Federal Practitioner

DENVER – Adding therapies such as acupuncture, electrophysical stimulation, or other interventions to standard exercise therapy does not appear to offer much benefit in pain relief or physical function for patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The findings were also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.

“The results do not support the use of adjunctive therapies when we add them to exercise for pain, physical function, or quality of life, when compared against placebo, adjunctive therapy, and exercise,” Helen P. French, PhD, told attendees at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. The findings were similar for pain and physical function when comparing adjunctive therapies with exercise against exercise alone, said Dr. French, an associate professor in physiotherapy at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, except that patients using adjunctive therapies reported feeling greater improvement in their global assessments.

Exercise is recommended as a core treatment for osteoarthritis, but some patients or clinicians may be interested in supplementing that therapy with acupuncture, heat therapy, electromagnetic fields, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, braces/orthotics, and other interventions. Various Cochrane Reviews of the evidence exist for these interventions in treating chronic pain in general but not for their use as adjunctive therapies in addition to exercise for osteoarthritis pain.

Researchers therefore assessed the evidence for improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life for two sets of comparisons: adjunctive therapies plus exercise versus exercise alone, and adjunctive therapies with exercise versus placebo adjunctive therapy with exercise. The review excluded studies looking at medications or supplements.

Pain was assessed with the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS, 0-10), with an improvement of at least 2 points (15% improvement) representing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Physical function was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC, 0-68), with 6 points (15%) considered the MCID, and quality of life was assessed with the SF-36 (0-100), with 6 points (12%) as the MCID.

The researchers identified trials on knee osteoarthritis that included an overall 6,508 participants with an average age ranging from 52 to 83 years. A total of 36 studies evaluated electrophysical agents. Another seven looked at manual therapies; four looked at acupuncture/dry needling or taping; three looked at psychological, dietary, or “whole body vibration” therapies; and two evaluated spa or peloid therapy. Only one trial evaluated foot insoles.

Nearly all the studies (98%) assessed pain, and most (87%) assessed physical function. Only about one in five (21%) assessed quality of life. The improvement in pain from adding adjunctive therapies to exercise, compared with placebo therapies plus exercise, was 0.77 points, or just under a 10% improvement, which fell short of the 15% MCID. Physical function improvement similarly fell short, with an average improvement of 5 points (12%).

In comparisons of exercise plus adjunctive therapies against exercise alone, the improvement from the additional interventions was even lower. Pain improvement was 0.41 points (7%), and physical function improvement was 2.8 points (9%). However, patients’ perceptions told a different story: 37% more patients who were using an adjunctive therapy reported feeling that the therapies were successful, compared with patients undergoing exercise therapy alone.

Adverse events were poorly reported in the trials, with only 10 trials reporting them at all, and the researchers found no significant difference in adverse events among the studies reporting them. The most common adverse events were increased pain in the joint with the osteoarthritis, pain elsewhere, or swelling and inflammation. It’s unclear, however, whether the pain, swelling, and inflammation were related to the interventions and how serious these effects might have been.

Michelle Hall, PhD, an associate professor in the department of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, comoderated the session with this presentation and found it interesting that more than one-third of patients perceived that they did better with the additional therapies even though improvement didn’t bear out in their pain or physical function assessments.

“But the other part of that was that the studies were of poor quality, so we can’t say with confidence, ‘Don’t do this therapy because it’s not going to work,’ ” Dr. Hall said in an interview. She said she personally would probably discourage patients from those therapies, “but I don’t think the evidence is there for everybody to do that,” she added.

Martin Van Der Esch, PhD, of Reade Centre of Rehabilitation and Rheumatology in Amsterdam, also comoderated the discussion and had more concerns about the use of adjunctive therapies in light of the study’s findings. He said in an interview that he tended to believe the patients’ overall self-reported improvement is likely a placebo effect, and he sees potential harm in that effect. If the pain is not truly decreasing as patients continue using those therapies, then the pain may become a more stable part of the nervous system, “so I think they need to do an intervention which really has evidence in reducing pain, an active approach that means exercising in the right way,” Dr. Van Der Esch said. If patients are undergoing therapy whose primary benefit is a placebo effect, “the pain will prolong and become more fixed in the nervous system,” shifting the patients toward greater risk of the pain becoming chronic, he said.

“I want to emphasize that we have an ethical role to our management, and it’s not ethical to give treatments which have no response and no pain relief except that the patient or the professional believes it will have an effect,” Dr. Van Der Esch said.

The research did not involve outside funding. Dr. French, Dr. Hall, and Dr. Van Der Esch reported having no relevant financial relationships.

DENVER – Adding therapies such as acupuncture, electrophysical stimulation, or other interventions to standard exercise therapy does not appear to offer much benefit in pain relief or physical function for patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The findings were also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.

“The results do not support the use of adjunctive therapies when we add them to exercise for pain, physical function, or quality of life, when compared against placebo, adjunctive therapy, and exercise,” Helen P. French, PhD, told attendees at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. The findings were similar for pain and physical function when comparing adjunctive therapies with exercise against exercise alone, said Dr. French, an associate professor in physiotherapy at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, except that patients using adjunctive therapies reported feeling greater improvement in their global assessments.

Exercise is recommended as a core treatment for osteoarthritis, but some patients or clinicians may be interested in supplementing that therapy with acupuncture, heat therapy, electromagnetic fields, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, braces/orthotics, and other interventions. Various Cochrane Reviews of the evidence exist for these interventions in treating chronic pain in general but not for their use as adjunctive therapies in addition to exercise for osteoarthritis pain.

Researchers therefore assessed the evidence for improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life for two sets of comparisons: adjunctive therapies plus exercise versus exercise alone, and adjunctive therapies with exercise versus placebo adjunctive therapy with exercise. The review excluded studies looking at medications or supplements.

Pain was assessed with the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS, 0-10), with an improvement of at least 2 points (15% improvement) representing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Physical function was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC, 0-68), with 6 points (15%) considered the MCID, and quality of life was assessed with the SF-36 (0-100), with 6 points (12%) as the MCID.

The researchers identified trials on knee osteoarthritis that included an overall 6,508 participants with an average age ranging from 52 to 83 years. A total of 36 studies evaluated electrophysical agents. Another seven looked at manual therapies; four looked at acupuncture/dry needling or taping; three looked at psychological, dietary, or “whole body vibration” therapies; and two evaluated spa or peloid therapy. Only one trial evaluated foot insoles.

Nearly all the studies (98%) assessed pain, and most (87%) assessed physical function. Only about one in five (21%) assessed quality of life. The improvement in pain from adding adjunctive therapies to exercise, compared with placebo therapies plus exercise, was 0.77 points, or just under a 10% improvement, which fell short of the 15% MCID. Physical function improvement similarly fell short, with an average improvement of 5 points (12%).

In comparisons of exercise plus adjunctive therapies against exercise alone, the improvement from the additional interventions was even lower. Pain improvement was 0.41 points (7%), and physical function improvement was 2.8 points (9%). However, patients’ perceptions told a different story: 37% more patients who were using an adjunctive therapy reported feeling that the therapies were successful, compared with patients undergoing exercise therapy alone.

Adverse events were poorly reported in the trials, with only 10 trials reporting them at all, and the researchers found no significant difference in adverse events among the studies reporting them. The most common adverse events were increased pain in the joint with the osteoarthritis, pain elsewhere, or swelling and inflammation. It’s unclear, however, whether the pain, swelling, and inflammation were related to the interventions and how serious these effects might have been.

Michelle Hall, PhD, an associate professor in the department of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, comoderated the session with this presentation and found it interesting that more than one-third of patients perceived that they did better with the additional therapies even though improvement didn’t bear out in their pain or physical function assessments.

“But the other part of that was that the studies were of poor quality, so we can’t say with confidence, ‘Don’t do this therapy because it’s not going to work,’ ” Dr. Hall said in an interview. She said she personally would probably discourage patients from those therapies, “but I don’t think the evidence is there for everybody to do that,” she added.

Martin Van Der Esch, PhD, of Reade Centre of Rehabilitation and Rheumatology in Amsterdam, also comoderated the discussion and had more concerns about the use of adjunctive therapies in light of the study’s findings. He said in an interview that he tended to believe the patients’ overall self-reported improvement is likely a placebo effect, and he sees potential harm in that effect. If the pain is not truly decreasing as patients continue using those therapies, then the pain may become a more stable part of the nervous system, “so I think they need to do an intervention which really has evidence in reducing pain, an active approach that means exercising in the right way,” Dr. Van Der Esch said. If patients are undergoing therapy whose primary benefit is a placebo effect, “the pain will prolong and become more fixed in the nervous system,” shifting the patients toward greater risk of the pain becoming chronic, he said.

“I want to emphasize that we have an ethical role to our management, and it’s not ethical to give treatments which have no response and no pain relief except that the patient or the professional believes it will have an effect,” Dr. Van Der Esch said.

The research did not involve outside funding. Dr. French, Dr. Hall, and Dr. Van Der Esch reported having no relevant financial relationships.

DENVER – Adding therapies such as acupuncture, electrophysical stimulation, or other interventions to standard exercise therapy does not appear to offer much benefit in pain relief or physical function for patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The findings were also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.

“The results do not support the use of adjunctive therapies when we add them to exercise for pain, physical function, or quality of life, when compared against placebo, adjunctive therapy, and exercise,” Helen P. French, PhD, told attendees at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. The findings were similar for pain and physical function when comparing adjunctive therapies with exercise against exercise alone, said Dr. French, an associate professor in physiotherapy at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin, except that patients using adjunctive therapies reported feeling greater improvement in their global assessments.

Exercise is recommended as a core treatment for osteoarthritis, but some patients or clinicians may be interested in supplementing that therapy with acupuncture, heat therapy, electromagnetic fields, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, braces/orthotics, and other interventions. Various Cochrane Reviews of the evidence exist for these interventions in treating chronic pain in general but not for their use as adjunctive therapies in addition to exercise for osteoarthritis pain.

Researchers therefore assessed the evidence for improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life for two sets of comparisons: adjunctive therapies plus exercise versus exercise alone, and adjunctive therapies with exercise versus placebo adjunctive therapy with exercise. The review excluded studies looking at medications or supplements.

Pain was assessed with the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS, 0-10), with an improvement of at least 2 points (15% improvement) representing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Physical function was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC, 0-68), with 6 points (15%) considered the MCID, and quality of life was assessed with the SF-36 (0-100), with 6 points (12%) as the MCID.

The researchers identified trials on knee osteoarthritis that included an overall 6,508 participants with an average age ranging from 52 to 83 years. A total of 36 studies evaluated electrophysical agents. Another seven looked at manual therapies; four looked at acupuncture/dry needling or taping; three looked at psychological, dietary, or “whole body vibration” therapies; and two evaluated spa or peloid therapy. Only one trial evaluated foot insoles.

Nearly all the studies (98%) assessed pain, and most (87%) assessed physical function. Only about one in five (21%) assessed quality of life. The improvement in pain from adding adjunctive therapies to exercise, compared with placebo therapies plus exercise, was 0.77 points, or just under a 10% improvement, which fell short of the 15% MCID. Physical function improvement similarly fell short, with an average improvement of 5 points (12%).

