or placebo). The primary outcome was resolution of clinical symptoms of urinary tract infection by 14 days after completion of active antibiotic treatment. In an intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis, the difference in efficacy between the two molecules was largely below the required 10%. The treatment duration noninferiority margin was 7 days, compared with 14 days.
“In 2022, with regard to the duration of treatment of nonfebrile urinary tract infections in men, the not completely irrefutable evidence does, however, stack up in favor of the possibility of a 7-day or even 5-day course,” pointed out Dr. Lafaurie. “Fluoroquinolones [such as] ofloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, as well as cotrimoxazole and other antibiotics, such as pivmecillinam, nitrofurantoin, or fosfomycin trometamol, can be used, despite the fact that they pass less easily into the prostate – a not-so-obvious benefit.”
Febrile infections
In terms of febrile urinary tract infections, a single-center, prospective, open-label study from 2003 involved 72 male inpatients who were randomly to receive treatment either for 2 weeks or 4 weeks. Treatment consisted of ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. This study provided most of the evidence to justify the recommended 14-day antibiotic course.
Another noninferiority, randomized, placebo-controlled study published in 2017 compared 7- and 14-day treatment with ciprofloxacin 500 mg to placebo twice per week. In men, 7 days of antibiotic therapy was inferior to 14 days during a short-term follow-up but was not inferior during a longer follow-up.
A decisive study, which is currently in the submission phase, could silence debate. “In our noninferiority, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we have enrolled 240 men over the age of 18 years with a febrile infection documented by a fever of 38° C or more, clinical signs of infection, and leukocyturia at least above 10/mm3 and with symptoms lasting less than 3 months,” said Dr. Lafaurie, the trial coordinator.
The primary outcome for efficacy was microbiologic and clinical success after 6 weeks. Patients received either ofloxacin, ceftriaxone, or cefotaxime (two third-generation cephalosporins in the beta-lactam family).
“We clearly show that, for a 7-day course, the clinical success rate is 55.7%, and for a 14-day course, this goes up to 77.6%, with no difference in terms of adverse effects or selection of resistant bacteria. The predictive factors for success are a 14-day treatment and being under the age of 50 years,” said Dr. Lafaurie.
“Unlike nonfebrile urinary tract infections in men, a 7-day course is insufficient for patients with febrile urinary tract infections, and a minimum of 14 days is required to achieve clinical and microbiological success,” he concluded.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – To date, studies of antibiotic course length for treating urinary tract infections in men have been patchy and retrospective.
Through recent randomized trials, guidelines can now be based on more solid data.
In sum, to maximize clinical and microbiologic success, a nonfebrile urinary tract infection is treated for 7 days, and a febrile urinary tract infection is treated for a minimum of 14 days.
At the 116th conference of the French urology association, Matthieu Lafaurie, MD, of the Multidisciplinary Infectious Diseases Unit U21, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, reviewed the literature on this subject.
Guidelines for men
The European Association of Urology made its position clear in a text updated in 2022. It stated: Therefore, treatment with antimicrobial drugs that penetrate the prostate tissue is needed in men presenting with symptoms of a urinary tract infection.” In its classification of prostatitis, the National Institutes of Health distinguishes between acute prostatitis (symptoms of a urinary tract infection; stage I) and chronic prostatitis (recurrent infection with the same microorganism; stage II).
Although the French-language Society of Infectious Diseases distinguishes between febrile and nonfebrile urinary tract infections in males, the academic body does not take into account whether the patient has a fever when determining which antibiotic should be given and how long the course should be: A minimum of 14 days’ treatment is recommended when opting for fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (cotrimoxazole), or injectable beta-lactam antibiotics, and at least 21 days is recommended for other drugs or in cases in which there is an underlying urologic condition that has not been treated.
Yet the EAU recommends treating cystitis with antibiotics for at least 7 days, preferably with cotrimoxazole or fluoroquinolone, depending on the results of sensitivity testing. For acute prostatitis, the length of treatment with fluoroquinolones should be at least 14 days.
Nonfebrile infections
Participation of men in studies of the treatment of complicated cystitis is variable; at most only 10% of patients in such trials are men. There are few data specific to men with nonfebrile urinary tract infections, and most studies are retrospective and involve small cohorts. One of these is a community-based study that involved 422 men aged 18-104 years who presented with nonfebrile urinary tract infection (acute dysuria, frequency of urination and/or urgency of urination, temperature < 38° C, no general symptoms). Antibiotic treatment was prescribed in 60% of cases. In more than 55% of cases, the length of the course of treatment was 1–7 days. Treatment was with cotrimoxazole, quinolones, and nitrofurantoin.
