Study Overview

Objective. To compare the outcomes of 18 months versus 36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).

Design. Phase 3 multicenter, randomized superiority trial.

Participants. This study enrolled patients aged ≤ 80 years with HRPC. All patients had no evidence of regional or distant metastasis. High-risk disease was defined as any of the following: clinical stage T3 or T4, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level > 20 ng/mL, or Gleason score > 7.

Methods. Prior to randomization, all patients received 4 months of ADT with goserelin 10.8 mg and anti-androgen therapy with bicalutamide 50 mg daily for 30 days. Patients were then randomly assigned to 18 (short arm) or 36 (long arm) months of ADT in combination with radiation therapy (RT). The randomization was stratified by stage (T1-2 vs T3-4), Gleason score (< 7 vs > 7) and PSA level (< 20 ng/mL vs > 20 ng/mL). The standard radiation dose was 70 Gy to the prostate and 44 Gy to the pelvis. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging exam of the abdomen and pelvis and a bone scan were performed to rule out regional or distant metastases. PSA level was monitored every 3 months for 18 months, every 6 months up to the third year, and yearly thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The 2 primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) at 5 years. The secondary end points were biochemical failure (BF)defined as PSA nadir plus 2, disease-free survival (DFS), and site(s) of tumor relapse.

Main results. The 5-year OS was 91% and 86% for the 36- and 18-month groups, respectively (P = 0.07). The 10-year OS was 62% for both groups (P = 0.7), and the global hazard ratio (HR) was 1.02 (P = 0.8). The disease-specific survival (DSS) was similar in both groups at 5 years (98% vs 97%) and at 10 years (91% vs 92%) in the long versus short arm, respectively. The rate of prostate cancer–specific death was 21% versus 23% in the long versus short arm, respectively. In a multivariate analysis for OS, only age and Gleason score > 7 were statistically significant survival predictors. BF rate at 10 years was 25% for 36 months as compared with 31% for 18 months (HR, 0.71, P = 0.02). The 10-year DFS rates were 45% and 39% for 36 and 18 months, respectively (HR, 0.68, P = 0.08). Forty patients in the long arm versus 43 in the short arm developed distant metastasis. Both groups developed similar sites of metastasis, which was predominantly osseous. Some aspects of the EORTC30 and PR25 scales were significant, mostly pertaining to sexual activity, fatigue, and hormone-related symptoms in favor of the 18-month group. The median time to testosterone recovery after completion of ADT was 2.1 years for the short arm versus 4 years in the long arm (P = 0.02). The compliance rate with ADT was 88% in the short arm versus 53% in the long arm. The main reason for nonadherence was side effects in 54% of the patients in the long arm and 31% in the short arm.

Conclusion. The results of the current study suggest that 18 months of ADT in combination with RT yields similar 10-year OS and improved QoL compared with 36 months in patients with HRPC.

Commentary

The role of ADT for HRPC in combination with RT has been well established by evidence from several trials; however, the comparator arms and patient characteristics between these studies have been quite heterogeneous. For instance, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 85-31 trial compared indefinite ADT with RT versus RT alone and showed significantly better 10-year OS in the ADT plus RT arm.¹ Similarly, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EROTC) 22961 trial showed an OS benefit for 36 months versus 6 months of ADT in combination with radiation.² Additionally, the RTOG 92-02 trial, which compared 4 months versus 24 months of ADT with radiation, also found a significantly improved 10-year OS with a longer course of ADT.³ Taken together these data suggest that 4 to 6 months of ADT is inferior to 24 to 36 months of ADT in HRPC.

Several differences, however, exist in patient characteristics between the present trial and the earlier trials, justifiably reflecting the change of practice in the PSA era. For instance, the present study has a higher percentage of patients with Gleason scores 8-10 (60%) compared to the EROTC and RTOG studies (15%-35%) and a lower percentage of patients with T3 and T4 tumors. Patients with high Gleason scores are believed to have a higher risk of micro-metastasis at the time of diagnosis and higher chances of castration resistance. Therefore, inclusion of a (presumably) larger high-risk patient subgroup in the present study lends further credence to results indicating similar OS with a shorter course of ADT. A post hoc analysis including only patients with Gleason score 8-10 performed for OS, DSS, BF, and DFS showed no significant difference in any of these variables between the arms. Analysis of the interaction between ADT duration in the Gleason 8-10 subgroup versus Gleason 7 for OS, DFS, DSS and BF found no significant differences. This again suggests that 18 months of ADT may be sufficient for this high-risk group; however, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this unplanned subgroup analysis.

Based on the results of the current study, it seems that 18 months of ADT is adequate for many, but not necessarily all, patients. For instance, there was a significantly higher incidence of BF in the 18-month arm. Applying this data to younger patients may require a more nuanced approach, as it is possible that with longer follow-up this higher rate of BF may translate into a difference in OS. Therefore, life expectancy and comorbid conditions always need to be incorporated into clinical decision making with regards to ADT duration. In a study by Rose et al, the risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality significantly decreased by using ADT plus RT for men with HRPC with a low, but not a high, competing mortality score.⁴ The clinical significance of this finding is that adding ADT to RT might significantly reduce the risk of death from prostate cancer only in the setting of low competing risks.

Another concept to ponder is the optimum duration of ADT in the era of RT dose escalation. Currently, there are emerging techniques for delivering higher radiation doses and combining brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for HRPC, and the role of whole pelvic radiation is being investigated. New data suggests that higher radiation doses can lead to improvement in outcomes for HRPC. The DART01/05 study compared 4 versus 24 months of ADT with 76 to 82 Gy of RT and reported improved 5-year OS, DFS, and metastasis-free survival with longer ADT duration.⁵ Moreover, Kishan et al reported improved prostate cancer–specific mortality when brachytherapy boost was added to radiation compared to radiation alone in patients with Gleason scores 9 and 10.⁶ Therefore, the optimal duration of ADT in the setting of dose-escalated radiotherapy is not yet known. Also, it is important to note that unlike the prior RTOG and EORTC studies, this study did not include patients with evidence of regional nodal disease, and thus the present data should not be applied to this patient population.

Applications to Clinical Practice

This study’s results suggesting that 18 months of ADT in combination with RT yields similar 10-year OS and improved QoL compared with 36 months of ADT in patients with HRPC should be interpreted with caution when treating very young patients, since the higher rate of BF in the short arm may impact the OS with longer follow-up. Additionally, patients’ QoL and tolerance to ADT-related adverse effects should be taken into consideration given that compliance with 36 months of ADT was only 53% in this study.

—Jailan Elayoubi, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the outcomes of 18 months versus 36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).

Design. Phase 3 multicenter, randomized superiority trial.

Participants. This study enrolled patients aged ≤ 80 years with HRPC. All patients had no evidence of regional or distant metastasis. High-risk disease was defined as any of the following: clinical stage T3 or T4, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level > 20 ng/mL, or Gleason score > 7.

Methods. Prior to randomization, all patients received 4 months of ADT with goserelin 10.8 mg and anti-androgen therapy with bicalutamide 50 mg daily for 30 days. Patients were then randomly assigned to 18 (short arm) or 36 (long arm) months of ADT in combination with radiation therapy (RT). The randomization was stratified by stage (T1-2 vs T3-4), Gleason score (< 7 vs > 7) and PSA level (< 20 ng/mL vs > 20 ng/mL). The standard radiation dose was 70 Gy to the prostate and 44 Gy to the pelvis. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging exam of the abdomen and pelvis and a bone scan were performed to rule out regional or distant metastases. PSA level was monitored every 3 months for 18 months, every 6 months up to the third year, and yearly thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The 2 primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) at 5 years. The secondary end points were biochemical failure (BF)defined as PSA nadir plus 2, disease-free survival (DFS), and site(s) of tumor relapse.

Main results. The 5-year OS was 91% and 86% for the 36- and 18-month groups, respectively (P = 0.07). The 10-year OS was 62% for both groups (P = 0.7), and the global hazard ratio (HR) was 1.02 (P = 0.8). The disease-specific survival (DSS) was similar in both groups at 5 years (98% vs 97%) and at 10 years (91% vs 92%) in the long versus short arm, respectively. The rate of prostate cancer–specific death was 21% versus 23% in the long versus short arm, respectively. In a multivariate analysis for OS, only age and Gleason score > 7 were statistically significant survival predictors. BF rate at 10 years was 25% for 36 months as compared with 31% for 18 months (HR, 0.71, P = 0.02). The 10-year DFS rates were 45% and 39% for 36 and 18 months, respectively (HR, 0.68, P = 0.08). Forty patients in the long arm versus 43 in the short arm developed distant metastasis. Both groups developed similar sites of metastasis, which was predominantly osseous. Some aspects of the EORTC30 and PR25 scales were significant, mostly pertaining to sexual activity, fatigue, and hormone-related symptoms in favor of the 18-month group. The median time to testosterone recovery after completion of ADT was 2.1 years for the short arm versus 4 years in the long arm (P = 0.02). The compliance rate with ADT was 88% in the short arm versus 53% in the long arm. The main reason for nonadherence was side effects in 54% of the patients in the long arm and 31% in the short arm.