In comparisons of exercise plus adjunctive therapies against exercise alone, the improvement from the additional interventions was even lower. Pain improvement was 0.41 points (7%), and physical function improvement was 2.8 points (9%). However, patients’ perceptions told a different story: 37% more patients who were using an adjunctive therapy reported feeling that the therapies were successful, compared with patients undergoing exercise therapy alone.

Adverse events were poorly reported in the trials, with only 10 trials reporting them at all, and the researchers found no significant difference in adverse events among the studies reporting them. The most common adverse events were increased pain in the joint with the osteoarthritis, pain elsewhere, or swelling and inflammation. It’s unclear, however, whether the pain, swelling, and inflammation were related to the interventions and how serious these effects might have been.

Michelle Hall, PhD, an associate professor in the department of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne, comoderated the session with this presentation and found it interesting that more than one-third of patients perceived that they did better with the additional therapies even though improvement didn’t bear out in their pain or physical function assessments.

“But the other part of that was that the studies were of poor quality, so we can’t say with confidence, ‘Don’t do this therapy because it’s not going to work,’ ” Dr. Hall said in an interview. She said she personally would probably discourage patients from those therapies, “but I don’t think the evidence is there for everybody to do that,” she added.

Martin Van Der Esch, PhD, of Reade Centre of Rehabilitation and Rheumatology in Amsterdam, also comoderated the discussion and had more concerns about the use of adjunctive therapies in light of the study’s findings. He said in an interview that he tended to believe the patients’ overall self-reported improvement is likely a placebo effect, and he sees potential harm in that effect. If the pain is not truly decreasing as patients continue using those therapies, then the pain may become a more stable part of the nervous system, “so I think they need to do an intervention which really has evidence in reducing pain, an active approach that means exercising in the right way,” Dr. Van Der Esch said. If patients are undergoing therapy whose primary benefit is a placebo effect, “the pain will prolong and become more fixed in the nervous system,” shifting the patients toward greater risk of the pain becoming chronic, he said.

“I want to emphasize that we have an ethical role to our management, and it’s not ethical to give treatments which have no response and no pain relief except that the patient or the professional believes it will have an effect,” Dr. Van Der Esch said.

The research did not involve outside funding. Dr. French, Dr. Hall, and Dr. Van Der Esch reported having no relevant financial relationships.

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) due to commotio cordis occurs more frequently in non–sport-related settings than is commonly thought, resulting in lower rates of resuscitation and increased mortality, especially among young women, a new review suggests.

The condition is rare, caused by an often fatal arrhythmia secondary to a blunt, nonpenetrating impact over the precordium, without direct structural damage to the heart itself. Common causes in nonsport settings include assault, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), and daily activities such as occupational accidents.

“We found a stark difference in mortality outcomes between non–sport-related commotio cordis compared to sport-related events,” at 88% vs. 66%, Han S. Lim, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia, told this news organization. “Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation (17% vs. 81%) were considerably lower in the non–sport-related events.”

“Although still being male-predominant, of concern, we saw a higher proportion of females in non–sport-related commotio cordis due to assault, MVAs, and other activities,” he noted. Such events may occur “in secluded domestic settings, may not be witnessed, or may occur as intentional harm, whereby the witness could also be the perpetrator, reducing the likelihood of prompt diagnosis, CPR, and defibrillation administration.”

The study was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
 

Young women affected

Dr. Lim and colleagues searched the literature through 2021 for all cases of commotio cordis. Three hundred and thirty-four cases from among 53 citations were included in the analysis; of those, 121 (36%) occurred in non–sport-related settings, including assault (76%), MVAs (7%), and daily activities (16%). “Daily activities” comprised activities that were expected in a person’s day-to-day routine such as falls, play fighting (in children), and occupational accidents.

Non–sport-related cases primarily involved nonprojectile etiologies (95%), including bodily contact (79%), such as impacts from fists, feet, and knees; impacts with handlebars or steering wheels; and solid stick-like weapons and flat surfaces.

Sport-related cases involved a significantly higher proportion of projectiles (94% vs. 5%) and occurred across a range of sports, mostly at the competitive level (66%).

Both sport-related and non–sport-related commotio cordis affected a similar younger demographic (mean age, 19; mostly males). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were seen with regard to previous cardiac history or family history of cardiac disease, or in arrhythmias on electrocardiogram, biomarkers, or imaging findings.

However, in non–sport-related events, the proportion of females affected was significantly higher (13% vs. 2%), as was mortality (88% vs. 66%). Rates were lower for CPR (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation use (17% vs. 81%), and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 minutes (80% vs. 5%).

The finding that more than a third of reported cases were non–sport-related “is higher than previously reported, and included data from 15 different countries,” the authors noted.

Study limitations included the use of data only from published studies, inclusion of a case series limited to fatal cases, small sample sizes, and lack of consistent reporting of demographic data, mechanisms, investigation results, management, and outcomes.
 

Increased awareness ‘essential’

Dr. Lim and colleagues concluded that increased awareness of non–sport-related commotio cordis is “essential” for early recognition, resuscitation, and mortality reduction. 

Jim Cheung, MD, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s electrophysiology section, “completely agrees.” Greater awareness among the general population could reduce barriers to CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use, he said, which in turn, can lead to improved survival.

Furthermore, Dr. Cheung added, “This study underscores the importance of ensuring that non–cardiology-trained physicians such as emergency medicine physicians and trauma surgeons who might encounter patients with non–sports-related commotio cordis recognize the entity during the course of treatment.”

Because the review relied only on published cases, “it may not represent the true breadth of cases that are occurring in the real world,” he noted. “I suspect that cases that occur outside of sports-related activities, such as MVAs and assault, are more likely to be underreported and that the true proportion of non–sports-related commotio cordis may be significantly higher than 36%.” Increased reporting of cases as part of an international commotio cordis registry would help provide additional insights, he suggested.

“There is a common misperception that SCA only occurs among older patients and patients with known coronary artery disease or heart failure,” he said. “For us to move the needle on improving SCA survival, we will need to tackle the problem from multiple angles including increasing public awareness, training the public on CPR and AED use, and improving access to AEDs by addressing structural barriers.”

Dr. Cheung pointed to ongoing efforts by nonprofit, patient-driven organizations such as the SADS Foundation and Omar Carter Foundation, and professional societies such as the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society, to direct public awareness campaigns and legislative proposals to address this problem.

Similar efforts are underway among cardiac societies and SCA awareness groups in Australia, Dr. Lim said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
 

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

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) due to commotio cordis occurs more frequently in non–sport-related settings than is commonly thought, resulting in lower rates of resuscitation and increased mortality, especially among young women, a new review suggests.

The condition is rare, caused by an often fatal arrhythmia secondary to a blunt, nonpenetrating impact over the precordium, without direct structural damage to the heart itself. Common causes in nonsport settings include assault, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), and daily activities such as occupational accidents.

“We found a stark difference in mortality outcomes between non–sport-related commotio cordis compared to sport-related events,” at 88% vs. 66%, Han S. Lim, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia, told this news organization. “Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation (17% vs. 81%) were considerably lower in the non–sport-related events.”

“Although still being male-predominant, of concern, we saw a higher proportion of females in non–sport-related commotio cordis due to assault, MVAs, and other activities,” he noted. Such events may occur “in secluded domestic settings, may not be witnessed, or may occur as intentional harm, whereby the witness could also be the perpetrator, reducing the likelihood of prompt diagnosis, CPR, and defibrillation administration.”

The study was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
 

Young women affected

Dr. Lim and colleagues searched the literature through 2021 for all cases of commotio cordis. Three hundred and thirty-four cases from among 53 citations were included in the analysis; of those, 121 (36%) occurred in non–sport-related settings, including assault (76%), MVAs (7%), and daily activities (16%). “Daily activities” comprised activities that were expected in a person’s day-to-day routine such as falls, play fighting (in children), and occupational accidents.

Non–sport-related cases primarily involved nonprojectile etiologies (95%), including bodily contact (79%), such as impacts from fists, feet, and knees; impacts with handlebars or steering wheels; and solid stick-like weapons and flat surfaces.

Sport-related cases involved a significantly higher proportion of projectiles (94% vs. 5%) and occurred across a range of sports, mostly at the competitive level (66%).

Both sport-related and non–sport-related commotio cordis affected a similar younger demographic (mean age, 19; mostly males). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were seen with regard to previous cardiac history or family history of cardiac disease, or in arrhythmias on electrocardiogram, biomarkers, or imaging findings.

However, in non–sport-related events, the proportion of females affected was significantly higher (13% vs. 2%), as was mortality (88% vs. 66%). Rates were lower for CPR (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation use (17% vs. 81%), and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 minutes (80% vs. 5%).

The finding that more than a third of reported cases were non–sport-related “is higher than previously reported, and included data from 15 different countries,” the authors noted.

Study limitations included the use of data only from published studies, inclusion of a case series limited to fatal cases, small sample sizes, and lack of consistent reporting of demographic data, mechanisms, investigation results, management, and outcomes.
 

Increased awareness ‘essential’

Dr. Lim and colleagues concluded that increased awareness of non–sport-related commotio cordis is “essential” for early recognition, resuscitation, and mortality reduction. 

Jim Cheung, MD, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s electrophysiology section, “completely agrees.” Greater awareness among the general population could reduce barriers to CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use, he said, which in turn, can lead to improved survival.

Furthermore, Dr. Cheung added, “This study underscores the importance of ensuring that non–cardiology-trained physicians such as emergency medicine physicians and trauma surgeons who might encounter patients with non–sports-related commotio cordis recognize the entity during the course of treatment.”

Because the review relied only on published cases, “it may not represent the true breadth of cases that are occurring in the real world,” he noted. “I suspect that cases that occur outside of sports-related activities, such as MVAs and assault, are more likely to be underreported and that the true proportion of non–sports-related commotio cordis may be significantly higher than 36%.” Increased reporting of cases as part of an international commotio cordis registry would help provide additional insights, he suggested.

“There is a common misperception that SCA only occurs among older patients and patients with known coronary artery disease or heart failure,” he said. “For us to move the needle on improving SCA survival, we will need to tackle the problem from multiple angles including increasing public awareness, training the public on CPR and AED use, and improving access to AEDs by addressing structural barriers.”

Dr. Cheung pointed to ongoing efforts by nonprofit, patient-driven organizations such as the SADS Foundation and Omar Carter Foundation, and professional societies such as the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society, to direct public awareness campaigns and legislative proposals to address this problem.

Similar efforts are underway among cardiac societies and SCA awareness groups in Australia, Dr. Lim said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
 

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

Sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) due to commotio cordis occurs more frequently in non–sport-related settings than is commonly thought, resulting in lower rates of resuscitation and increased mortality, especially among young women, a new review suggests.

The condition is rare, caused by an often fatal arrhythmia secondary to a blunt, nonpenetrating impact over the precordium, without direct structural damage to the heart itself. Common causes in nonsport settings include assault, motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), and daily activities such as occupational accidents.

“We found a stark difference in mortality outcomes between non–sport-related commotio cordis compared to sport-related events,” at 88% vs. 66%, Han S. Lim, MBBS, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and Austin Health, Heidelberg, Australia, told this news organization. “Rates of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation (17% vs. 81%) were considerably lower in the non–sport-related events.”