Another observational retrospective study showed benefit with nitrofurantoin (50 mg/8 h in 94% of cases; 69 patients) and pivmecillinam (200 mg/8 h in 65% of cases; 200 mg/12 h in 30% of patients; 57 patients) in treating lower urinary tract infections in men. The median treatment duration was 7 days. The failure rate was 1.4% and 12%, respectively, for these treatments. Compared to the so-called gold-standard treatment, trimethoprim (10 days/800 mg/12 h; 45 patients), the recurrence rate was 11% and 26% for nitrofurantoin and pivmecillinam versus 7% for trimethoprim. The most significant relapse rate with pivmecillinam was when treatment was given for fewer than 7 days.
This is the only risk factor for further antibiotic treatment and/or recurrence. There was no significant difference between the three drugs with regard to other parameters (urinary tract infection symptoms, benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostate cancer, gram-positive bacteria, etc).
Another retrospective, European study of nitrofurantoin that was published in 2015 included 485 patients (100 mg twice daily in 71% of cases). Clinical cure was defined as an absence of signs or symptoms of a urinary tract infection for 14 days after stopping nitrofurantoin, without use of other antibiotics. The cure rate was 77%. Better efficacy was achieved for patients with gram-negative (vs. gram-positive) bacteria. The treatment duration did not differ significantly (clinical success was achieved when the treatment was taken for 8.6 ± 3.6 days; clinical failure occurred when the treatment was taken for 9.3 ± 6.9 days; P = .28).
Regarding pivmecillinam, a retrospective 2010-2016 study involved 21,864 adults and included 2,524 men who had been treated empirically with pivmecillinam (400 mg three times daily) for significant bacteriuria (Escherichia coli) and a lower urinary tract infection. The researchers concluded that for men, the success rate was identical whether the treatment lasted 5 or 7 days.
An American community-based (urologists, primary care physicians, general medicine services) retrospective cohort study involving 573 men with nonfebrile lower urinary tract infections was conducted from 2011 to 2015. The patients received antibiotic treatment with fluoroquinolones (69.7%), cotrimoxazole (21.2%), nitrofurantoin (5.3%), trimethoprim, beta-lactam antibiotics, or aminoglycosides. No clinical advantage was seen in treating men with urinary tract infections for longer than 7 days.
There are some data on the use of fosfomycin. In an observational retrospective study, 25 men of 52 male adults with leukocyturia and E. coli greater than 105, ESBL, were treated with fosfomycin trometamol 3 g on days 1, 3, 5. Clinical and microbiologic success was achieved for 94% and 78.5%, respectively. No distinction was made between the sexes.
These results were confirmed in a retrospective, observational study involving 18 men (of a total of 75 adults) with no fever or hyperleukocytosis who received the same fosfomycin trometamol regimen. The rate of clinical cure or sterile urine microscopy and culture was 69% at 13 days. The risk failure factor was, as expected, infection with Klebsiella pneumoniae, which was slightly susceptible to fosfomycin, unlike E. coli.
The most recent study in this field was published in 2021. It was also the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In all, 272 men older than 18 years were prescribed either ciprofloxacin or cotrimoxazole for 7-14 days to treat a nonfebrile urinary tract infection. To be eligible for the trial, patients were required to have disease of new onset with at least one of the following symptoms: dysuria, frequency of urination, urgency of urination, hematuria, costovertebral angle tenderness, or perineal, flank, or suprapubic pain. Urine microscopy and culture were not necessary; the approach was wholly symptomatic. Treatment was prescribed for 7 days. Patients were randomly allocated on day 8 to receive treatment for the following 7 days (molecule or placebo). The primary outcome was resolution of clinical symptoms of urinary tract infection by 14 days after completion of active antibiotic treatment. In an intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis, the difference in efficacy between the two molecules was largely below the required 10%. The treatment duration noninferiority margin was 7 days, compared with 14 days.
“In 2022, with regard to the duration of treatment of nonfebrile urinary tract infections in men, the not completely irrefutable evidence does, however, stack up in favor of the possibility of a 7-day or even 5-day course,” pointed out Dr. Lafaurie. “Fluoroquinolones [such as] ofloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, as well as cotrimoxazole and other antibiotics, such as pivmecillinam, nitrofurantoin, or fosfomycin trometamol, can be used, despite the fact that they pass less easily into the prostate – a not-so-obvious benefit.”