Conclusion. The results of the current study suggest that 18 months of ADT in combination with RT yields similar 10-year OS and improved QoL compared with 36 months in patients with HRPC.

Commentary

The role of ADT for HRPC in combination with RT has been well established by evidence from several trials; however, the comparator arms and patient characteristics between these studies have been quite heterogeneous. For instance, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 85-31 trial compared indefinite ADT with RT versus RT alone and showed significantly better 10-year OS in the ADT plus RT arm.¹ Similarly, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EROTC) 22961 trial showed an OS benefit for 36 months versus 6 months of ADT in combination with radiation.² Additionally, the RTOG 92-02 trial, which compared 4 months versus 24 months of ADT with radiation, also found a significantly improved 10-year OS with a longer course of ADT.³ Taken together these data suggest that 4 to 6 months of ADT is inferior to 24 to 36 months of ADT in HRPC.

Several differences, however, exist in patient characteristics between the present trial and the earlier trials, justifiably reflecting the change of practice in the PSA era. For instance, the present study has a higher percentage of patients with Gleason scores 8-10 (60%) compared to the EROTC and RTOG studies (15%-35%) and a lower percentage of patients with T3 and T4 tumors. Patients with high Gleason scores are believed to have a higher risk of micro-metastasis at the time of diagnosis and higher chances of castration resistance. Therefore, inclusion of a (presumably) larger high-risk patient subgroup in the present study lends further credence to results indicating similar OS with a shorter course of ADT. A post hoc analysis including only patients with Gleason score 8-10 performed for OS, DSS, BF, and DFS showed no significant difference in any of these variables between the arms. Analysis of the interaction between ADT duration in the Gleason 8-10 subgroup versus Gleason 7 for OS, DFS, DSS and BF found no significant differences. This again suggests that 18 months of ADT may be sufficient for this high-risk group; however, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this unplanned subgroup analysis.

Based on the results of the current study, it seems that 18 months of ADT is adequate for many, but not necessarily all, patients. For instance, there was a significantly higher incidence of BF in the 18-month arm. Applying this data to younger patients may require a more nuanced approach, as it is possible that with longer follow-up this higher rate of BF may translate into a difference in OS. Therefore, life expectancy and comorbid conditions always need to be incorporated into clinical decision making with regards to ADT duration. In a study by Rose et al, the risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality significantly decreased by using ADT plus RT for men with HRPC with a low, but not a high, competing mortality score.⁴ The clinical significance of this finding is that adding ADT to RT might significantly reduce the risk of death from prostate cancer only in the setting of low competing risks.

Another concept to ponder is the optimum duration of ADT in the era of RT dose escalation. Currently, there are emerging techniques for delivering higher radiation doses and combining brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for HRPC, and the role of whole pelvic radiation is being investigated. New data suggests that higher radiation doses can lead to improvement in outcomes for HRPC. The DART01/05 study compared 4 versus 24 months of ADT with 76 to 82 Gy of RT and reported improved 5-year OS, DFS, and metastasis-free survival with longer ADT duration.⁵ Moreover, Kishan et al reported improved prostate cancer–specific mortality when brachytherapy boost was added to radiation compared to radiation alone in patients with Gleason scores 9 and 10.⁶ Therefore, the optimal duration of ADT in the setting of dose-escalated radiotherapy is not yet known. Also, it is important to note that unlike the prior RTOG and EORTC studies, this study did not include patients with evidence of regional nodal disease, and thus the present data should not be applied to this patient population.

Applications to Clinical Practice

This study’s results suggesting that 18 months of ADT in combination with RT yields similar 10-year OS and improved QoL compared with 36 months of ADT in patients with HRPC should be interpreted with caution when treating very young patients, since the higher rate of BF in the short arm may impact the OS with longer follow-up. Additionally, patients’ QoL and tolerance to ADT-related adverse effects should be taken into consideration given that compliance with 36 months of ADT was only 53% in this study.

—Jailan Elayoubi, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

Study Overview

Objective. To compare the outcomes of 18 months versus 36 months of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) combined with radiation in high-risk prostate cancer (HRPC).

Design. Phase 3 multicenter, randomized superiority trial.

Participants. This study enrolled patients aged ≤ 80 years with HRPC. All patients had no evidence of regional or distant metastasis. High-risk disease was defined as any of the following: clinical stage T3 or T4, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level > 20 ng/mL, or Gleason score > 7.

Methods. Prior to randomization, all patients received 4 months of ADT with goserelin 10.8 mg and anti-androgen therapy with bicalutamide 50 mg daily for 30 days. Patients were then randomly assigned to 18 (short arm) or 36 (long arm) months of ADT in combination with radiation therapy (RT). The randomization was stratified by stage (T1-2 vs T3-4), Gleason score (< 7 vs > 7) and PSA level (< 20 ng/mL vs > 20 ng/mL). The standard radiation dose was 70 Gy to the prostate and 44 Gy to the pelvis. Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging exam of the abdomen and pelvis and a bone scan were performed to rule out regional or distant metastases. PSA level was monitored every 3 months for 18 months, every 6 months up to the third year, and yearly thereafter.

Main outcome measures. The 2 primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) at 5 years. The secondary end points were biochemical failure (BF)defined as PSA nadir plus 2, disease-free survival (DFS), and site(s) of tumor relapse.

Main results. The 5-year OS was 91% and 86% for the 36- and 18-month groups, respectively (P = 0.07). The 10-year OS was 62% for both groups (P = 0.7), and the global hazard ratio (HR) was 1.02 (P = 0.8). The disease-specific survival (DSS) was similar in both groups at 5 years (98% vs 97%) and at 10 years (91% vs 92%) in the long versus short arm, respectively. The rate of prostate cancer–specific death was 21% versus 23% in the long versus short arm, respectively. In a multivariate analysis for OS, only age and Gleason score > 7 were statistically significant survival predictors. BF rate at 10 years was 25% for 36 months as compared with 31% for 18 months (HR, 0.71, P = 0.02). The 10-year DFS rates were 45% and 39% for 36 and 18 months, respectively (HR, 0.68, P = 0.08). Forty patients in the long arm versus 43 in the short arm developed distant metastasis. Both groups developed similar sites of metastasis, which was predominantly osseous. Some aspects of the EORTC30 and PR25 scales were significant, mostly pertaining to sexual activity, fatigue, and hormone-related symptoms in favor of the 18-month group. The median time to testosterone recovery after completion of ADT was 2.1 years for the short arm versus 4 years in the long arm (P = 0.02). The compliance rate with ADT was 88% in the short arm versus 53% in the long arm. The main reason for nonadherence was side effects in 54% of the patients in the long arm and 31% in the short arm.

Conclusion. The results of the current study suggest that 18 months of ADT in combination with RT yields similar 10-year OS and improved QoL compared with 36 months in patients with HRPC.

Commentary

The role of ADT for HRPC in combination with RT has been well established by evidence from several trials; however, the comparator arms and patient characteristics between these studies have been quite heterogeneous. For instance, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) 85-31 trial compared indefinite ADT with RT versus RT alone and showed significantly better 10-year OS in the ADT plus RT arm.¹ Similarly, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EROTC) 22961 trial showed an OS benefit for 36 months versus 6 months of ADT in combination with radiation.² Additionally, the RTOG 92-02 trial, which compared 4 months versus 24 months of ADT with radiation, also found a significantly improved 10-year OS with a longer course of ADT.³ Taken together these data suggest that 4 to 6 months of ADT is inferior to 24 to 36 months of ADT in HRPC.