“Although still being male-predominant, of concern, we saw a higher proportion of females in non–sport-related commotio cordis due to assault, MVAs, and other activities,” he noted. Such events may occur “in secluded domestic settings, may not be witnessed, or may occur as intentional harm, whereby the witness could also be the perpetrator, reducing the likelihood of prompt diagnosis, CPR, and defibrillation administration.”

The study was published online in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
 

Young women affected

Dr. Lim and colleagues searched the literature through 2021 for all cases of commotio cordis. Three hundred and thirty-four cases from among 53 citations were included in the analysis; of those, 121 (36%) occurred in non–sport-related settings, including assault (76%), MVAs (7%), and daily activities (16%). “Daily activities” comprised activities that were expected in a person’s day-to-day routine such as falls, play fighting (in children), and occupational accidents.

Non–sport-related cases primarily involved nonprojectile etiologies (95%), including bodily contact (79%), such as impacts from fists, feet, and knees; impacts with handlebars or steering wheels; and solid stick-like weapons and flat surfaces.

Sport-related cases involved a significantly higher proportion of projectiles (94% vs. 5%) and occurred across a range of sports, mostly at the competitive level (66%).

Both sport-related and non–sport-related commotio cordis affected a similar younger demographic (mean age, 19; mostly males). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were seen with regard to previous cardiac history or family history of cardiac disease, or in arrhythmias on electrocardiogram, biomarkers, or imaging findings.

However, in non–sport-related events, the proportion of females affected was significantly higher (13% vs. 2%), as was mortality (88% vs. 66%). Rates were lower for CPR (27% vs. 97%) and defibrillation use (17% vs. 81%), and resuscitation was more commonly delayed beyond 3 minutes (80% vs. 5%).

The finding that more than a third of reported cases were non–sport-related “is higher than previously reported, and included data from 15 different countries,” the authors noted.

Study limitations included the use of data only from published studies, inclusion of a case series limited to fatal cases, small sample sizes, and lack of consistent reporting of demographic data, mechanisms, investigation results, management, and outcomes.
 

Increased awareness ‘essential’

Dr. Lim and colleagues concluded that increased awareness of non–sport-related commotio cordis is “essential” for early recognition, resuscitation, and mortality reduction. 

Jim Cheung, MD, chair of the American College of Cardiology’s electrophysiology section, “completely agrees.” Greater awareness among the general population could reduce barriers to CPR and automated external defibrillator (AED) use, he said, which in turn, can lead to improved survival.

Furthermore, Dr. Cheung added, “This study underscores the importance of ensuring that non–cardiology-trained physicians such as emergency medicine physicians and trauma surgeons who might encounter patients with non–sports-related commotio cordis recognize the entity during the course of treatment.”

Because the review relied only on published cases, “it may not represent the true breadth of cases that are occurring in the real world,” he noted. “I suspect that cases that occur outside of sports-related activities, such as MVAs and assault, are more likely to be underreported and that the true proportion of non–sports-related commotio cordis may be significantly higher than 36%.” Increased reporting of cases as part of an international commotio cordis registry would help provide additional insights, he suggested.

“There is a common misperception that SCA only occurs among older patients and patients with known coronary artery disease or heart failure,” he said. “For us to move the needle on improving SCA survival, we will need to tackle the problem from multiple angles including increasing public awareness, training the public on CPR and AED use, and improving access to AEDs by addressing structural barriers.”

Dr. Cheung pointed to ongoing efforts by nonprofit, patient-driven organizations such as the SADS Foundation and Omar Carter Foundation, and professional societies such as the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and Heart Rhythm Society, to direct public awareness campaigns and legislative proposals to address this problem.

Similar efforts are underway among cardiac societies and SCA awareness groups in Australia, Dr. Lim said.

No funding or relevant financial relationships were disclosed.
 

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

Diets consisting of high-quality – but not low-quality – plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may lower the risks for cancer, heart disease, and early death, new research suggests.

The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.

By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.

“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
 

High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes

The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.

Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.

Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.

Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).

During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.

Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.

After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.

At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).

Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).

Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).

No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.

And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.

Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets consisting of high-quality – but not low-quality – plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may lower the risks for cancer, heart disease, and early death, new research suggests.

The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.

By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.

“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
 

High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes

The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.

Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.

Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.

Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).

During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.

Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.

After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.

At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).

Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).

Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).

No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.

And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.

Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets consisting of high-quality – but not low-quality – plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may lower the risks for cancer, heart disease, and early death, new research suggests.

The prospective cohort study used data from more than 120,000 middle-aged adults followed for over 10 years in the UK Biobank. Those who consumed a healthful plant-based diet – with higher amounts of foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts – and lower intakes of animal products, sugary drinks, and refined grains had a 16% lower risk of dying during follow-up, compared with those with the lowest intakes of the healthful plant-based foods.

By contrast, an unhealthy plant-based diet was associated with a 23% higher total mortality risk.

“Not all plant-based diets are created equally. Our data provide evidence to support the notion that for health benefits the plant-based sources need to be whole grains, fruits and vegetables, legumes, nuts, etc., rather than processed plant-based foods,” study coauthor Aedín Cassidy, PhD, of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, said in an interview.

She added: “We do not necessarily need to radically shift diets to vegan or vegetarian regimens, but rather to switch proportions on the plate to incorporate more healthful plant-based foods, fish, and leaner cuts of meat into our habitual diet. This would have benefits for both individual health and planetary health.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open by Alysha S. Thompson, MSc, also at Queen’s University, and colleagues.
 

High- vs. low-quality plant-based diets linked to better outcomes

The UK Biobank is a population-based, prospective study that included more than 500,000 participants aged 40-69 years at the time of recruitment between 2006 and 2010 at 22 centers in England, Scotland, and Wales. The current study included 126,395 individuals; slightly over half (55.9%) are women.

Food intake data were collected for at least two 24-hour periods to create both “healthful” and “unhealthful” plant-based diet indexes (PDIs). These included 17 food groups: whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes and vegetarian protein alternatives, tea and coffee, fruit juices, refined grains, potatoes, sugar-sweetened beverages, sweets and desserts, animal fat, dairy, eggs, fish or seafood, meat, and miscellaneous animal-derived foods. Data on oils weren’t available.

Higher scores on the healthful PDI and unhealthful PDI were scored positively or negatively based on quantities of those foods consumed.

Participants were then ranked in quartiles for portions of each food group and assigned scores between 2 (lowest-intake category) and 5 (highest).

During a follow-up of 10.6-12.2 years, there were 698 deaths attributed to cardiovascular disease, 3,275 deaths caused by cancer, 6,890 individuals who experienced a cardiovascular incident, and 8,939 with incident cancer.

Another 4,751 experienced an incident fracture, which was evaluated because of the concern that diets low in animal protein might lead to insufficient vitamin B and calcium intake.

After adjustment for confounding factors, the hazard ratio for all-cause mortality in individuals with the highest healthful PDI score quartile compared with the lowest quartile was 0.84.

At the same time, the HR for all-cause mortality for those with the highest versus lowest unhealthful PDI scores was 1.23, and for cancer-related mortality was 1.19. All were statistically significant (P = .004).

Similarly, greater healthy plant-based diet adherence was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with any cancer (HR, 0.93; P = .03), while higher unhealthful PDI scores yielded a higher risk (HR, 1.10; P = .004).

Moreover, higher healthy PDI scores were associated with lower risks for total cardiovascular incident risks (HR, 0.92; P = .007), as well as for the individual events of ischemic stroke (HR, 0.84; P = .08) and MI (HR, 0.86; P = .004). Higher unhealthy PDI scores were similarly associated with greater risks for those outcomes, with an overall HR of 1.21 (P = .004).

No associations were found between either healthful PDI or unhealthful PDI and total or site-specific fracture risk.

And because 91.3% of the UK Biobank study population was White, “future studies among more racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations are needed to assess the risk of major chronic disease in relation to [plant-based diets],” the authors wrote.

Dr. Cassidy and Ms. Thompson reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.

Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.

The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.

In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.

These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.

“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.

“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
 

Proceed with caution

The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.

The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.

Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.

Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.

Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.

The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.

In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.

These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.

“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.

“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
 

Proceed with caution

The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.

The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.

Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.

Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Taking 8,000 steps or more for just 1 or 2 days a week was linked to a significant reduction in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, according to a study of about 3,000 adults.

Previous research has shown lower mortality rates among individuals who walk consistently, especially those who log at least 8,000 steps daily, but the benefit of intense walking just once or twice a week on long-term health outcomes has not been examined, wrote Kosuke Inoue, MD, of Kyoto University, Japan, and colleagues.

iStock/thinkstockphotos

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed 10-year follow-up data for 3,101 adults aged 20 years and older who were part of the 2005 and 2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

The participants were asked to wear accelerometers to track their steps for 7 consecutive days. The researchers assessed the dose-response relationship between days of taking 8,000 steps or more (about 4 miles) during 1 week, and the primary outcome of all-cause mortality risk after 10 years. Cardiovascular mortality risk after 10 years was a secondary outcome.

The mean age of the participants was 50.5 years and 51% were women. The breakdown by ethnicity was 51% White, 21% Black, 24% Hispanic, and 4% other races/ethnicities. A total of 632 individuals took 8,000 steps or more 0 days a week, 532 took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week, and 1,937 took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

During the 10-year follow-up period, overall all-cause mortality was 14.2% and cardiovascular mortality was 5.3% across all step groups.

In an adjusted analysis, individuals who took at least 8,000 steps 1-2 days a week had a 14.9% lower all-cause mortality risk compared with those who never reached 8,000 daily steps. This difference was similar to the 16.5% reduced mortality risk for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days a week.

Similarly, compared with the group with no days of at least 8,000 steps, cardiovascular mortality risk was 8.1% lower for those who took 8,000 steps 1-2 days per week and 8.4% lower for those who took at least 8,000 steps 3-7 days per week. The decreased mortality risk plateaued at 3-4 days.

These patterns in reduced all-cause mortality risk persisted in a stratified analysis by age (younger than 65 years and 65 years and older) and sex. Similar patterns in reduced mortality also emerged when the researchers used different thresholds of daily steps, such as a minimum of 10,000 steps instead of 8,000. The adjusted all-cause mortality for groups who took at least 10,000 steps 1-2 days a week, 3-7 days a week, and no days a week were 8.1%, 7.3%, and 16.7%, respectively, with corresponding cardiovascular mortality risks of 2.4%, 2.3%, and 7.0%, respectively.

“Given the simplicity and ease of counting daily steps, our findings indicate that the recommended number of steps taken on as few as 1 to 2 days per week may be a feasible option for individuals who are striving to achieve some health benefits through adhering to a recommended daily step count but are unable to accomplish this on a daily basis,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The findings were limited by several factors including the use daily step measures for 1 week only at baseline, with no data on how physical activity changes might impact mortality risk, the researchers noted. Other limitations included possible accelerometer error and misclassification of activity, possible selection bias, and lack of data on cause-specific mortality outside of cardiovascular death, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the use of accelerometers as objective measures of activity and by the availability of 10-year follow-up data for nearly 100% of the participants, they said.