Febrile infections
In terms of febrile urinary tract infections, a single-center, prospective, open-label study from 2003 involved 72 male inpatients who were randomly to receive treatment either for 2 weeks or 4 weeks. Treatment consisted of ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. This study provided most of the evidence to justify the recommended 14-day antibiotic course.
Another noninferiority, randomized, placebo-controlled study published in 2017 compared 7- and 14-day treatment with ciprofloxacin 500 mg to placebo twice per week. In men, 7 days of antibiotic therapy was inferior to 14 days during a short-term follow-up but was not inferior during a longer follow-up.
A decisive study, which is currently in the submission phase, could silence debate. “In our noninferiority, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we have enrolled 240 men over the age of 18 years with a febrile infection documented by a fever of 38° C or more, clinical signs of infection, and leukocyturia at least above 10/mm3 and with symptoms lasting less than 3 months,” said Dr. Lafaurie, the trial coordinator.
The primary outcome for efficacy was microbiologic and clinical success after 6 weeks. Patients received either ofloxacin, ceftriaxone, or cefotaxime (two third-generation cephalosporins in the beta-lactam family).
“We clearly show that, for a 7-day course, the clinical success rate is 55.7%, and for a 14-day course, this goes up to 77.6%, with no difference in terms of adverse effects or selection of resistant bacteria. The predictive factors for success are a 14-day treatment and being under the age of 50 years,” said Dr. Lafaurie.
“Unlike nonfebrile urinary tract infections in men, a 7-day course is insufficient for patients with febrile urinary tract infections, and a minimum of 14 days is required to achieve clinical and microbiological success,” he concluded.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
PARIS – To date, studies of antibiotic course length for treating urinary tract infections in men have been patchy and retrospective.
Through recent randomized trials, guidelines can now be based on more solid data.
In sum, to maximize clinical and microbiologic success, a nonfebrile urinary tract infection is treated for 7 days, and a febrile urinary tract infection is treated for a minimum of 14 days.
At the 116th conference of the French urology association, Matthieu Lafaurie, MD, of the Multidisciplinary Infectious Diseases Unit U21, Saint Louis Hospital, Paris, reviewed the literature on this subject.
Guidelines for men
The European Association of Urology made its position clear in a text updated in 2022. It stated: Therefore, treatment with antimicrobial drugs that penetrate the prostate tissue is needed in men presenting with symptoms of a urinary tract infection.” In its classification of prostatitis, the National Institutes of Health distinguishes between acute prostatitis (symptoms of a urinary tract infection; stage I) and chronic prostatitis (recurrent infection with the same microorganism; stage II).
Although the French-language Society of Infectious Diseases distinguishes between febrile and nonfebrile urinary tract infections in males, the academic body does not take into account whether the patient has a fever when determining which antibiotic should be given and how long the course should be: A minimum of 14 days’ treatment is recommended when opting for fluoroquinolones, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (cotrimoxazole), or injectable beta-lactam antibiotics, and at least 21 days is recommended for other drugs or in cases in which there is an underlying urologic condition that has not been treated.
Yet the EAU recommends treating cystitis with antibiotics for at least 7 days, preferably with cotrimoxazole or fluoroquinolone, depending on the results of sensitivity testing. For acute prostatitis, the length of treatment with fluoroquinolones should be at least 14 days.
Nonfebrile infections
Participation of men in studies of the treatment of complicated cystitis is variable; at most only 10% of patients in such trials are men. There are few data specific to men with nonfebrile urinary tract infections, and most studies are retrospective and involve small cohorts. One of these is a community-based study that involved 422 men aged 18-104 years who presented with nonfebrile urinary tract infection (acute dysuria, frequency of urination and/or urgency of urination, temperature < 38° C, no general symptoms). Antibiotic treatment was prescribed in 60% of cases. In more than 55% of cases, the length of the course of treatment was 1–7 days. Treatment was with cotrimoxazole, quinolones, and nitrofurantoin.
Another observational retrospective study showed benefit with nitrofurantoin (50 mg/8 h in 94% of cases; 69 patients) and pivmecillinam (200 mg/8 h in 65% of cases; 200 mg/12 h in 30% of patients; 57 patients) in treating lower urinary tract infections in men. The median treatment duration was 7 days. The failure rate was 1.4% and 12%, respectively, for these treatments. Compared to the so-called gold-standard treatment, trimethoprim (10 days/800 mg/12 h; 45 patients), the recurrence rate was 11% and 26% for nitrofurantoin and pivmecillinam versus 7% for trimethoprim. The most significant relapse rate with pivmecillinam was when treatment was given for fewer than 7 days.