Several differences, however, exist in patient characteristics between the present trial and the earlier trials, justifiably reflecting the change of practice in the PSA era. For instance, the present study has a higher percentage of patients with Gleason scores 8-10 (60%) compared to the EROTC and RTOG studies (15%-35%) and a lower percentage of patients with T3 and T4 tumors. Patients with high Gleason scores are believed to have a higher risk of micro-metastasis at the time of diagnosis and higher chances of castration resistance. Therefore, inclusion of a (presumably) larger high-risk patient subgroup in the present study lends further credence to results indicating similar OS with a shorter course of ADT. A post hoc analysis including only patients with Gleason score 8-10 performed for OS, DSS, BF, and DFS showed no significant difference in any of these variables between the arms. Analysis of the interaction between ADT duration in the Gleason 8-10 subgroup versus Gleason 7 for OS, DFS, DSS and BF found no significant differences. This again suggests that 18 months of ADT may be sufficient for this high-risk group; however, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from this unplanned subgroup analysis.

Based on the results of the current study, it seems that 18 months of ADT is adequate for many, but not necessarily all, patients. For instance, there was a significantly higher incidence of BF in the 18-month arm. Applying this data to younger patients may require a more nuanced approach, as it is possible that with longer follow-up this higher rate of BF may translate into a difference in OS. Therefore, life expectancy and comorbid conditions always need to be incorporated into clinical decision making with regards to ADT duration. In a study by Rose et al, the risk of prostate cancer–specific mortality significantly decreased by using ADT plus RT for men with HRPC with a low, but not a high, competing mortality score.⁴ The clinical significance of this finding is that adding ADT to RT might significantly reduce the risk of death from prostate cancer only in the setting of low competing risks.

Another concept to ponder is the optimum duration of ADT in the era of RT dose escalation. Currently, there are emerging techniques for delivering higher radiation doses and combining brachytherapy with external beam radiotherapy for HRPC, and the role of whole pelvic radiation is being investigated. New data suggests that higher radiation doses can lead to improvement in outcomes for HRPC. The DART01/05 study compared 4 versus 24 months of ADT with 76 to 82 Gy of RT and reported improved 5-year OS, DFS, and metastasis-free survival with longer ADT duration.⁵ Moreover, Kishan et al reported improved prostate cancer–specific mortality when brachytherapy boost was added to radiation compared to radiation alone in patients with Gleason scores 9 and 10.⁶ Therefore, the optimal duration of ADT in the setting of dose-escalated radiotherapy is not yet known. Also, it is important to note that unlike the prior RTOG and EORTC studies, this study did not include patients with evidence of regional nodal disease, and thus the present data should not be applied to this patient population.

Applications to Clinical Practice

This study’s results suggesting that 18 months of ADT in combination with RT yields similar 10-year OS and improved QoL compared with 36 months of ADT in patients with HRPC should be interpreted with caution when treating very young patients, since the higher rate of BF in the short arm may impact the OS with longer follow-up. Additionally, patients’ QoL and tolerance to ADT-related adverse effects should be taken into consideration given that compliance with 36 months of ADT was only 53% in this study.

—Jailan Elayoubi, MD, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI

In a previous Letter from Maine I wrote about a study performed in China in which more than half a million patients were diagnosed by an artificial intelligence (A.I.) system that was able to extract and analyze information from their electronic medical records. The system was at least as accurate as physicians who had access to the same data (“A.I. Shows Promise Assisting Physicians,” by Cade Metz, The New York Times, Feb. 11, 2019). I ended my column with the hopeful assumption that despite incredible advances in A.I., the practice of medicine always would include a human element. However, I left unexplained exactly how physicians would fit into the post-A.I. revolution. In the weeks since I submitted that column, I have been searching for roles that might remain for physicians after A.I. has snatched their bread and butter of diagnosis and management.

gpointstudio/Thinkstock

I discovered there always will be a need be someone in the health care delivery system to serve as a communicator and translator for the patient. I easily can envision a system in which the patient enters her chief complaint and current symptoms into her smartphone or tablet. Using its database of the patient’s past, family, and social history, the system generates a list of laboratory and imaging studies, some of which the patient may be able to submit directly from her handheld device. For example, the system may be able to use the patient’s phone to “examine” her. The A.I. system then generates a diagnosis.

If the diagnosed condition and management is simple and straightforward, such as a rash, the information could be communicated to the patient directly, with a short paragraph of explanation and list of persistent symptoms that would indicate that the condition was not improving as expected. A contact dermatitis comes to mind here.

However, suppose the A.I. system determines that the patient has a 90% chance of having stage IV pancreatic cancer, with a life expectancy of 6 months. Is this the kind of information you would like to learn about yourself by clicking “Your Diagnosis” box on your phone while you were having lunch with a friend? Obviously, a diagnosis of this severity should be communicated human to human, even though it was generated by a highly accurate computer system. And this communication would best be done in the form of a dialogue with someone who knows the patient and has some understanding of how she might understand and cope with the information. In the absence of a prior relationship, the dialogue should occur in real time and face to face at a minimum. I guess we have to acknowledge that FaceTime or Skype might be acceptable here.

Fortunately, stage IV cancers are rare, but there are a bazillion other conditions that, while not serious, require a nuanced explanation as part of a successful management plan that takes into account the patient’s level of anxiety and cognitive abilities. A boilerplate paragraph or two spit out by an A.I. system isn’t good health care. Although I know many physicians do rely on printed handouts for conditions they feel is a no-brainer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In a previous Letter from Maine I wrote about a study performed in China in which more than half a million patients were diagnosed by an artificial intelligence (A.I.) system that was able to extract and analyze information from their electronic medical records. The system was at least as accurate as physicians who had access to the same data (“A.I. Shows Promise Assisting Physicians,” by Cade Metz, The New York Times, Feb. 11, 2019). I ended my column with the hopeful assumption that despite incredible advances in A.I., the practice of medicine always would include a human element. However, I left unexplained exactly how physicians would fit into the post-A.I. revolution. In the weeks since I submitted that column, I have been searching for roles that might remain for physicians after A.I. has snatched their bread and butter of diagnosis and management.

gpointstudio/Thinkstock

I discovered there always will be a need be someone in the health care delivery system to serve as a communicator and translator for the patient. I easily can envision a system in which the patient enters her chief complaint and current symptoms into her smartphone or tablet. Using its database of the patient’s past, family, and social history, the system generates a list of laboratory and imaging studies, some of which the patient may be able to submit directly from her handheld device. For example, the system may be able to use the patient’s phone to “examine” her. The A.I. system then generates a diagnosis.

If the diagnosed condition and management is simple and straightforward, such as a rash, the information could be communicated to the patient directly, with a short paragraph of explanation and list of persistent symptoms that would indicate that the condition was not improving as expected. A contact dermatitis comes to mind here.

However, suppose the A.I. system determines that the patient has a 90% chance of having stage IV pancreatic cancer, with a life expectancy of 6 months. Is this the kind of information you would like to learn about yourself by clicking “Your Diagnosis” box on your phone while you were having lunch with a friend? Obviously, a diagnosis of this severity should be communicated human to human, even though it was generated by a highly accurate computer system. And this communication would best be done in the form of a dialogue with someone who knows the patient and has some understanding of how she might understand and cope with the information. In the absence of a prior relationship, the dialogue should occur in real time and face to face at a minimum. I guess we have to acknowledge that FaceTime or Skype might be acceptable here.

Fortunately, stage IV cancers are rare, but there are a bazillion other conditions that, while not serious, require a nuanced explanation as part of a successful management plan that takes into account the patient’s level of anxiety and cognitive abilities. A boilerplate paragraph or two spit out by an A.I. system isn’t good health care. Although I know many physicians do rely on printed handouts for conditions they feel is a no-brainer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

In a previous Letter from Maine I wrote about a study performed in China in which more than half a million patients were diagnosed by an artificial intelligence (A.I.) system that was able to extract and analyze information from their electronic medical records. The system was at least as accurate as physicians who had access to the same data (“A.I. Shows Promise Assisting Physicians,” by Cade Metz, The New York Times, Feb. 11, 2019). I ended my column with the hopeful assumption that despite incredible advances in A.I., the practice of medicine always would include a human element. However, I left unexplained exactly how physicians would fit into the post-A.I. revolution. In the weeks since I submitted that column, I have been searching for roles that might remain for physicians after A.I. has snatched their bread and butter of diagnosis and management.

gpointstudio/Thinkstock

I discovered there always will be a need be someone in the health care delivery system to serve as a communicator and translator for the patient. I easily can envision a system in which the patient enters her chief complaint and current symptoms into her smartphone or tablet. Using its database of the patient’s past, family, and social history, the system generates a list of laboratory and imaging studies, some of which the patient may be able to submit directly from her handheld device. For example, the system may be able to use the patient’s phone to “examine” her. The A.I. system then generates a diagnosis.