“Although our findings might suffer from residual confounding that should be addressed in future research, they suggest that people may receive substantial health benefits even if a sufficient number of steps are taken on only a couple days of the week,” they concluded.
 

Proceed with caution

The current study findings should be interpreted cautiously in light of the potential unmeasured confounding factors and selection bias that often occur in studies of physical activity, James Sawalla Guseh, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, and Jose F. Figueroa, MD, of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

The results support previous studies showing some longevity benefits with “weekend warrior” patterns of intense physical activity for only a couple of days; however, “the body of evidence for sporadic activity is not as robust as the evidence for sustained and regular aerobic activity,” the authors emphasized.

The editorial authors also highlighted the limitations of the current study, including the observational design and significant differences in demographics and comorbidities between the 1- to 2-days of 8,000 steps exercise group and the 0-day group, as well as the reliance on only a week’s worth of data to infer 10 years’ mortality.

Although the data are consistent with previous observations that increased exercise volume reduces mortality, more research is needed, as the current study findings may not reflect other dimensions of health, including neurological health, they said.

Despite the need for cautious interpretation of the results, the current study “supports the emerging and popular idea that step counting, which does not require consideration of exercise duration or intensity, can offer guidance toward robust and favorable health outcomes,” and may inform step-based activity goals to improve public health, the editorialists wrote.

The study was supported by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, the Japan Endocrine Society, and the Meiji Yasuda Life Foundation of Health and Welfare. Dr. Inoue also was supported by the Program for the Development of Next-Generation Leading Scientists With Global Insight sponsored by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. The other researchers had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose. The editorial authors had no financial conflicts to disclose.

DENVER – Using antidepressants to treat osteoarthritis pain can benefit some individuals but appears to have a clinically unimportant reduction in pain when looking at all patients who have tried them, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The review was also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.

In terms of implications for clinical practice, the findings “seem to suggest there is a subgroup that is more likely to respond to antidepressants,” Anita Wluka, PhD, MBBS, a professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, told attendees. The findings also raise an important research question: “How can we identify the patient phenotype likely to benefit so we can [minimize the] risk of those adverse events and effects?”

Osteoarthritis pain is heterogeneous, and an estimated 30% of the pain is neuropathic-like, likely including central and peripheral sensitization, Dr. Wluka said. Given that antidepressants affect multiple sites along these pathways, multiple organizations have issued a conditional recommendation for duloxetine in their osteoarthritis guidelines, including OARSI, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the American College of Rheumatology.

The Cochrane Collaboration therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the benefits and harms of using antidepressants to treat symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis. The review included studies through January 2021 whose participants had knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and which compared antidepressant therapy with placebo or another intervention for at least 6 weeks. The authors looked at seven outcomes: overall pain on a 0-10 scale, clinical response (at least a 50% reduction in 24‐hour mean pain), physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), quality of life using the EQ-5D, the proportion of participants withdrawing because of adverse events, the proportion who experienced any adverse events, and the proportion who experienced serious adverse events.

The researchers considered a change on the pain scale of 0.5-1 points to be “slight to small,” a difference above 1 up to 2 to be “moderate,” and a difference greater than 2 points to be “large.” In assessing quality of life function on a scale of 0-100, a slight to small difference was 5-10, a moderate difference was 11-20, and a large difference was above 20.

Of the 18 articles the researchers identified for qualitative synthesis, 9 met the criteria for qualitative synthesis in the meta-analysis, including 7 studies only on the knee and 2 that included the knees and hips. All nine studies compared antidepressants with placebo, with or without NSAIDs. Most focused on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – six studies on duloxetine and one on milnacipran – while one included fluvoxamine and one included nortriptyline.

The trials included a combined 2,122 participants who were predominantly female with an average age range of 54-66. Trials ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. Five of the trials carried risk of attrition and reporting bias, and only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains.

In five trials with SNRIs and one trial with tricyclics (nortriptyline) totaling 1,904 participants, 45% of those receiving antidepressants had a clinical response, compared with 29% of patients who received placebo (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92). This absolute improvement in pain occurred in 16% more participants taking antidepressants, giving a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6. Average improvement in WOMAC physical function was 10.5 points with placebo and 16.2 points with antidepressants, indicating a “small, clinically unimportant response,” the researchers concluded.

Withdrawals because of adverse events included 11% of the antidepressant group and 5% of the placebo group (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87), putting the NNT for a harmful outcome at 17.

For all nine trials together, however, the mean reduction in pain from antidepressants was 2.3 points, compared with 1.7 points with placebo, a statistically significant but ”clinically unimportant improvement,” the researchers concluded. Adverse events occurred in 64% of the antidepressant group, compared with 49% of the placebo group (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), which put the NNT for a harmful outcome at 7. No significant difference in serious adverse events occurred between the groups.

The analysis was limited by the low number of trials, most of which were sponsored by industry and most of which used duloxetine. Further, few of the studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, none assessed medium- or long-term effects, and none stratified the participants for different types of pain (neuropathic-like or central or peripheral pain sensitization).

“My general impression is that there was a statistically significant difference found in favor of duloxetine and the antidepressants,” David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, MSc, of the University of Sydney, said after the presentation. “There is a real risk of harm, which I think is important to take into consideration, but at least for me as a clinician and in advising other clinicians, it’s one tool in our armamentarium. I think it’s really important to allow patients to make an informed decision about the potential benefit, the real risk of harm, and the fact that it is quite useful in some patients, and I use it in my clinical practice.”

Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, MS, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he uses antidepressants in the same way in his practice and that other types of medications, such as TNF inhibitors, also carry risk of harm that may exceed that of antidepressants.

“I’ve had lots of people start duloxetine, and if they stop it, it’s usually because they just don’t tolerate it very well,” Dr. Katz said.

“We don’t want to throw too many things away,” Dr. Hunter added. “Our patients don’t necessarily have a lot of choices here from a pharmacologic perspective, so I think it’s one of those options that I want to keep in my tool kit, and that’s not necessarily going to change.”

The research did not involve outside funding, and Dr. Wluka reported having no industry disclosures. Disclosure information was unavailable for Dr. Katz and Dr. Hunter. The Congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

DENVER – Using antidepressants to treat osteoarthritis pain can benefit some individuals but appears to have a clinically unimportant reduction in pain when looking at all patients who have tried them, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The review was also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.

In terms of implications for clinical practice, the findings “seem to suggest there is a subgroup that is more likely to respond to antidepressants,” Anita Wluka, PhD, MBBS, a professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, told attendees. The findings also raise an important research question: “How can we identify the patient phenotype likely to benefit so we can [minimize the] risk of those adverse events and effects?”

Osteoarthritis pain is heterogeneous, and an estimated 30% of the pain is neuropathic-like, likely including central and peripheral sensitization, Dr. Wluka said. Given that antidepressants affect multiple sites along these pathways, multiple organizations have issued a conditional recommendation for duloxetine in their osteoarthritis guidelines, including OARSI, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the American College of Rheumatology.

The Cochrane Collaboration therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the benefits and harms of using antidepressants to treat symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis. The review included studies through January 2021 whose participants had knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and which compared antidepressant therapy with placebo or another intervention for at least 6 weeks. The authors looked at seven outcomes: overall pain on a 0-10 scale, clinical response (at least a 50% reduction in 24‐hour mean pain), physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), quality of life using the EQ-5D, the proportion of participants withdrawing because of adverse events, the proportion who experienced any adverse events, and the proportion who experienced serious adverse events.

The researchers considered a change on the pain scale of 0.5-1 points to be “slight to small,” a difference above 1 up to 2 to be “moderate,” and a difference greater than 2 points to be “large.” In assessing quality of life function on a scale of 0-100, a slight to small difference was 5-10, a moderate difference was 11-20, and a large difference was above 20.

Of the 18 articles the researchers identified for qualitative synthesis, 9 met the criteria for qualitative synthesis in the meta-analysis, including 7 studies only on the knee and 2 that included the knees and hips. All nine studies compared antidepressants with placebo, with or without NSAIDs. Most focused on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – six studies on duloxetine and one on milnacipran – while one included fluvoxamine and one included nortriptyline.

The trials included a combined 2,122 participants who were predominantly female with an average age range of 54-66. Trials ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. Five of the trials carried risk of attrition and reporting bias, and only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains.

In five trials with SNRIs and one trial with tricyclics (nortriptyline) totaling 1,904 participants, 45% of those receiving antidepressants had a clinical response, compared with 29% of patients who received placebo (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92). This absolute improvement in pain occurred in 16% more participants taking antidepressants, giving a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6. Average improvement in WOMAC physical function was 10.5 points with placebo and 16.2 points with antidepressants, indicating a “small, clinically unimportant response,” the researchers concluded.

Withdrawals because of adverse events included 11% of the antidepressant group and 5% of the placebo group (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87), putting the NNT for a harmful outcome at 17.

For all nine trials together, however, the mean reduction in pain from antidepressants was 2.3 points, compared with 1.7 points with placebo, a statistically significant but ”clinically unimportant improvement,” the researchers concluded. Adverse events occurred in 64% of the antidepressant group, compared with 49% of the placebo group (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), which put the NNT for a harmful outcome at 7. No significant difference in serious adverse events occurred between the groups.

The analysis was limited by the low number of trials, most of which were sponsored by industry and most of which used duloxetine. Further, few of the studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, none assessed medium- or long-term effects, and none stratified the participants for different types of pain (neuropathic-like or central or peripheral pain sensitization).

“My general impression is that there was a statistically significant difference found in favor of duloxetine and the antidepressants,” David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, MSc, of the University of Sydney, said after the presentation. “There is a real risk of harm, which I think is important to take into consideration, but at least for me as a clinician and in advising other clinicians, it’s one tool in our armamentarium. I think it’s really important to allow patients to make an informed decision about the potential benefit, the real risk of harm, and the fact that it is quite useful in some patients, and I use it in my clinical practice.”

Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, MS, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he uses antidepressants in the same way in his practice and that other types of medications, such as TNF inhibitors, also carry risk of harm that may exceed that of antidepressants.

“I’ve had lots of people start duloxetine, and if they stop it, it’s usually because they just don’t tolerate it very well,” Dr. Katz said.

“We don’t want to throw too many things away,” Dr. Hunter added. “Our patients don’t necessarily have a lot of choices here from a pharmacologic perspective, so I think it’s one of those options that I want to keep in my tool kit, and that’s not necessarily going to change.”

The research did not involve outside funding, and Dr. Wluka reported having no industry disclosures. Disclosure information was unavailable for Dr. Katz and Dr. Hunter. The Congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

DENVER – Using antidepressants to treat osteoarthritis pain can benefit some individuals but appears to have a clinically unimportant reduction in pain when looking at all patients who have tried them, according to a study presented at the OARSI 2023 World Congress. The review was also published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in October 2022.

In terms of implications for clinical practice, the findings “seem to suggest there is a subgroup that is more likely to respond to antidepressants,” Anita Wluka, PhD, MBBS, a professor in the School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine at Monash University in Melbourne, told attendees. The findings also raise an important research question: “How can we identify the patient phenotype likely to benefit so we can [minimize the] risk of those adverse events and effects?”