This is the only risk factor for further antibiotic treatment and/or recurrence. There was no significant difference between the three drugs with regard to other parameters (urinary tract infection symptoms, benign prostatic hypertrophy, prostate cancer, gram-positive bacteria, etc).
Another retrospective, European study of nitrofurantoin that was published in 2015 included 485 patients (100 mg twice daily in 71% of cases). Clinical cure was defined as an absence of signs or symptoms of a urinary tract infection for 14 days after stopping nitrofurantoin, without use of other antibiotics. The cure rate was 77%. Better efficacy was achieved for patients with gram-negative (vs. gram-positive) bacteria. The treatment duration did not differ significantly (clinical success was achieved when the treatment was taken for 8.6 ± 3.6 days; clinical failure occurred when the treatment was taken for 9.3 ± 6.9 days; P = .28).
Regarding pivmecillinam, a retrospective 2010-2016 study involved 21,864 adults and included 2,524 men who had been treated empirically with pivmecillinam (400 mg three times daily) for significant bacteriuria (Escherichia coli) and a lower urinary tract infection. The researchers concluded that for men, the success rate was identical whether the treatment lasted 5 or 7 days.
An American community-based (urologists, primary care physicians, general medicine services) retrospective cohort study involving 573 men with nonfebrile lower urinary tract infections was conducted from 2011 to 2015. The patients received antibiotic treatment with fluoroquinolones (69.7%), cotrimoxazole (21.2%), nitrofurantoin (5.3%), trimethoprim, beta-lactam antibiotics, or aminoglycosides. No clinical advantage was seen in treating men with urinary tract infections for longer than 7 days.
There are some data on the use of fosfomycin. In an observational retrospective study, 25 men of 52 male adults with leukocyturia and E. coli greater than 105, ESBL, were treated with fosfomycin trometamol 3 g on days 1, 3, 5. Clinical and microbiologic success was achieved for 94% and 78.5%, respectively. No distinction was made between the sexes.
These results were confirmed in a retrospective, observational study involving 18 men (of a total of 75 adults) with no fever or hyperleukocytosis who received the same fosfomycin trometamol regimen. The rate of clinical cure or sterile urine microscopy and culture was 69% at 13 days. The risk failure factor was, as expected, infection with Klebsiella pneumoniae, which was slightly susceptible to fosfomycin, unlike E. coli.
The most recent study in this field was published in 2021. It was also the first randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In all, 272 men older than 18 years were prescribed either ciprofloxacin or cotrimoxazole for 7-14 days to treat a nonfebrile urinary tract infection. To be eligible for the trial, patients were required to have disease of new onset with at least one of the following symptoms: dysuria, frequency of urination, urgency of urination, hematuria, costovertebral angle tenderness, or perineal, flank, or suprapubic pain. Urine microscopy and culture were not necessary; the approach was wholly symptomatic. Treatment was prescribed for 7 days. Patients were randomly allocated on day 8 to receive treatment for the following 7 days (molecule or placebo). The primary outcome was resolution of clinical symptoms of urinary tract infection by 14 days after completion of active antibiotic treatment. In an intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis, the difference in efficacy between the two molecules was largely below the required 10%. The treatment duration noninferiority margin was 7 days, compared with 14 days.
“In 2022, with regard to the duration of treatment of nonfebrile urinary tract infections in men, the not completely irrefutable evidence does, however, stack up in favor of the possibility of a 7-day or even 5-day course,” pointed out Dr. Lafaurie. “Fluoroquinolones [such as] ofloxacin, levofloxacin, ciprofloxacin, as well as cotrimoxazole and other antibiotics, such as pivmecillinam, nitrofurantoin, or fosfomycin trometamol, can be used, despite the fact that they pass less easily into the prostate – a not-so-obvious benefit.”
Febrile infections
In terms of febrile urinary tract infections, a single-center, prospective, open-label study from 2003 involved 72 male inpatients who were randomly to receive treatment either for 2 weeks or 4 weeks. Treatment consisted of ciprofloxacin 500 mg twice daily. This study provided most of the evidence to justify the recommended 14-day antibiotic course.
Another noninferiority, randomized, placebo-controlled study published in 2017 compared 7- and 14-day treatment with ciprofloxacin 500 mg to placebo twice per week. In men, 7 days of antibiotic therapy was inferior to 14 days during a short-term follow-up but was not inferior during a longer follow-up.
A decisive study, which is currently in the submission phase, could silence debate. “In our noninferiority, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we have enrolled 240 men over the age of 18 years with a febrile infection documented by a fever of 38° C or more, clinical signs of infection, and leukocyturia at least above 10/mm3 and with symptoms lasting less than 3 months,” said Dr. Lafaurie, the trial coordinator.