If the diagnosed condition and management is simple and straightforward, such as a rash, the information could be communicated to the patient directly, with a short paragraph of explanation and list of persistent symptoms that would indicate that the condition was not improving as expected. A contact dermatitis comes to mind here.

However, suppose the A.I. system determines that the patient has a 90% chance of having stage IV pancreatic cancer, with a life expectancy of 6 months. Is this the kind of information you would like to learn about yourself by clicking “Your Diagnosis” box on your phone while you were having lunch with a friend? Obviously, a diagnosis of this severity should be communicated human to human, even though it was generated by a highly accurate computer system. And this communication would best be done in the form of a dialogue with someone who knows the patient and has some understanding of how she might understand and cope with the information. In the absence of a prior relationship, the dialogue should occur in real time and face to face at a minimum. I guess we have to acknowledge that FaceTime or Skype might be acceptable here.

Fortunately, stage IV cancers are rare, but there are a bazillion other conditions that, while not serious, require a nuanced explanation as part of a successful management plan that takes into account the patient’s level of anxiety and cognitive abilities. A boilerplate paragraph or two spit out by an A.I. system isn’t good health care. Although I know many physicians do rely on printed handouts for conditions they feel is a no-brainer.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Children with both atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergy (FA) have structural and molecular differences in the top layers of their skin, according to a study of children with and without AD and FA.

The researchers included 62 children aged 4-17 years, who were divided into three groups: atopic dermatitis and food allergy (AD FA+, n = 21), atopic dermatitis and no food allergy (AD FA−, n = 19), and nonatopic controls (NA, n = 22).

“In this prospective clinical study with laboratory personnel blinded to minimize bias, we demonstrate that children with AD FA+ represent a unique endotype that can be distinguished from AD FA− or NA,” wrote Donald Y. M. Leung, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and his coauthors. Their work was published online in Science Translational Medicine.

According to three different scoring systems, the two AD groups were measured to have similar skin disease severity. Dr. Leung and colleagues then used skin tape stripping to measure the first layer of skin tissue for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum (SC) composition, along with other variables that would indicate a difference between AD FA+ and the other groups.

Upon analysis, children in the AD FA+ group were found to have “a constellation of SC attributes,” including increased TEWL and lower levels of filaggrin gene breakdown products (urocanic acid and pyroglutamic acid) at nonlesional layers. In addition, there was an increase of Staphylococcus aureus on the nonlesional skin of AD FA+, compared with NA.

The coauthors shared the study’s limitations, which included transcriptome analysis being successful for only a fraction of the patients and the lack of skin biopsies, which would be useful to confirm “the potential role of changes in the deeper layers of skin.” However, they also noted that using minimally invasive STS led to more patients providing samples, and thus less bias in collection. “Although future studies are needed to validate our findings,” Dr. Leung and his associates wrote, “our current data support the concept that primary and secondary prevention of AD and FA in this subset of AD should focus on improving skin barrier function.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health/The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Atopic Dermatitis Research Network, with partial support from the Edelstein Family Chair for Pediatric Allergy at NIH and a NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Awards grant. Three of the authors declared being inventors of a patent that covers methods of identifying AD with FA as a unique endotype. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Leung DYM et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav2685.

Children with both atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergy (FA) have structural and molecular differences in the top layers of their skin, according to a study of children with and without AD and FA.

The researchers included 62 children aged 4-17 years, who were divided into three groups: atopic dermatitis and food allergy (AD FA+, n = 21), atopic dermatitis and no food allergy (AD FA−, n = 19), and nonatopic controls (NA, n = 22).

“In this prospective clinical study with laboratory personnel blinded to minimize bias, we demonstrate that children with AD FA+ represent a unique endotype that can be distinguished from AD FA− or NA,” wrote Donald Y. M. Leung, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and his coauthors. Their work was published online in Science Translational Medicine.

According to three different scoring systems, the two AD groups were measured to have similar skin disease severity. Dr. Leung and colleagues then used skin tape stripping to measure the first layer of skin tissue for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum (SC) composition, along with other variables that would indicate a difference between AD FA+ and the other groups.

Upon analysis, children in the AD FA+ group were found to have “a constellation of SC attributes,” including increased TEWL and lower levels of filaggrin gene breakdown products (urocanic acid and pyroglutamic acid) at nonlesional layers. In addition, there was an increase of Staphylococcus aureus on the nonlesional skin of AD FA+, compared with NA.

The coauthors shared the study’s limitations, which included transcriptome analysis being successful for only a fraction of the patients and the lack of skin biopsies, which would be useful to confirm “the potential role of changes in the deeper layers of skin.” However, they also noted that using minimally invasive STS led to more patients providing samples, and thus less bias in collection. “Although future studies are needed to validate our findings,” Dr. Leung and his associates wrote, “our current data support the concept that primary and secondary prevention of AD and FA in this subset of AD should focus on improving skin barrier function.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health/The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Atopic Dermatitis Research Network, with partial support from the Edelstein Family Chair for Pediatric Allergy at NIH and a NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Awards grant. Three of the authors declared being inventors of a patent that covers methods of identifying AD with FA as a unique endotype. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Leung DYM et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav2685.

Children with both atopic dermatitis (AD) and food allergy (FA) have structural and molecular differences in the top layers of their skin, according to a study of children with and without AD and FA.

The researchers included 62 children aged 4-17 years, who were divided into three groups: atopic dermatitis and food allergy (AD FA+, n = 21), atopic dermatitis and no food allergy (AD FA−, n = 19), and nonatopic controls (NA, n = 22).

“In this prospective clinical study with laboratory personnel blinded to minimize bias, we demonstrate that children with AD FA+ represent a unique endotype that can be distinguished from AD FA− or NA,” wrote Donald Y. M. Leung, MD, of National Jewish Health, Denver, and his coauthors. Their work was published online in Science Translational Medicine.

According to three different scoring systems, the two AD groups were measured to have similar skin disease severity. Dr. Leung and colleagues then used skin tape stripping to measure the first layer of skin tissue for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and stratum corneum (SC) composition, along with other variables that would indicate a difference between AD FA+ and the other groups.

Upon analysis, children in the AD FA+ group were found to have “a constellation of SC attributes,” including increased TEWL and lower levels of filaggrin gene breakdown products (urocanic acid and pyroglutamic acid) at nonlesional layers. In addition, there was an increase of Staphylococcus aureus on the nonlesional skin of AD FA+, compared with NA.

The coauthors shared the study’s limitations, which included transcriptome analysis being successful for only a fraction of the patients and the lack of skin biopsies, which would be useful to confirm “the potential role of changes in the deeper layers of skin.” However, they also noted that using minimally invasive STS led to more patients providing samples, and thus less bias in collection. “Although future studies are needed to validate our findings,” Dr. Leung and his associates wrote, “our current data support the concept that primary and secondary prevention of AD and FA in this subset of AD should focus on improving skin barrier function.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Health/The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Atopic Dermatitis Research Network, with partial support from the Edelstein Family Chair for Pediatric Allergy at NIH and a NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences Colorado Clinical and Translational Science Awards grant. Three of the authors declared being inventors of a patent that covers methods of identifying AD with FA as a unique endotype. No other conflicts of interest were reported.

SOURCE: Leung DYM et al. Sci Transl Med. 2019 Feb 20. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aav2685.

Study results showing an association between active atopic dermatitis (AD) and poor sleep quality were published in JAMA Pediatrics by a group of dermatologists at the University of California, San Francisco (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0025). The data on the sleep quality and quantity of nearly 14,000 children were collected over span of 11 years. Of these children, slightly fewer than 5,000 met the researchers’ definition of atopic dermatitis.

deyangeorgiev/thinkstockphotos.com

Although the sleep duration of children with and without AD was not statistically different, the reports of poor sleep quality and sleep disturbances by children with AD were dramatically more frequent – a nearly 50% higher chance of having more sleep-quality disturbances. In addition, children with more severe active disease were even more likely to report poor sleep quality – almost 80%.

I suspect that you’re not surprised by these findings. You have probably heard numerous tales of poor sleep from families who have children with AD. It just makes sense that a child whose skin is dry and itchy will have trouble sleeping. I’m sure you have struggled to help parents be more diligent about applying moisturizing creams and lotions, and have been aggressive with steroid creams during flare-ups. You may have added sleep onset-promoting antihistamines when topical treatments haven’t been as effective as you had hoped.