Osteoarthritis pain is heterogeneous, and an estimated 30% of the pain is neuropathic-like, likely including central and peripheral sensitization, Dr. Wluka said. Given that antidepressants affect multiple sites along these pathways, multiple organizations have issued a conditional recommendation for duloxetine in their osteoarthritis guidelines, including OARSI, the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and the American College of Rheumatology.

The Cochrane Collaboration therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the benefits and harms of using antidepressants to treat symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis. The review included studies through January 2021 whose participants had knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and which compared antidepressant therapy with placebo or another intervention for at least 6 weeks. The authors looked at seven outcomes: overall pain on a 0-10 scale, clinical response (at least a 50% reduction in 24‐hour mean pain), physical function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), quality of life using the EQ-5D, the proportion of participants withdrawing because of adverse events, the proportion who experienced any adverse events, and the proportion who experienced serious adverse events.

The researchers considered a change on the pain scale of 0.5-1 points to be “slight to small,” a difference above 1 up to 2 to be “moderate,” and a difference greater than 2 points to be “large.” In assessing quality of life function on a scale of 0-100, a slight to small difference was 5-10, a moderate difference was 11-20, and a large difference was above 20.

Of the 18 articles the researchers identified for qualitative synthesis, 9 met the criteria for qualitative synthesis in the meta-analysis, including 7 studies only on the knee and 2 that included the knees and hips. All nine studies compared antidepressants with placebo, with or without NSAIDs. Most focused on serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) – six studies on duloxetine and one on milnacipran – while one included fluvoxamine and one included nortriptyline.

The trials included a combined 2,122 participants who were predominantly female with an average age range of 54-66. Trials ranged from 8 to 16 weeks. Five of the trials carried risk of attrition and reporting bias, and only one trial had low risk of bias across all domains.

In five trials with SNRIs and one trial with tricyclics (nortriptyline) totaling 1,904 participants, 45% of those receiving antidepressants had a clinical response, compared with 29% of patients who received placebo (risk ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.31-1.92). This absolute improvement in pain occurred in 16% more participants taking antidepressants, giving a number needed to treat (NNT) of 6. Average improvement in WOMAC physical function was 10.5 points with placebo and 16.2 points with antidepressants, indicating a “small, clinically unimportant response,” the researchers concluded.

Withdrawals because of adverse events included 11% of the antidepressant group and 5% of the placebo group (RR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.56-2.87), putting the NNT for a harmful outcome at 17.

For all nine trials together, however, the mean reduction in pain from antidepressants was 2.3 points, compared with 1.7 points with placebo, a statistically significant but ”clinically unimportant improvement,” the researchers concluded. Adverse events occurred in 64% of the antidepressant group, compared with 49% of the placebo group (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), which put the NNT for a harmful outcome at 7. No significant difference in serious adverse events occurred between the groups.

The analysis was limited by the low number of trials, most of which were sponsored by industry and most of which used duloxetine. Further, few of the studies enrolled patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, none assessed medium- or long-term effects, and none stratified the participants for different types of pain (neuropathic-like or central or peripheral pain sensitization).

“My general impression is that there was a statistically significant difference found in favor of duloxetine and the antidepressants,” David J. Hunter, MBBS, PhD, MSc, of the University of Sydney, said after the presentation. “There is a real risk of harm, which I think is important to take into consideration, but at least for me as a clinician and in advising other clinicians, it’s one tool in our armamentarium. I think it’s really important to allow patients to make an informed decision about the potential benefit, the real risk of harm, and the fact that it is quite useful in some patients, and I use it in my clinical practice.”

Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, MS, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he uses antidepressants in the same way in his practice and that other types of medications, such as TNF inhibitors, also carry risk of harm that may exceed that of antidepressants.

“I’ve had lots of people start duloxetine, and if they stop it, it’s usually because they just don’t tolerate it very well,” Dr. Katz said.

“We don’t want to throw too many things away,” Dr. Hunter added. “Our patients don’t necessarily have a lot of choices here from a pharmacologic perspective, so I think it’s one of those options that I want to keep in my tool kit, and that’s not necessarily going to change.”

The research did not involve outside funding, and Dr. Wluka reported having no industry disclosures. Disclosure information was unavailable for Dr. Katz and Dr. Hunter. The Congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

NEW ORLEANS – Limited treatment options exist for brittle nail syndrome, a heterogeneous abnormality characterized by increased nail plate fragility, with nails that split, flake, crumble, and become soft and lose elasticity.

“The mainstay of treatment is irritant avoidance and moisturization,” Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of the nail division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This works well if patients are religious about doing it.”

Dr. Lipner

Brittle nail syndrome affects about 20% of adults, she said, and is more common in females, particularly those older than age 50. Most cases are idiopathic, but some are secondary to dermatologic diseases including nail psoriasis and nail lichen planus, and systemic diseases such as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. They are more common in patients in certain occupations such as carpentry. “The pathogenesis is poorly understood but is thought to be due to weakened intercellular keratinocyte bridges, decreased cholesterol sulphate in the nail plate, and reduced water content in the nail plate,” Dr. Lipner said.

Key clinical findings include onychoschizia (peeling of the nail plate), onychorrhexis (an increase in the longitudinal ridges and furrows, sometimes leading to splitting), and superficial granulation of keratin. Treatment involves general measures. “You want to treat the underlying cause and recommend that the patient avoid water and irritant exposure,” she said. Her general instructions for affected patients are to wear latex gloves for wet work and cotton gloves for dry work, avoid triclosan-based hand sanitizers, avoid nail cosmetics, minimize nail trauma, and foster moisturization.“It’s important to give these instructions verbally and in written form,” she said. “In our practice, we designed a QR code that links to our patient handout.”

According to Dr. Lipner, the promotion of vitamins and supplements such as biotin, vitamin D, amino acids, and chromium for treating brittle nail syndrome is rampant on the Internet and on social media, but no rigorously designed clinical trials have shown efficacy for any of them. “Very few people are deficient in biotin, except for those with inherited enzyme deficiencies,” and most people “can get all the biotin they need from a regular diet,” she said.

The initial rationale for using biotin for nails comes from the veterinary literature, she continued. In the 1940s, chickens with biotin deficiency developed fissures in their feet and parrot-like beaks. In the 1970s, pigs with biotin deficiency developed friable hooves, which was corrected with biotin supplementation. “By the 1980s it was standard practice to supplement the feet of pigs with biotin,” she said.

In a human trial from 1989, German researchers enrolled 71 patients with brittle nail syndrome who took oral biotin, 2.5 mg daily. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 41 (91%) showed improvement in firmness and hardness of the fingernails over the course of 5.5 months, but there was no good control group, Dr. Lipner said. In a follow-up study, the same German researchers used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate 22 patients with brittle nails who took oral biotin 2.5 mg daily and compared them with 10 patients with normal nails who did not take biotin. They found a 25% increase in nail plate thickness in the biotin group and onychoschizia resolved in 50% of patients who received biotin. “But again, there was no good control group,” Dr. Lipner said.

In a third study on the topic, researchers surveyed 46 patients who presented with onychorrhexis and/or onychoschizia on clinical exam and took 2.5 mg of biotin daily. Of the 35 survey respondents, 63% subjectively reported improvement in their nails at a mean of 2 months. “This is where we are today: There have been studies of only 80 patients that were done 25 years ago,” Dr. Lipner said. “That’s all of our evidence for biotin for the treatment of brittle nail syndrome.”
 

FDA warning about biotin

Additional cause for concern, she continued, is the safety communication issued by the FDA in 2017, stating that the use of biotin may interfere with certain lab tests such as thyroid tests and cardiac enzymes, in some cases leading to death. The safety communication was updated in 2019.

In 2018, Dr. Lipner and colleagues administered an anonymous survey to 447 patients at their clinic asking about their use of biotin supplements. Of the 447 patients, 34% reported current use of biotin. Among biotin users, 7% were aware of the FDA warning, 29% of respondents reported that it was recommended by either a primary care physician or a dermatologist, and 56% underwent laboratory testing while taking biotin. “It’s our duty to warn our patients about the evidence for biotin for treating brittle nails, and about this interference on laboratory tests,” Dr. Lipner said.

Other treatment options for brittle nail syndrome include two lacquers that are available by prescription. One contains hydroxypropyl chitosan, Equisetum arvense, and methylsulphonylmethane; the other contains 16% poly-ureaurethane, but has not been well studied. “These products can be very expensive if not covered by insurance,” Dr. Lipner said.

As an alternative, she recommends Nail Tek CITRA 2 Nail Strengthener, which is available for less than $10 from Walmart and other retailers.

Cyclosporine emulsion also has been studied for brittle nail syndrome, but results to date have been underwhelming. Dr. Lipner and colleagues are exploring the effect of platelet rich plasma for treating brittle nails on the premise that it will improve nail growth and promote healing, in a 16-week trial that has enrolled 10 patients and includes both a Physician Global Improvement Assessment (PGIA) and a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score. “Our data is being analyzed by three independent nail experts, and we hope to report the findings next year,” she said.

Dr. Lipner reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.

NEW ORLEANS – Limited treatment options exist for brittle nail syndrome, a heterogeneous abnormality characterized by increased nail plate fragility, with nails that split, flake, crumble, and become soft and lose elasticity.

“The mainstay of treatment is irritant avoidance and moisturization,” Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of the nail division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This works well if patients are religious about doing it.”

Dr. Lipner

Brittle nail syndrome affects about 20% of adults, she said, and is more common in females, particularly those older than age 50. Most cases are idiopathic, but some are secondary to dermatologic diseases including nail psoriasis and nail lichen planus, and systemic diseases such as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. They are more common in patients in certain occupations such as carpentry. “The pathogenesis is poorly understood but is thought to be due to weakened intercellular keratinocyte bridges, decreased cholesterol sulphate in the nail plate, and reduced water content in the nail plate,” Dr. Lipner said.

Key clinical findings include onychoschizia (peeling of the nail plate), onychorrhexis (an increase in the longitudinal ridges and furrows, sometimes leading to splitting), and superficial granulation of keratin. Treatment involves general measures. “You want to treat the underlying cause and recommend that the patient avoid water and irritant exposure,” she said. Her general instructions for affected patients are to wear latex gloves for wet work and cotton gloves for dry work, avoid triclosan-based hand sanitizers, avoid nail cosmetics, minimize nail trauma, and foster moisturization.“It’s important to give these instructions verbally and in written form,” she said. “In our practice, we designed a QR code that links to our patient handout.”

According to Dr. Lipner, the promotion of vitamins and supplements such as biotin, vitamin D, amino acids, and chromium for treating brittle nail syndrome is rampant on the Internet and on social media, but no rigorously designed clinical trials have shown efficacy for any of them. “Very few people are deficient in biotin, except for those with inherited enzyme deficiencies,” and most people “can get all the biotin they need from a regular diet,” she said.

The initial rationale for using biotin for nails comes from the veterinary literature, she continued. In the 1940s, chickens with biotin deficiency developed fissures in their feet and parrot-like beaks. In the 1970s, pigs with biotin deficiency developed friable hooves, which was corrected with biotin supplementation. “By the 1980s it was standard practice to supplement the feet of pigs with biotin,” she said.