The primary outcome for efficacy was microbiologic and clinical success after 6 weeks. Patients received either ofloxacin, ceftriaxone, or cefotaxime (two third-generation cephalosporins in the beta-lactam family).
“We clearly show that, for a 7-day course, the clinical success rate is 55.7%, and for a 14-day course, this goes up to 77.6%, with no difference in terms of adverse effects or selection of resistant bacteria. The predictive factors for success are a 14-day treatment and being under the age of 50 years,” said Dr. Lafaurie.
“Unlike nonfebrile urinary tract infections in men, a 7-day course is insufficient for patients with febrile urinary tract infections, and a minimum of 14 days is required to achieve clinical and microbiological success,” he concluded.
This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version appeared on Medscape.com.
Introduce allergens early, say French allergists
Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.
The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.
For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.
However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.
Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.
“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”
Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts
A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.
In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.
Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.
Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.
The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.
For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.
However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.
Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.
“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”
Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts
A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.
In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.
Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.
Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Although in many cases, food-allergen tolerance can be achieved with oral immunotherapy, primary prevention of food allergies remains crucial, according to the French Society of Allergology. In new recommendations that were presented at a session of the Congress of French Pediatric Societies, the academic society advocated early introduction of allergens for all children, starting at 4 months of age.
The latest prevention data from two major studies, LEAP and EAT, have prompted European and French experts to rethink their stance on food diversification. The new French proposals were recently published under the coordination of Dominique Sabouraud-Leclerc, MD, pediatrics department, Reims (France) University Hospital, on behalf of the Food Allergy Working Group of the French Society of Allergology.
For all newborns, regardless of whether they have a history of atopic or nonatopic dermatitis, food diversification is now recommended from 4 months of age instead of 6 months, as was previously recommended. If the child does not develop atopic dermatitis or develops only a mild form, peanuts, eggs, and nuts may be introduced at home.
However, if the child experiences severe atopic dermatitis, an allergy testing panel for peanuts, nuts, eggs, and cow’s milk proteins should be performed. An oral food challenge may be conducted at the allergist’s discretion.
Regarding peanuts, the working group proposed introducing a purée in the form of either a mixture of peanuts/hazelnuts/cashew nuts (1 level teaspoon five times a week; 2 g of protein/food per week) or a 100% peanut paste (1 scant teaspoon four times a week; 2 g of peanut protein/week). If the family is worried, the allergist can suggest monitoring the child in the clinic waiting room for 30 minutes after the first dose.
“We shouldn’t delay the introduction of the primary allergens anymore, regardless of whether children are at risk for a food allergy, and particularly a peanut allergy,” explained Stéphanie Lejeune, MD, pediatric pulmonologist and allergist at Lille (France) Regional University Hospital, who presented these new findings at the congress. “In fact, if we only target at-risk children, we overlook children with no family history who will nevertheless develop food allergies. The idea is to introduce everything, especially peanuts, between 4 and 6 months of age and to no longer do so gradually, one food after another, as was being done until now, beginning at 6 months and over. We must give priority to regularity over quantity.”
Although this approach is based on clinical trials, no real-life data are currently available.
LEAP and EAT studies support early introduction of peanuts
A study from 2021 summed up the risk factors for peanut allergy. About 61% of infants (4-11 months) had atopic dermatitis, 18% had a food allergy, 62% had a first-degree relative with a peanut allergy, and 11% had a confirmed peanut allergy. The risk of peanut allergy increased with age and severe eczema.
In 2015, the LEAP study, which was conducted in the United Kingdom with 640 infants aged 4-11 months who had risk factors for peanut allergy, revolutionized peanut-allergy primary prevention. Regardless of whether the children were sensitized or not, the number of children who developed a peanut allergy was systematically lower in the group that ingested the allergen in comparison with the “avoidance” group.
Additionally, the LEAP-ON study showed that protection against peanut allergy persisted for 12 months after cessation of consumption between ages 5 and 6 years among children who had consumed peanuts previously.
Early diversification in the general population was investigated in the EAT study, which involved 1303 breastfed infants. Of these infants, 24% had atopic dermatitis (median SCORAD score, 7.5). They were divided into two arms: avoidance and breast feeding until 6 months (standard introduction) or early introduction at 3 months (boiled egg, milk, peanuts, sesame, white fish, wheat, 2 g of protein twice a week). In the per-protocol analysis, there were 13 cases of peanut allergy in the standard introduction group; there were no cases in the early introduction group.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.