Has your working assumption always been that if you can get the child’s skin settled down, the itching will improve and the child will have an easier time falling asleep? But have you ever considered flipping the equation over and tried to be more aggressive in managing the child’s sleep problems? Maybe if the child had healthier sleep habits and ended his day with a smaller sleep debt, he could more successfully resist the urge to scratch.

Like many other folks with psoriasis, I have noticed that my itching is worse when I am tired, and particularly worse in that evil interval between crawling into bed and falling asleep. As the grandparent of a child with AD, I have observed a similar phenomenon. While I am not going to claim that sleep deprivation causes psoriasis or AD, I think that we need to consider the association between poor sleep quality and itching as a feedback loop that must be interrupted. This means that in addition to recommending topicals and moisturizing strategies, we must learn more about our patients’ sleep habits and suggest appropriate sleep hygiene practices.

Many parents aren’t aware of the cruel paradox that an overtired child is more likely to have trouble falling asleep. Has the child been allowed to give up his nap prematurely? Is bedtime at an appropriate hour, and does it consist of a limited number of sleep-promoting rituals? Is the bedroom dark enough, cool enough, and free of electronic distractions?

Providing effective counseling on sleep hygiene is time consuming and requires that you have first convinced the parents that the child’s itching is being aggravated by his sleep deprivation and not just the other way around. Successful management may require a close working relationship between the child’s pediatrician and his dermatologist, with both physicians reinforcing each other’s message that atopic dermatitis isn’t just skin deep.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “Is My Child Overtired?: The Sleep Solution for Raising Happier, Healthier Children.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Study results showing an association between active atopic dermatitis (AD) and poor sleep quality were published in JAMA Pediatrics by a group of dermatologists at the University of California, San Francisco (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0025). The data on the sleep quality and quantity of nearly 14,000 children were collected over span of 11 years. Of these children, slightly fewer than 5,000 met the researchers’ definition of atopic dermatitis.

deyangeorgiev/thinkstockphotos.com

Although the sleep duration of children with and without AD was not statistically different, the reports of poor sleep quality and sleep disturbances by children with AD were dramatically more frequent – a nearly 50% higher chance of having more sleep-quality disturbances. In addition, children with more severe active disease were even more likely to report poor sleep quality – almost 80%.

I suspect that you’re not surprised by these findings. You have probably heard numerous tales of poor sleep from families who have children with AD. It just makes sense that a child whose skin is dry and itchy will have trouble sleeping. I’m sure you have struggled to help parents be more diligent about applying moisturizing creams and lotions, and have been aggressive with steroid creams during flare-ups. You may have added sleep onset-promoting antihistamines when topical treatments haven’t been as effective as you had hoped.

Has your working assumption always been that if you can get the child’s skin settled down, the itching will improve and the child will have an easier time falling asleep? But have you ever considered flipping the equation over and tried to be more aggressive in managing the child’s sleep problems? Maybe if the child had healthier sleep habits and ended his day with a smaller sleep debt, he could more successfully resist the urge to scratch.

Like many other folks with psoriasis, I have noticed that my itching is worse when I am tired, and particularly worse in that evil interval between crawling into bed and falling asleep. As the grandparent of a child with AD, I have observed a similar phenomenon. While I am not going to claim that sleep deprivation causes psoriasis or AD, I think that we need to consider the association between poor sleep quality and itching as a feedback loop that must be interrupted. This means that in addition to recommending topicals and moisturizing strategies, we must learn more about our patients’ sleep habits and suggest appropriate sleep hygiene practices.

Many parents aren’t aware of the cruel paradox that an overtired child is more likely to have trouble falling asleep. Has the child been allowed to give up his nap prematurely? Is bedtime at an appropriate hour, and does it consist of a limited number of sleep-promoting rituals? Is the bedroom dark enough, cool enough, and free of electronic distractions?

Providing effective counseling on sleep hygiene is time consuming and requires that you have first convinced the parents that the child’s itching is being aggravated by his sleep deprivation and not just the other way around. Successful management may require a close working relationship between the child’s pediatrician and his dermatologist, with both physicians reinforcing each other’s message that atopic dermatitis isn’t just skin deep.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “Is My Child Overtired?: The Sleep Solution for Raising Happier, Healthier Children.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Study results showing an association between active atopic dermatitis (AD) and poor sleep quality were published in JAMA Pediatrics by a group of dermatologists at the University of California, San Francisco (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Mar 4. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.0025). The data on the sleep quality and quantity of nearly 14,000 children were collected over span of 11 years. Of these children, slightly fewer than 5,000 met the researchers’ definition of atopic dermatitis.

deyangeorgiev/thinkstockphotos.com

Although the sleep duration of children with and without AD was not statistically different, the reports of poor sleep quality and sleep disturbances by children with AD were dramatically more frequent – a nearly 50% higher chance of having more sleep-quality disturbances. In addition, children with more severe active disease were even more likely to report poor sleep quality – almost 80%.

I suspect that you’re not surprised by these findings. You have probably heard numerous tales of poor sleep from families who have children with AD. It just makes sense that a child whose skin is dry and itchy will have trouble sleeping. I’m sure you have struggled to help parents be more diligent about applying moisturizing creams and lotions, and have been aggressive with steroid creams during flare-ups. You may have added sleep onset-promoting antihistamines when topical treatments haven’t been as effective as you had hoped.

Has your working assumption always been that if you can get the child’s skin settled down, the itching will improve and the child will have an easier time falling asleep? But have you ever considered flipping the equation over and tried to be more aggressive in managing the child’s sleep problems? Maybe if the child had healthier sleep habits and ended his day with a smaller sleep debt, he could more successfully resist the urge to scratch.

Like many other folks with psoriasis, I have noticed that my itching is worse when I am tired, and particularly worse in that evil interval between crawling into bed and falling asleep. As the grandparent of a child with AD, I have observed a similar phenomenon. While I am not going to claim that sleep deprivation causes psoriasis or AD, I think that we need to consider the association between poor sleep quality and itching as a feedback loop that must be interrupted. This means that in addition to recommending topicals and moisturizing strategies, we must learn more about our patients’ sleep habits and suggest appropriate sleep hygiene practices.

Many parents aren’t aware of the cruel paradox that an overtired child is more likely to have trouble falling asleep. Has the child been allowed to give up his nap prematurely? Is bedtime at an appropriate hour, and does it consist of a limited number of sleep-promoting rituals? Is the bedroom dark enough, cool enough, and free of electronic distractions?

Providing effective counseling on sleep hygiene is time consuming and requires that you have first convinced the parents that the child’s itching is being aggravated by his sleep deprivation and not just the other way around. Successful management may require a close working relationship between the child’s pediatrician and his dermatologist, with both physicians reinforcing each other’s message that atopic dermatitis isn’t just skin deep.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “Is My Child Overtired?: The Sleep Solution for Raising Happier, Healthier Children.” Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

There is considerable heterogeneity among symptoms included in various freely available, self-reported scales assessing obsessive-compulsive disorder in pediatric populations, according to Rachel Visontay and her associates at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

They reviewed seven scales that exclusively assessed obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and measured both obsessive and compulsive components in their study, published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. The scales are:

• Children’s Florida Obsessive Compulsive Inventory.
• Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Symptom Checklist.
• Leyton Obsessional Inventory–Child Version.
• Children’s Obsessional Compulsive Inventory–Revised–Self Report.
• Obsessive Compulsive Inventory–Child Version.
• OCD Family Functioning Scale.
• Short OCD Screener.

A total of 54 umbrella symptoms were included over all seven scales: 32 obsessions, 21 compulsion, and 1 other symptom (Give poor class presentations despite planning). Half of these symptoms were unique to one scale but were more commonly obsessions (18 of 32) than compulsions (8 of 21). No obsession symptom appeared on more than five of the seven scales, but two compulsion symptoms (cleaning and checking compulsion) did appear on all scales.

The mean overlap between scales after Jaccard analysis was 0.14 for obsessions and 0.39 for compulsions, indicating very weak and weak overlap, respectively. The correlation between number of included symptoms and mean overlap was 0.43 for obsessions, indicating that scale length did play a role in determining overlap, but was –0.09 for compulsions, indicating no relationship between scale length and symptom overlap.