In a human trial from 1989, German researchers enrolled 71 patients with brittle nail syndrome who took oral biotin, 2.5 mg daily. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 41 (91%) showed improvement in firmness and hardness of the fingernails over the course of 5.5 months, but there was no good control group, Dr. Lipner said. In a follow-up study, the same German researchers used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate 22 patients with brittle nails who took oral biotin 2.5 mg daily and compared them with 10 patients with normal nails who did not take biotin. They found a 25% increase in nail plate thickness in the biotin group and onychoschizia resolved in 50% of patients who received biotin. “But again, there was no good control group,” Dr. Lipner said.

In a third study on the topic, researchers surveyed 46 patients who presented with onychorrhexis and/or onychoschizia on clinical exam and took 2.5 mg of biotin daily. Of the 35 survey respondents, 63% subjectively reported improvement in their nails at a mean of 2 months. “This is where we are today: There have been studies of only 80 patients that were done 25 years ago,” Dr. Lipner said. “That’s all of our evidence for biotin for the treatment of brittle nail syndrome.”
 

FDA warning about biotin

Additional cause for concern, she continued, is the safety communication issued by the FDA in 2017, stating that the use of biotin may interfere with certain lab tests such as thyroid tests and cardiac enzymes, in some cases leading to death. The safety communication was updated in 2019.

In 2018, Dr. Lipner and colleagues administered an anonymous survey to 447 patients at their clinic asking about their use of biotin supplements. Of the 447 patients, 34% reported current use of biotin. Among biotin users, 7% were aware of the FDA warning, 29% of respondents reported that it was recommended by either a primary care physician or a dermatologist, and 56% underwent laboratory testing while taking biotin. “It’s our duty to warn our patients about the evidence for biotin for treating brittle nails, and about this interference on laboratory tests,” Dr. Lipner said.

Other treatment options for brittle nail syndrome include two lacquers that are available by prescription. One contains hydroxypropyl chitosan, Equisetum arvense, and methylsulphonylmethane; the other contains 16% poly-ureaurethane, but has not been well studied. “These products can be very expensive if not covered by insurance,” Dr. Lipner said.

As an alternative, she recommends Nail Tek CITRA 2 Nail Strengthener, which is available for less than $10 from Walmart and other retailers.

Cyclosporine emulsion also has been studied for brittle nail syndrome, but results to date have been underwhelming. Dr. Lipner and colleagues are exploring the effect of platelet rich plasma for treating brittle nails on the premise that it will improve nail growth and promote healing, in a 16-week trial that has enrolled 10 patients and includes both a Physician Global Improvement Assessment (PGIA) and a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score. “Our data is being analyzed by three independent nail experts, and we hope to report the findings next year,” she said.

Dr. Lipner reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.

NEW ORLEANS – Limited treatment options exist for brittle nail syndrome, a heterogeneous abnormality characterized by increased nail plate fragility, with nails that split, flake, crumble, and become soft and lose elasticity.

“The mainstay of treatment is irritant avoidance and moisturization,” Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology and director of the nail division at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “This works well if patients are religious about doing it.”

Dr. Lipner

Brittle nail syndrome affects about 20% of adults, she said, and is more common in females, particularly those older than age 50. Most cases are idiopathic, but some are secondary to dermatologic diseases including nail psoriasis and nail lichen planus, and systemic diseases such as hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. They are more common in patients in certain occupations such as carpentry. “The pathogenesis is poorly understood but is thought to be due to weakened intercellular keratinocyte bridges, decreased cholesterol sulphate in the nail plate, and reduced water content in the nail plate,” Dr. Lipner said.

Key clinical findings include onychoschizia (peeling of the nail plate), onychorrhexis (an increase in the longitudinal ridges and furrows, sometimes leading to splitting), and superficial granulation of keratin. Treatment involves general measures. “You want to treat the underlying cause and recommend that the patient avoid water and irritant exposure,” she said. Her general instructions for affected patients are to wear latex gloves for wet work and cotton gloves for dry work, avoid triclosan-based hand sanitizers, avoid nail cosmetics, minimize nail trauma, and foster moisturization.“It’s important to give these instructions verbally and in written form,” she said. “In our practice, we designed a QR code that links to our patient handout.”

According to Dr. Lipner, the promotion of vitamins and supplements such as biotin, vitamin D, amino acids, and chromium for treating brittle nail syndrome is rampant on the Internet and on social media, but no rigorously designed clinical trials have shown efficacy for any of them. “Very few people are deficient in biotin, except for those with inherited enzyme deficiencies,” and most people “can get all the biotin they need from a regular diet,” she said.

The initial rationale for using biotin for nails comes from the veterinary literature, she continued. In the 1940s, chickens with biotin deficiency developed fissures in their feet and parrot-like beaks. In the 1970s, pigs with biotin deficiency developed friable hooves, which was corrected with biotin supplementation. “By the 1980s it was standard practice to supplement the feet of pigs with biotin,” she said.

In a human trial from 1989, German researchers enrolled 71 patients with brittle nail syndrome who took oral biotin, 2.5 mg daily. Of the 45 patients evaluated, 41 (91%) showed improvement in firmness and hardness of the fingernails over the course of 5.5 months, but there was no good control group, Dr. Lipner said. In a follow-up study, the same German researchers used scanning electron microscopy to evaluate 22 patients with brittle nails who took oral biotin 2.5 mg daily and compared them with 10 patients with normal nails who did not take biotin. They found a 25% increase in nail plate thickness in the biotin group and onychoschizia resolved in 50% of patients who received biotin. “But again, there was no good control group,” Dr. Lipner said.

In a third study on the topic, researchers surveyed 46 patients who presented with onychorrhexis and/or onychoschizia on clinical exam and took 2.5 mg of biotin daily. Of the 35 survey respondents, 63% subjectively reported improvement in their nails at a mean of 2 months. “This is where we are today: There have been studies of only 80 patients that were done 25 years ago,” Dr. Lipner said. “That’s all of our evidence for biotin for the treatment of brittle nail syndrome.”
 

FDA warning about biotin

Additional cause for concern, she continued, is the safety communication issued by the FDA in 2017, stating that the use of biotin may interfere with certain lab tests such as thyroid tests and cardiac enzymes, in some cases leading to death. The safety communication was updated in 2019.

In 2018, Dr. Lipner and colleagues administered an anonymous survey to 447 patients at their clinic asking about their use of biotin supplements. Of the 447 patients, 34% reported current use of biotin. Among biotin users, 7% were aware of the FDA warning, 29% of respondents reported that it was recommended by either a primary care physician or a dermatologist, and 56% underwent laboratory testing while taking biotin. “It’s our duty to warn our patients about the evidence for biotin for treating brittle nails, and about this interference on laboratory tests,” Dr. Lipner said.

Other treatment options for brittle nail syndrome include two lacquers that are available by prescription. One contains hydroxypropyl chitosan, Equisetum arvense, and methylsulphonylmethane; the other contains 16% poly-ureaurethane, but has not been well studied. “These products can be very expensive if not covered by insurance,” Dr. Lipner said.

As an alternative, she recommends Nail Tek CITRA 2 Nail Strengthener, which is available for less than $10 from Walmart and other retailers.

Cyclosporine emulsion also has been studied for brittle nail syndrome, but results to date have been underwhelming. Dr. Lipner and colleagues are exploring the effect of platelet rich plasma for treating brittle nails on the premise that it will improve nail growth and promote healing, in a 16-week trial that has enrolled 10 patients and includes both a Physician Global Improvement Assessment (PGIA) and a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) score. “Our data is being analyzed by three independent nail experts, and we hope to report the findings next year,” she said.

Dr. Lipner reported having no disclosures relevant to her presentation.

Isotretinoin, for severe, nodular acne, comes with complex safety requirements, and on March 28, two Food and Drug Administration advisory committees began a 2-day meeting examining how to relieve some of those burdens for patients, pharmacies, and prescribers.
 

Isotretinoin, previously called Accutane, is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.

In a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, experts addressed ways to improve the modified iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (iPLEDGE REMS) for isotretinoin that caused chaos after its rollout at the end of 2021.

In January 2022, problems were multiplying with the program for clinicians, pharmacists, and patients, causing extensive delays and prescription denials. In response, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve problems.

March 28 was the first day of a 2-day meeting addressing what can be done to reduce burden with the iPLEDGE REMS while maintaining safety and preventing fetal exposure to the drug.
 

Key areas of concern

The meeting focused on several key areas.

The 19-day lockout period

The lockout is a current restriction for patients who can become pregnant and do not pick up their first prescription of isotretinoin within the specified 7-day prescription window. Currently, those who miss the window must wait 19 days from the date of the first pregnancy test to take an additional pregnancy test to be eligible to receive the drug.

Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst for the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, acknowledged that the lockout period causes delays in treatment and adds frustration and costs.

She said it’s important to remember that the lockout applies only to the first prescription. “It’s intended as an additional layer of screening to detect pregnancy,” she said.

“At least 12 pregnancies have been identified during the 19-day lockout from March 2017–September of 2022,” she noted.

The FDA is looking to the advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the lockout period should be changed.
 

Home testing

During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory and home pregnancy tests have been allowed. The question now is whether home tests should continue to be allowed.

Ms. Crist said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.

“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” she said.

Ms. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.

Documenting counseling patients who cannot get pregnant

Currently, this documentation must be done monthly, primarily to counsel patients against drug sharing or giving blood. Proposed changes include extending the intervals for attestation or eliminating it to reduce burden on clinicians.

IPMG representative Gregory Wedin, PharmD, pharmacovigilance and risk management director for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”

He said that while extending to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.

“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Mr. Wedin said.

On March 29, the panel will hear more recommendations for and against modifications to iPLEDGE REMS and will vote on select modifications at the end of the meeting.

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

Isotretinoin, for severe, nodular acne, comes with complex safety requirements, and on March 28, two Food and Drug Administration advisory committees began a 2-day meeting examining how to relieve some of those burdens for patients, pharmacies, and prescribers.
 

Isotretinoin, previously called Accutane, is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.

In a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, experts addressed ways to improve the modified iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (iPLEDGE REMS) for isotretinoin that caused chaos after its rollout at the end of 2021.

In January 2022, problems were multiplying with the program for clinicians, pharmacists, and patients, causing extensive delays and prescription denials. In response, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve problems.

March 28 was the first day of a 2-day meeting addressing what can be done to reduce burden with the iPLEDGE REMS while maintaining safety and preventing fetal exposure to the drug.
 

Key areas of concern

The meeting focused on several key areas.

The 19-day lockout period

The lockout is a current restriction for patients who can become pregnant and do not pick up their first prescription of isotretinoin within the specified 7-day prescription window. Currently, those who miss the window must wait 19 days from the date of the first pregnancy test to take an additional pregnancy test to be eligible to receive the drug.

Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst for the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, acknowledged that the lockout period causes delays in treatment and adds frustration and costs.

She said it’s important to remember that the lockout applies only to the first prescription. “It’s intended as an additional layer of screening to detect pregnancy,” she said.

“At least 12 pregnancies have been identified during the 19-day lockout from March 2017–September of 2022,” she noted.

The FDA is looking to the advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the lockout period should be changed.
 

Home testing

During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory and home pregnancy tests have been allowed. The question now is whether home tests should continue to be allowed.

Ms. Crist said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.

“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” she said.

Ms. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.

Documenting counseling patients who cannot get pregnant

Currently, this documentation must be done monthly, primarily to counsel patients against drug sharing or giving blood. Proposed changes include extending the intervals for attestation or eliminating it to reduce burden on clinicians.

IPMG representative Gregory Wedin, PharmD, pharmacovigilance and risk management director for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”

He said that while extending to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.

“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Mr. Wedin said.

On March 29, the panel will hear more recommendations for and against modifications to iPLEDGE REMS and will vote on select modifications at the end of the meeting.

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

Isotretinoin, for severe, nodular acne, comes with complex safety requirements, and on March 28, two Food and Drug Administration advisory committees began a 2-day meeting examining how to relieve some of those burdens for patients, pharmacies, and prescribers.
 

Isotretinoin, previously called Accutane, is marketed as Absorica, Absorica LD, Claravis, Amnesteem, Myorisan, and Zenatane.

In a joint meeting of the FDA’s Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drugs Advisory Committee, experts addressed ways to improve the modified iPLEDGE Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (iPLEDGE REMS) for isotretinoin that caused chaos after its rollout at the end of 2021.

In January 2022, problems were multiplying with the program for clinicians, pharmacists, and patients, causing extensive delays and prescription denials. In response, the FDA said it would continue to meet with the Isotretinoin Products Manufacturers Group (IPMG) to resolve problems.

March 28 was the first day of a 2-day meeting addressing what can be done to reduce burden with the iPLEDGE REMS while maintaining safety and preventing fetal exposure to the drug.
 

Key areas of concern

The meeting focused on several key areas.

The 19-day lockout period

The lockout is a current restriction for patients who can become pregnant and do not pick up their first prescription of isotretinoin within the specified 7-day prescription window. Currently, those who miss the window must wait 19 days from the date of the first pregnancy test to take an additional pregnancy test to be eligible to receive the drug.

Lindsey Crist, PharmD, a risk management analyst for the FDA, who presented the FDA review committee’s analysis, acknowledged that the lockout period causes delays in treatment and adds frustration and costs.

She said it’s important to remember that the lockout applies only to the first prescription. “It’s intended as an additional layer of screening to detect pregnancy,” she said.

“At least 12 pregnancies have been identified during the 19-day lockout from March 2017–September of 2022,” she noted.

The FDA is looking to the advisory committee to provide recommendations on whether the lockout period should be changed.
 

Home testing

During the pandemic, iPLEDGE rules have been relaxed from having a pregnancy test done only at a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments–certified laboratory and home pregnancy tests have been allowed. The question now is whether home tests should continue to be allowed.

Ms. Crist said that the FDA’s review committee recommends ending the allowance of home tests, citing insufficient data on use and the discovery of instances of falsification of pregnancy tests.

“One study at an academic medical center reviewed the medical records of 89 patients who used home pregnancy tests while taking isotretinoin during the public health emergency. It found that 15.7% submitted falsified pregnancy test results,” she said.

Ms. Crist added, however, that the review committee recommends allowing the tests to be done in a provider’s office as an alternative.

Documenting counseling patients who cannot get pregnant

Currently, this documentation must be done monthly, primarily to counsel patients against drug sharing or giving blood. Proposed changes include extending the intervals for attestation or eliminating it to reduce burden on clinicians.

IPMG representative Gregory Wedin, PharmD, pharmacovigilance and risk management director for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, said, “while we cannot support eliminating or extending the confirmation interval to a year, the [iPLEDGE] sponsors are agreeable [to] a 120-day confirmation interval.”

He said that while extending to 120 days would reduce burden on prescribers, it comes with risk in reducing oversight by a certified iPLEDGE prescriber and potentially increasing the risk for drug sharing.

“A patient may be more likely to share their drug with another person the further along with therapy they get as their condition improves,” Mr. Wedin said.

On March 29, the panel will hear more recommendations for and against modifications to iPLEDGE REMS and will vote on select modifications at the end of the meeting.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ivarmacitinib, which is characterized as being highly selective for the JAK1 enzyme, is effective for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a phase 3 multinational trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.

bravo1954/E+/Getty Images

In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.

The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.

The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.

The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.

For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.

Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).

There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.

Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.

Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.

Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.

In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.

In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.

Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.

In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.

“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.

This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.

Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ivarmacitinib, which is characterized as being highly selective for the JAK1 enzyme, is effective for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a phase 3 multinational trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.

bravo1954/E+/Getty Images

In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.

The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.

The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.

The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.

For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.

Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).

There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.

Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.

Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.

Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.

In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.

In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.

Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.

In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.

“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.

This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.

Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

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

NEW ORLEANS – The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ivarmacitinib, which is characterized as being highly selective for the JAK1 enzyme, is effective for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a phase 3 multinational trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Two doses were studied in the placebo-controlled trial and both demonstrated “a favorable benefit-to-risk profile in patients with moderate to severe AD,” reported Yan Zhao, MD, a clinician and researcher in the department of dermatology, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing.

bravo1954/E+/Getty Images

In the study, called QUARTZ3, 336 patients aged 12 and older at 51 sites in China and Canada were randomized to 4 mg once-daily ivarmacitinib, 8 mg once-daily QD ivarmacitinib, or placebo. The mean age of the population was 32 years and approximately one-third were female.

The mean duration of AD for participants was 10 years. The mean baseline Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score was near 30. On the Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) tool, approximately 40% had a score of 4, which is the highest score on the scale and indicates severe disease. The remaining patients had an IGA score of 3.

The co-primary endpoints were change in IGA and EASI scores at 16 weeks, and both improved rapidly, showing statistical significance relative to placebo by 4 weeks with no plateauing effect at the end of the 16-week trial. By week 16, the proportion of patients with an EASI score of 75, signifying a 75% improvement, was 66%, 54%, and 22% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups (P < .001 versus placebo for both doses of active therapy), respectively.

The pattern of the IGA response was similar. By week 16, the proportion of patients achieving an IGA score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was 42%, 36%, and 9% for the 8-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, 4-mg dose of ivarmacitinib, and placebo groups, respectively. The advantage of either dose over placebo was highly significant (P < .001) at 8, 12, and 16 weeks.

For the WI-NRS (Worst Itch – Numeric Rating Scale), the advantage of the 8-mg dose relative to placebo was significant (P < .001) at the 1-week evaluation. By 2 weeks, the 4-mg dose had gained the same degree of statistical significance relative to placebo. After week 4, when the maximum proportion of patients with a WI-NRS score ≤ 4 was reached (50%, 35%, and 10% in the 8-mg, 4-mg, and placebo groups), and the relative advantage of active treatment persisted until the end of the 16-week study.

Two scales were used to evaluate change in quality of life. On the DLQI (Dermatology Life Quality Index) and POEM (Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure), improvements were again rapid and sustained. By week 4, improvement with the 8-mg dose was about fourfold greater (P < .001) than improvement with placebo for DLQI and about sixfold greater (P < .001) for POEM. For the 4-mg dose, the relative differences were approximately threefold and fourfold greater, and both were significant (P <.001).

There was no further gain in these quality-of-life scales from week 4 to week 16, but the advantages relative to placebo were generally sustained, Dr. Zhao reported.

Ivarmacitinib was safe and well-tolerated, according to Dr. Zhao. The proportion of patients with a treatment-emergent adverse event that led to drug discontinuation was numerically higher (5.4%) in the placebo group than in the 8-mg (3.6%) or 4-mg group (2.7%). Rates of infection in the three groups were similar, and there were no major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or thromboembolism observed in any group.

Ivarmacitinib, which has about a 10-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK2 and a more than 70-fold greater selectivity for JAK1 than JAK3, is being tested for rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and alopecia areata in addition to AD, Dr. Zhao said. She also reported that an application for new drug approval has been submitted in China. Efforts to pursue regulatory approval elsewhere are anticipated.

Currently, there are three JAK inhibitors licensed for the treatment of AD in the United States. Upadacitinib (Rinvoq) and abrocitinib (Cibinqo) are also once-daily oral JAK1-selective inhibitors. Regulatory approval for AD by the Food and Drug Administration was granted to both in early 2022 and both now have an indication for moderate to severe disease in patients ages 12 years and older.

In September 2021, the first U.S. approval of a drug in this class for AD was granted for a topical formulation of ruxolitinib (Opzelura), which has selectivity for both JAK1 and JAK2. The indication is for mild to moderate AD in patients aged 12 years and older.

In the phase 3 clinical trial that led to approval of abrocitinib for AD, the comparator groups included placebo and active treatment with 300 mg dupilumab administered subcutaneously every other week. The higher of two doses of abrocitinib (100 mg) was numerically superior to dupilumab in terms of EASI 75 response at week 12 and was statistically superior for relief of itch at week 2.

Relative to the first-generation JAK inhibitor tofacitinib (Xeljanz), both of the approved oral JAK inhibitors for AD, abrocitinib and upadacitinib, have greater JAK1-selectivity. However, selectivity for all JAK inhibitors is relative rather than absolute, according to a recent review article on oral JAK inhibitors for AD. Efficacy and safety are likely determined by relative inhibition of each of the four JAK enzymes (JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and TYK2). Although JAK1 appears to be an important target for AD treatment, the clinical significance of the degree of selectivity among oral JAK inhibitors is not yet clear.

In an interview, the senior author of that review article, Emma Guttman-Yassky, MD, PhD, emphasized this point. She said there is no evidence and no basis on which to speculate that any one drug in this class is better than another for AD. Dr. Guttman-Yassky is a professor and system chair of dermatology and immunology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

“The efficacy [of ivarmacitinib] seems, in general, to be in line with other JAK inhibitors,” said Dr. Guttman-Yassky, who attended the late-breaker session during which these data were presented. Although she acknowledged that rapid control of pruritus is important clinically, she said the speed of itch relief as reported in the phase 3 ivarmacitinib trial does not distinguish it from other oral drugs in the class.

Shawn Kwatra, MD, director of the Johns Hopkins Itch Center, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, agreed.

“The rapid effects on itch of ivarmacitinib are consistent with those observed by the already approved JAK1-selective inhibitors abrocitinib and upadacitinib,” he said in an interview.

This suggests that head-to-head trials will be needed to draw any conclusions about the relative efficacy and safety of existing and emerging oral JAK inhibitors for AD.

Dr. Zhao has reported a financial relationship with Reistone Biopharma, which is developing ivarmacitinib and provided funding for the trial. Dr. Guttman-Yassky has reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including companies that make JAK inhibitors. Dr. Kwatra has reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Aslan, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex, Galderma, Genzada, Incyte, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.

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

Plasma exchange successfully improved symptoms of immunoglobulin A vasculitis in an adult female patient who developed the condition after infection with COVID-19, according to a case report published in Cureus.

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) vasculitis can affect all ages, but is relatively rare in adults, and the etiology remains unclear, wrote Hassan Alwafi, MD, of Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, and colleagues.

COVID-19 has been associated with pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications, but COVID-19–induced IgA vasculitis has previously been described mainly in pediatric and older adult populations, the authors wrote.

The authors described a case of a 41-year-old otherwise healthy Saudi Arabian woman who presented with an ascending rash on both lower extremities, along with arthralgia. Blood tests showed high blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and inflammatory markers, and a negative immune panel. The patient had been infected with COVID-19 approximately 2 weeks before the onset of symptoms, but she was treated with supportive care and required no antiviral therapy of dexamethasone.