“While youth OCD scales generally measure the same broader construct, they might have different scopes within that construct, or may be more or less comprehensive than one another. As such, low content overlap does not necessarily mean a scale is ‘worse’ than one with higher overlap,” the investigators wrote. “However, researchers and clinicians should be careful in selecting scales to assess OCD symptomatology, being mindful of the specific characteristics of each instrument.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by a University of New South Wales Medicine, Neuroscience, Mental Health and Addiction Theme and SPHERE Mindgardens Clinical Academic Group collaborative research seed funding grant.

lfranki@mdedge.com

There is considerable heterogeneity among symptoms included in various freely available, self-reported scales assessing obsessive-compulsive disorder in pediatric populations, according to Rachel Visontay and her associates at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

They reviewed seven scales that exclusively assessed obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and measured both obsessive and compulsive components in their study, published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. The scales are:

• Children’s Florida Obsessive Compulsive Inventory.
• Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Symptom Checklist.
• Leyton Obsessional Inventory–Child Version.
• Children’s Obsessional Compulsive Inventory–Revised–Self Report.
• Obsessive Compulsive Inventory–Child Version.
• OCD Family Functioning Scale.
• Short OCD Screener.

A total of 54 umbrella symptoms were included over all seven scales: 32 obsessions, 21 compulsion, and 1 other symptom (Give poor class presentations despite planning). Half of these symptoms were unique to one scale but were more commonly obsessions (18 of 32) than compulsions (8 of 21). No obsession symptom appeared on more than five of the seven scales, but two compulsion symptoms (cleaning and checking compulsion) did appear on all scales.

The mean overlap between scales after Jaccard analysis was 0.14 for obsessions and 0.39 for compulsions, indicating very weak and weak overlap, respectively. The correlation between number of included symptoms and mean overlap was 0.43 for obsessions, indicating that scale length did play a role in determining overlap, but was –0.09 for compulsions, indicating no relationship between scale length and symptom overlap.

“While youth OCD scales generally measure the same broader construct, they might have different scopes within that construct, or may be more or less comprehensive than one another. As such, low content overlap does not necessarily mean a scale is ‘worse’ than one with higher overlap,” the investigators wrote. “However, researchers and clinicians should be careful in selecting scales to assess OCD symptomatology, being mindful of the specific characteristics of each instrument.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by a University of New South Wales Medicine, Neuroscience, Mental Health and Addiction Theme and SPHERE Mindgardens Clinical Academic Group collaborative research seed funding grant.

lfranki@mdedge.com

There is considerable heterogeneity among symptoms included in various freely available, self-reported scales assessing obsessive-compulsive disorder in pediatric populations, according to Rachel Visontay and her associates at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.

wildpixel/Thinkstock

They reviewed seven scales that exclusively assessed obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and measured both obsessive and compulsive components in their study, published in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. The scales are:

• Children’s Florida Obsessive Compulsive Inventory.
• Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Symptom Checklist.
• Leyton Obsessional Inventory–Child Version.
• Children’s Obsessional Compulsive Inventory–Revised–Self Report.
• Obsessive Compulsive Inventory–Child Version.
• OCD Family Functioning Scale.
• Short OCD Screener.

A total of 54 umbrella symptoms were included over all seven scales: 32 obsessions, 21 compulsion, and 1 other symptom (Give poor class presentations despite planning). Half of these symptoms were unique to one scale but were more commonly obsessions (18 of 32) than compulsions (8 of 21). No obsession symptom appeared on more than five of the seven scales, but two compulsion symptoms (cleaning and checking compulsion) did appear on all scales.

The mean overlap between scales after Jaccard analysis was 0.14 for obsessions and 0.39 for compulsions, indicating very weak and weak overlap, respectively. The correlation between number of included symptoms and mean overlap was 0.43 for obsessions, indicating that scale length did play a role in determining overlap, but was –0.09 for compulsions, indicating no relationship between scale length and symptom overlap.

“While youth OCD scales generally measure the same broader construct, they might have different scopes within that construct, or may be more or less comprehensive than one another. As such, low content overlap does not necessarily mean a scale is ‘worse’ than one with higher overlap,” the investigators wrote. “However, researchers and clinicians should be careful in selecting scales to assess OCD symptomatology, being mindful of the specific characteristics of each instrument.”

The study authors reported no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by a University of New South Wales Medicine, Neuroscience, Mental Health and Addiction Theme and SPHERE Mindgardens Clinical Academic Group collaborative research seed funding grant.

lfranki@mdedge.com

"Hard Science: Calcification and Vascular Solutions” is the theme of this year’s Vascular Research Initiatives Conference (VRIC). The meeting will be held in Boston on May 13 and will focus on emerging vascular science and biology. Abstracts will cover topic areas including, but not limited to, vascular remodeling, stem cells and wound healing, arterial injury, and diabetes. Don’t miss out on the essential meeting for translational vascular science and interdisciplinary research – make your travel plans now.

"Hard Science: Calcification and Vascular Solutions” is the theme of this year’s Vascular Research Initiatives Conference (VRIC). The meeting will be held in Boston on May 13 and will focus on emerging vascular science and biology. Abstracts will cover topic areas including, but not limited to, vascular remodeling, stem cells and wound healing, arterial injury, and diabetes. Don’t miss out on the essential meeting for translational vascular science and interdisciplinary research – make your travel plans now.

"Hard Science: Calcification and Vascular Solutions” is the theme of this year’s Vascular Research Initiatives Conference (VRIC). The meeting will be held in Boston on May 13 and will focus on emerging vascular science and biology. Abstracts will cover topic areas including, but not limited to, vascular remodeling, stem cells and wound healing, arterial injury, and diabetes. Don’t miss out on the essential meeting for translational vascular science and interdisciplinary research – make your travel plans now.

DENVER – When consumers use Google to search for information about cosmetic and laser dermatologic procedures, results link to the websites of professional societies only 8% of the time, and even less frequently to websites of academic centers and peer-reviewed medical journals, results from a novel study showed.

EricVega/iStock Unreleased

“An increasing number of patients are seeking information about cosmetic and laser dermatology from online sources,” Jennifer L. Sawaya, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “There are several studies that have discussed the role of the Internet and social media in dermatology. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically look at the results of Google search terms within our field to investigate which sources are providing this information.”

Dr. Sawaya, a fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, and her colleagues cross-measured keyword analytics provided by Zalea, an online resource on cosmetic treatments for consumers, with the most used Instagram hashtags to obtain 10 online keywords: body contouring, Botox, fillers, CoolSculpting, laser hair removal, tattoo removal, skin tightening, skin rejuvenation, cosmetic surgery, and liposuction. Next, they used an advanced Google search to obtain the top 25 search results for each of those 10 keywords and categorized information sources as professional societies, peer-reviewed journals, non–peer-reviewed online health information, news/media, device/cosmeceutical companies, clinical practices, academic centers, or medical spas.

Overall, the top search results came from clinical practices 23% of the time, followed by online health information sites (19%), medical spas (16%), and news/media (15%). A much smaller percentage of the search results came from professional societies (8%), academic centers (6%), and peer-reviewed medical journals (5%). Within the clinical practices and medical spas, nearly half of these sources were plastic surgeons, while board-certified dermatologists comprised only 21% of the clinical information sources.

When Dr. Sawaya and her associates evaluated the source of search results for each keyword, results varied. For example, search results for “body contouring” came most frequently from professional societies and clinical practices (20% each), “Botox” from news/media (36%), “fillers” from online health information (28%), “CoolSculpting” from clinical practices (40%), “laser hair removal” from news/media (32%), “tattoo removal” from medical spas (28%), “skin tightening” from news/media (24%), “skin rejuvenation” from medical spas (28%), “cosmetic surgery” from clinical practices (52%), and “liposuction” from online health information (36%).

“Our clinical take-home message is essentially a call for an increasing amount of evidence-based, academic content to be made available for online consumption,” Dr. Sawaya said. “In an era when patients seek a lot of medical information online and make important decisions through this manner, we have an obligation to understand what is out there and do our best to improve the quality of available information.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that results of a Google search may vary depending on the type of device used (mobile, desktop) as well as the location of the device. “An additional limitation is how the search history on the device may impact results,” she said. “To control for this, the device history, cache, and cookies were cleared prior to the search. Despite these controls, it is unclear how and to what extent prior searches affect the Google ranking algorithm. We acknowledge that the findings in this study reflect a single point in time and that the results of a Google search will change dynamically based on many factors. Finally, we acknowledge that our study is based on a single search engine site and that the trends we observe with Google may not be extrapolated to other online channels.”

Dr. Sawaya reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

DENVER – When consumers use Google to search for information about cosmetic and laser dermatologic procedures, results link to the websites of professional societies only 8% of the time, and even less frequently to websites of academic centers and peer-reviewed medical journals, results from a novel study showed.