In addition, the patient’s urinalysis showed proteinuria and hematuria. After a kidney biopsy revealed additional abnormalities, the patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy.

A few days after the initiation of therapy, the patient experienced nosebleeds and coughing up blood. After a chest x-ray showed bilateral pleural effusion, the patient was transferred to the ICU. The patient was started on intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam, and received two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange after consultation with a nephrologist. Ultimately, the initial rash and other clinical symptoms improved, and the patient was discharged with a tapering schedule of oral prednisolone.

In this case, COVID-19 may have played a role in the development of IgA vasculitis, the authors said.

The authors also listed 21 cases of IgA vasculitis following COVID-19 infection, including 14 children and 7 adults. Of these, three cases had combined kidney and lung involvement, the two pediatric cases died from respiratory failure, while the adult case was successfully treated with steroid monotherapy.

“As COVID-19 is a novel disease and its pathogenic mechanism of causing IgA vasculitis is not well understood, every patient who is infected with or recently recovered from COVID-19 and presents with a skin rash or arthralgia should have baseline blood and urine tests done and should be treated promptly to avoid the emergence of irreversible consequences,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

Although case reports cannot prove a cause-and-effect link, the data from the cases in the current review suggest that COVID-19 infection may be an indirect trigger for IgA vasculitis, including cases associated with pulmonary renal syndrome, they said. However, more research is needed, especially on the efficacy of treatments in adults, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Plasma exchange successfully improved symptoms of immunoglobulin A vasculitis in an adult female patient who developed the condition after infection with COVID-19, according to a case report published in Cureus.

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) vasculitis can affect all ages, but is relatively rare in adults, and the etiology remains unclear, wrote Hassan Alwafi, MD, of Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, and colleagues.

COVID-19 has been associated with pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications, but COVID-19–induced IgA vasculitis has previously been described mainly in pediatric and older adult populations, the authors wrote.

The authors described a case of a 41-year-old otherwise healthy Saudi Arabian woman who presented with an ascending rash on both lower extremities, along with arthralgia. Blood tests showed high blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and inflammatory markers, and a negative immune panel. The patient had been infected with COVID-19 approximately 2 weeks before the onset of symptoms, but she was treated with supportive care and required no antiviral therapy of dexamethasone.

In addition, the patient’s urinalysis showed proteinuria and hematuria. After a kidney biopsy revealed additional abnormalities, the patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy.

A few days after the initiation of therapy, the patient experienced nosebleeds and coughing up blood. After a chest x-ray showed bilateral pleural effusion, the patient was transferred to the ICU. The patient was started on intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam, and received two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange after consultation with a nephrologist. Ultimately, the initial rash and other clinical symptoms improved, and the patient was discharged with a tapering schedule of oral prednisolone.

In this case, COVID-19 may have played a role in the development of IgA vasculitis, the authors said.

The authors also listed 21 cases of IgA vasculitis following COVID-19 infection, including 14 children and 7 adults. Of these, three cases had combined kidney and lung involvement, the two pediatric cases died from respiratory failure, while the adult case was successfully treated with steroid monotherapy.

“As COVID-19 is a novel disease and its pathogenic mechanism of causing IgA vasculitis is not well understood, every patient who is infected with or recently recovered from COVID-19 and presents with a skin rash or arthralgia should have baseline blood and urine tests done and should be treated promptly to avoid the emergence of irreversible consequences,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

Although case reports cannot prove a cause-and-effect link, the data from the cases in the current review suggest that COVID-19 infection may be an indirect trigger for IgA vasculitis, including cases associated with pulmonary renal syndrome, they said. However, more research is needed, especially on the efficacy of treatments in adults, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Plasma exchange successfully improved symptoms of immunoglobulin A vasculitis in an adult female patient who developed the condition after infection with COVID-19, according to a case report published in Cureus.

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) vasculitis can affect all ages, but is relatively rare in adults, and the etiology remains unclear, wrote Hassan Alwafi, MD, of Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia, and colleagues.

COVID-19 has been associated with pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications, but COVID-19–induced IgA vasculitis has previously been described mainly in pediatric and older adult populations, the authors wrote.

The authors described a case of a 41-year-old otherwise healthy Saudi Arabian woman who presented with an ascending rash on both lower extremities, along with arthralgia. Blood tests showed high blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and inflammatory markers, and a negative immune panel. The patient had been infected with COVID-19 approximately 2 weeks before the onset of symptoms, but she was treated with supportive care and required no antiviral therapy of dexamethasone.

In addition, the patient’s urinalysis showed proteinuria and hematuria. After a kidney biopsy revealed additional abnormalities, the patient was started on intravenous methylprednisolone pulse therapy.

A few days after the initiation of therapy, the patient experienced nosebleeds and coughing up blood. After a chest x-ray showed bilateral pleural effusion, the patient was transferred to the ICU. The patient was started on intravenous piperacillin-tazobactam, and received two doses of intravenous immunoglobulin and plasma exchange after consultation with a nephrologist. Ultimately, the initial rash and other clinical symptoms improved, and the patient was discharged with a tapering schedule of oral prednisolone.

In this case, COVID-19 may have played a role in the development of IgA vasculitis, the authors said.

The authors also listed 21 cases of IgA vasculitis following COVID-19 infection, including 14 children and 7 adults. Of these, three cases had combined kidney and lung involvement, the two pediatric cases died from respiratory failure, while the adult case was successfully treated with steroid monotherapy.

“As COVID-19 is a novel disease and its pathogenic mechanism of causing IgA vasculitis is not well understood, every patient who is infected with or recently recovered from COVID-19 and presents with a skin rash or arthralgia should have baseline blood and urine tests done and should be treated promptly to avoid the emergence of irreversible consequences,” the authors wrote in their discussion.

Although case reports cannot prove a cause-and-effect link, the data from the cases in the current review suggest that COVID-19 infection may be an indirect trigger for IgA vasculitis, including cases associated with pulmonary renal syndrome, they said. However, more research is needed, especially on the efficacy of treatments in adults, they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The sleep aid melatonin is associated with a reduced risk of self-harm in adolescents with psychiatric disorders, new research suggests. However, at least one expert has some concerns about the strength of the evidence.

The results suggest improving sleep hygiene in this population may reduce self-injury, study investigator Sarah E. Bergen, PhD, associate professor, department of medical epidemiology and biostatistics, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, said in an interview.

In addition, she noted, for “pediatric patients who are experiencing sleep problems, melatonin is a safe and effective way to help them.”

Dr. Bergen believes clinicians should recommend melatonin to all teens because “there’s little harm that could come from it and possibly a lot of benefit.”

The findings were published online in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
 

Few treatments available

Research shows sleep disorders like insomnia are common in youth, particularly among those with psychiatric disorders. Sleep disorders can significantly affect daytime functioning, cognition, emotional regulation, and behavior, and can be a risk factor for unintentional injuries such as falls and vehicular accidents, as well as for intentional self-harm.

The lifetime prevalence of self-harm in youth is estimated to be 17%, but this varies across study designs. There are few treatments for self-harm in youth, although psychosocial treatments appear promising.

Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone secreted primarily by the pineal gland in response to darkness. It helps promote and maintain the normal sleep-wake cycle and is involved in other biological functions.

In Sweden, melatonin is the most commonly prescribed drug for sleep disturbances in children and adolescents. Prior to 2020, during the course of the study, it was only available by prescription.

The study, which used linked national databases, included 25,575 children and adolescents, 58.2% of them male, who initiated a melatonin treatment between the ages of 6 and 18 years.

Researchers estimated the risks of self-harm, including poisoning (57%) and cutting (34%). The fact that poisoning was more common than cutting was somewhat surprising, said Dr. Bergen. “I would have thought the opposite would be true; that cutting was more prevalent.”

The study examined the risk of self-harm in individual participants by comparing the last unmedicated month with the 12 months after initiating melatonin treatment. In this way, they accounted for potential confounders such as genetics, sleep disorder severity, and psychiatric disorders.

The median age at first melatonin prescription was 13 years for males and 15 years for females.

While there were no statistically significant changes in relative risk for body injuries, falls, and transport accidents, the relative risk for self-injury was statistically significantly lower during the months following melatonin treatment initiation.

The incidence rate ratio in the month following treatment was 0.58 (95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.73) for self-harm and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.45-0.78) for poisoning.
 

Higher risks in females

The relative risk of self-harm was higher in females than males. This, said Dr. Bergen, is possibly because self-harm is more common in adolescence than in childhood. Female study participants were older than their male counterparts.

Melatonin may help male teens, too, she said. “It’s just that the problem is not that great in males to begin with, so a decrease is not very dramatic after melatonin initiation.”

About 87.2% of participants treated with melatonin were diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder. Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, the most common comorbidity, was diagnosed in more than 50% of new melatonin users. This isn’t surprising, because sleep disturbances are associated with this psychiatric condition and are frequent side effects of ADHD medications.

After ADHD, anxiety and depression were the next most common psychiatric disorders among study subjects. The analysis found risks for self-harm and poisoning were largely driven by patients suffering from one or both of these disorders, particularly among females.

The IRR in the month following melatonin treatment initiation was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.27-0.76] among adolescent females with psychiatric disorders, after excluding antidepressant users.

Melatonin may reduce the risk of self-harm by treating sleep problems related to psychiatric comorbidities, especially anxiety and depression. It could also decrease pain sensitivity experienced by adolescents who self-harm.

Other factors could play a role in treating sleep problems and/or preventing self-harm in these patients. For example, increased clinician awareness and monitoring, behavioral interventions, a placebo effect, and concurrent use of other medications.

When researchers ran an analysis that excluded individuals taking an antidepressant, “surprisingly, there wasn’t much difference,” said Dr. Bergen. “We thought antidepressants might be causing some of the effect we observed, but when we removed antidepressant users, we saw a very similar pattern of intentional self-harm rates following melatonin use, which suggests melatonin is causal, but we can’t prove that.”

Other sleep medications such as sedatives could also affect self-harm rates by improving sleep. However, these are not typically prescribed to children because of their side effects and overdose potential, said Dr. Bergen.

“Melatonin is extremely safe and side effects are rare; it’s impossible to overdose, and people really can’t hurt themselves with it.”
 

More research needed

Adrian Jacques Ambrose, MD, medical director, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, and assistant professor of psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, pointed out some evidence in the study is relatively weak.

“When the authors separated out the on- and off-melatonin groups, it looks like there wasn’t a statistically significant difference [in IRRs] between the two groups – for example, in any injury, self-harm, or poisoning – and this weakens their argument that melatonin is associated with self-harm and poisoning.”

Given the current youth mental health crisis, more research “would absolutely be indicated” to better explore possible additional variables, said Dr. Ambrose.

“For example, some additional follow-up studies may add on covariates in conjunction with melatonin usage, such as the number of medical appointments, the presence of psychotherapeutic interventions, dosage of melatonin, or even the sleepiness scale, to evaluate whether the symptoms of sleep disturbances are more directly correlated with the self-harm behaviors.”

The study was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. Dr. Bergen and Dr. Ambrose report no relevant financial relationships.

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