EricVega/iStock Unreleased

“An increasing number of patients are seeking information about cosmetic and laser dermatology from online sources,” Jennifer L. Sawaya, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “There are several studies that have discussed the role of the Internet and social media in dermatology. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically look at the results of Google search terms within our field to investigate which sources are providing this information.”

Dr. Sawaya, a fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, and her colleagues cross-measured keyword analytics provided by Zalea, an online resource on cosmetic treatments for consumers, with the most used Instagram hashtags to obtain 10 online keywords: body contouring, Botox, fillers, CoolSculpting, laser hair removal, tattoo removal, skin tightening, skin rejuvenation, cosmetic surgery, and liposuction. Next, they used an advanced Google search to obtain the top 25 search results for each of those 10 keywords and categorized information sources as professional societies, peer-reviewed journals, non–peer-reviewed online health information, news/media, device/cosmeceutical companies, clinical practices, academic centers, or medical spas.

Overall, the top search results came from clinical practices 23% of the time, followed by online health information sites (19%), medical spas (16%), and news/media (15%). A much smaller percentage of the search results came from professional societies (8%), academic centers (6%), and peer-reviewed medical journals (5%). Within the clinical practices and medical spas, nearly half of these sources were plastic surgeons, while board-certified dermatologists comprised only 21% of the clinical information sources.

When Dr. Sawaya and her associates evaluated the source of search results for each keyword, results varied. For example, search results for “body contouring” came most frequently from professional societies and clinical practices (20% each), “Botox” from news/media (36%), “fillers” from online health information (28%), “CoolSculpting” from clinical practices (40%), “laser hair removal” from news/media (32%), “tattoo removal” from medical spas (28%), “skin tightening” from news/media (24%), “skin rejuvenation” from medical spas (28%), “cosmetic surgery” from clinical practices (52%), and “liposuction” from online health information (36%).

“Our clinical take-home message is essentially a call for an increasing amount of evidence-based, academic content to be made available for online consumption,” Dr. Sawaya said. “In an era when patients seek a lot of medical information online and make important decisions through this manner, we have an obligation to understand what is out there and do our best to improve the quality of available information.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that results of a Google search may vary depending on the type of device used (mobile, desktop) as well as the location of the device. “An additional limitation is how the search history on the device may impact results,” she said. “To control for this, the device history, cache, and cookies were cleared prior to the search. Despite these controls, it is unclear how and to what extent prior searches affect the Google ranking algorithm. We acknowledge that the findings in this study reflect a single point in time and that the results of a Google search will change dynamically based on many factors. Finally, we acknowledge that our study is based on a single search engine site and that the trends we observe with Google may not be extrapolated to other online channels.”

Dr. Sawaya reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

DENVER – When consumers use Google to search for information about cosmetic and laser dermatologic procedures, results link to the websites of professional societies only 8% of the time, and even less frequently to websites of academic centers and peer-reviewed medical journals, results from a novel study showed.

EricVega/iStock Unreleased

“An increasing number of patients are seeking information about cosmetic and laser dermatology from online sources,” Jennifer L. Sawaya, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “There are several studies that have discussed the role of the Internet and social media in dermatology. To our knowledge, this is the first study to specifically look at the results of Google search terms within our field to investigate which sources are providing this information.”

Dr. Sawaya, a fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, Boston, and her colleagues cross-measured keyword analytics provided by Zalea, an online resource on cosmetic treatments for consumers, with the most used Instagram hashtags to obtain 10 online keywords: body contouring, Botox, fillers, CoolSculpting, laser hair removal, tattoo removal, skin tightening, skin rejuvenation, cosmetic surgery, and liposuction. Next, they used an advanced Google search to obtain the top 25 search results for each of those 10 keywords and categorized information sources as professional societies, peer-reviewed journals, non–peer-reviewed online health information, news/media, device/cosmeceutical companies, clinical practices, academic centers, or medical spas.

Overall, the top search results came from clinical practices 23% of the time, followed by online health information sites (19%), medical spas (16%), and news/media (15%). A much smaller percentage of the search results came from professional societies (8%), academic centers (6%), and peer-reviewed medical journals (5%). Within the clinical practices and medical spas, nearly half of these sources were plastic surgeons, while board-certified dermatologists comprised only 21% of the clinical information sources.

When Dr. Sawaya and her associates evaluated the source of search results for each keyword, results varied. For example, search results for “body contouring” came most frequently from professional societies and clinical practices (20% each), “Botox” from news/media (36%), “fillers” from online health information (28%), “CoolSculpting” from clinical practices (40%), “laser hair removal” from news/media (32%), “tattoo removal” from medical spas (28%), “skin tightening” from news/media (24%), “skin rejuvenation” from medical spas (28%), “cosmetic surgery” from clinical practices (52%), and “liposuction” from online health information (36%).

“Our clinical take-home message is essentially a call for an increasing amount of evidence-based, academic content to be made available for online consumption,” Dr. Sawaya said. “In an era when patients seek a lot of medical information online and make important decisions through this manner, we have an obligation to understand what is out there and do our best to improve the quality of available information.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that results of a Google search may vary depending on the type of device used (mobile, desktop) as well as the location of the device. “An additional limitation is how the search history on the device may impact results,” she said. “To control for this, the device history, cache, and cookies were cleared prior to the search. Despite these controls, it is unclear how and to what extent prior searches affect the Google ranking algorithm. We acknowledge that the findings in this study reflect a single point in time and that the results of a Google search will change dynamically based on many factors. Finally, we acknowledge that our study is based on a single search engine site and that the trends we observe with Google may not be extrapolated to other online channels.”

Dr. Sawaya reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

DENVER – There is an apparent disconnect between the level of periprocedural pain experienced by patients during vascular laser procedures and what device manufacturers say that level of pain should be, results from a retrospective study showed.

“Although there is an abundance of research on how pain signals are transmitted in the nervous system and how pain is perceived among certain patient demographics, there is not much known about how pain perception differs from that put forth by industry,” Lauren Bonati, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This study is unique because we are questioning not whether pain perception is reproducible between patients, but rather if it reflects what industry and device manufacturers are telling us.”

Dr. Bonati, a dermatologist at Edwards, Colo.–based Mountain Dermatology Specialists, and her colleagues collected median and mode pain scores from a past clinical trial that investigated a dual wavelength laser used for different types of treatments. “The treatment type (laser wavelength and treatment area) was largely based on the severity of facial redness for each individual patient,” she explained. “The options were spot treatment, nose and cheeks, or a global facial treatment with either wavelength.” The researchers reviewed industry-provided materials to determine language regarding procedural pain, and they interviewed the clinical trial’s principal investigator about how pain expectations were set during the trial. Next, they transferred subject-reported pain scores and verbal pain descriptors to the validated Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale, for comparison.

In all, 85 procedural pain scores were collected from 22 subject charts. The researchers found that the average procedural pain scores for treatment types reported by subjects were translated to entirely different verbal and numerical categories of pain from those described by industry materials. “It was surprising to see how vague pain descriptions can be in device manuals and industry materials, if even addressed at all,” Dr. Bonati said.

She advised clinicians to be wary of whom they rely on for information related to pain expectations. “Also, remember that wrongly set pain expectations can have physiologic and emotional effects that may positively or negatively impact patient experience,” Dr. Bonati said. “Preprocedural pain counseling is an important part of any procedure.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a review of a previously conducted clinical trial, “which is not a perfect representation of real-life clinic.”

She reported having no conflicts of interest.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

DENVER – There is an apparent disconnect between the level of periprocedural pain experienced by patients during vascular laser procedures and what device manufacturers say that level of pain should be, results from a retrospective study showed.

“Although there is an abundance of research on how pain signals are transmitted in the nervous system and how pain is perceived among certain patient demographics, there is not much known about how pain perception differs from that put forth by industry,” Lauren Bonati, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This study is unique because we are questioning not whether pain perception is reproducible between patients, but rather if it reflects what industry and device manufacturers are telling us.”

Dr. Bonati, a dermatologist at Edwards, Colo.–based Mountain Dermatology Specialists, and her colleagues collected median and mode pain scores from a past clinical trial that investigated a dual wavelength laser used for different types of treatments. “The treatment type (laser wavelength and treatment area) was largely based on the severity of facial redness for each individual patient,” she explained. “The options were spot treatment, nose and cheeks, or a global facial treatment with either wavelength.” The researchers reviewed industry-provided materials to determine language regarding procedural pain, and they interviewed the clinical trial’s principal investigator about how pain expectations were set during the trial. Next, they transferred subject-reported pain scores and verbal pain descriptors to the validated Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale, for comparison.

In all, 85 procedural pain scores were collected from 22 subject charts. The researchers found that the average procedural pain scores for treatment types reported by subjects were translated to entirely different verbal and numerical categories of pain from those described by industry materials. “It was surprising to see how vague pain descriptions can be in device manuals and industry materials, if even addressed at all,” Dr. Bonati said.

She advised clinicians to be wary of whom they rely on for information related to pain expectations. “Also, remember that wrongly set pain expectations can have physiologic and emotional effects that may positively or negatively impact patient experience,” Dr. Bonati said. “Preprocedural pain counseling is an important part of any procedure.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a review of a previously conducted clinical trial, “which is not a perfect representation of real-life clinic.”

She reported having no conflicts of interest.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

DENVER – There is an apparent disconnect between the level of periprocedural pain experienced by patients during vascular laser procedures and what device manufacturers say that level of pain should be, results from a retrospective study showed.

“Although there is an abundance of research on how pain signals are transmitted in the nervous system and how pain is perceived among certain patient demographics, there is not much known about how pain perception differs from that put forth by industry,” Lauren Bonati, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “This study is unique because we are questioning not whether pain perception is reproducible between patients, but rather if it reflects what industry and device manufacturers are telling us.”

Dr. Bonati, a dermatologist at Edwards, Colo.–based Mountain Dermatology Specialists, and her colleagues collected median and mode pain scores from a past clinical trial that investigated a dual wavelength laser used for different types of treatments. “The treatment type (laser wavelength and treatment area) was largely based on the severity of facial redness for each individual patient,” she explained. “The options were spot treatment, nose and cheeks, or a global facial treatment with either wavelength.” The researchers reviewed industry-provided materials to determine language regarding procedural pain, and they interviewed the clinical trial’s principal investigator about how pain expectations were set during the trial. Next, they transferred subject-reported pain scores and verbal pain descriptors to the validated Numerical Rating Scale and the Verbal Rating Scale, for comparison.

In all, 85 procedural pain scores were collected from 22 subject charts. The researchers found that the average procedural pain scores for treatment types reported by subjects were translated to entirely different verbal and numerical categories of pain from those described by industry materials. “It was surprising to see how vague pain descriptions can be in device manuals and industry materials, if even addressed at all,” Dr. Bonati said.

She advised clinicians to be wary of whom they rely on for information related to pain expectations. “Also, remember that wrongly set pain expectations can have physiologic and emotional effects that may positively or negatively impact patient experience,” Dr. Bonati said. “Preprocedural pain counseling is an important part of any procedure.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a review of a previously conducted clinical trial, “which is not a perfect representation of real-life clinic.”

She reported having no conflicts of interest.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

In pediatric patients with Rett syndrome, twice-daily 200-mg/kg doses of trofinetide improve symptoms such as repetitive behaviors, breathing problems, mood dysregulation, and ambulation. Furthermore, the treatment is safe and well tolerated, according to results published online ahead of print March 27 in Neurology.

“These are very promising data for the Rett community that is currently without any [Food and Drug Administration]–approved treatment option,” Daniel Glaze, MD, said in a press release from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which is developing trofinetide.

In 2017, a phase 2 study indicated that the drug was safe and tolerable when administered in doses of 70 mg/kg b.i.d. to adolescent and adult females with Rett syndrome. The study also provided initial evidence of the drug’s efficacy. Dr. Glaze, professor of pediatrics and neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and his colleagues decided to conduct a larger phase 2 study that examined higher doses and a longer treatment duration.

The researchers first enrolled 62 participants in the study, all of whom received placebo b.i.d. for 14 days. They next randomized participants in equal groups to placebo or one of three twice-daily doses of trofinetide (i.e., 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg, and 200 mg/kg). After a blinded review of safety and tolerability data, Dr. Glaze and his colleagues enrolled 20 more participants and randomized them in equal groups to placebo or 200 mg/kg b.i.d. of trofinetide. This modification in study design was intended to increase the likelihood of detecting a clinical benefit. Randomized, double-blind treatment lasted for 42 days. Participants presented for a final visit at approximately 10 days after the treatment period ended.

A total of 82 girls aged 5-15 years participated in the study. They all met the 2010 diagnostic criteria for classic Rett syndrome, had a documented pathogenic MECP2 variant, were in the postregression stage of the syndrome, and had been stable on pharmacologic and behavioral treatments for at least 4 weeks. The sample’s mean age was 9.7 years, 94% were white, and mean weight was 26.1 kg. The treatment groups’ demographic characteristics were balanced.

All three doses of trofinetide were safe and tolerable. One participant in the 200-mg/kg b.i.d. group was withdrawn from the study at her parents’ request. Serious adverse events occurred in one control participant, one receiving the 100-mg/kg b.i.d. dose, and one receiving the 200-mg/kg b.i.d. dose. These serious adverse events were considered unrelated to study medication and resolved by the study’s end. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, vomiting, upper respiratory tract infection, and pyrexia. Most were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to trofinetide.

The 200-mg/kg b.i.d. dose of trofinetide significantly improved outcomes on the Rett Syndrome Behavior Questionnaire (RSBQ), Clinical Global Impression Scale–Improvement (CGI-I), and Rett Syndrome Domain Specific Concerns (RTT-DSC), compared with placebo. The change of the median RTT-DSC score was 15%, and the change of the mean RSBQ score was 16%. More than 20% of participants receiving 200 mg/kg b.i.d. of trofinetide were rated much improved on the CGI-I, compared with less than 5% of controls.

“Overall, the observed clinical improvement in the present pediatric trial was more manifest than in the previous trial, with younger age (i.e., greater neuroplasticity), higher doses (i.e., higher drug exposure), and longer drug treatment duration (i.e., 28 days in Rett-001 vs. 42 days in Rett-002) as potential contributors,” said Dr. Glaze and his colleagues. “Future studies aiming at replicating the results of this pediatric trial would benefit from including the RSBQ as a primary endpoint and should also consider evaluating RSBQ subscales such as the General Mood.”

Neuren Pharmaceuticals and Rettsyndrome.org funded the study. Dr. Glaze is a consultant to Neuren Pharmaceuticals.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glaze DG et al. Neurology. 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007316.

In pediatric patients with Rett syndrome, twice-daily 200-mg/kg doses of trofinetide improve symptoms such as repetitive behaviors, breathing problems, mood dysregulation, and ambulation. Furthermore, the treatment is safe and well tolerated, according to results published online ahead of print March 27 in Neurology.

“These are very promising data for the Rett community that is currently without any [Food and Drug Administration]–approved treatment option,” Daniel Glaze, MD, said in a press release from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which is developing trofinetide.

In 2017, a phase 2 study indicated that the drug was safe and tolerable when administered in doses of 70 mg/kg b.i.d. to adolescent and adult females with Rett syndrome. The study also provided initial evidence of the drug’s efficacy. Dr. Glaze, professor of pediatrics and neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and his colleagues decided to conduct a larger phase 2 study that examined higher doses and a longer treatment duration.

The researchers first enrolled 62 participants in the study, all of whom received placebo b.i.d. for 14 days. They next randomized participants in equal groups to placebo or one of three twice-daily doses of trofinetide (i.e., 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg, and 200 mg/kg). After a blinded review of safety and tolerability data, Dr. Glaze and his colleagues enrolled 20 more participants and randomized them in equal groups to placebo or 200 mg/kg b.i.d. of trofinetide. This modification in study design was intended to increase the likelihood of detecting a clinical benefit. Randomized, double-blind treatment lasted for 42 days. Participants presented for a final visit at approximately 10 days after the treatment period ended.

A total of 82 girls aged 5-15 years participated in the study. They all met the 2010 diagnostic criteria for classic Rett syndrome, had a documented pathogenic MECP2 variant, were in the postregression stage of the syndrome, and had been stable on pharmacologic and behavioral treatments for at least 4 weeks. The sample’s mean age was 9.7 years, 94% were white, and mean weight was 26.1 kg. The treatment groups’ demographic characteristics were balanced.

All three doses of trofinetide were safe and tolerable. One participant in the 200-mg/kg b.i.d. group was withdrawn from the study at her parents’ request. Serious adverse events occurred in one control participant, one receiving the 100-mg/kg b.i.d. dose, and one receiving the 200-mg/kg b.i.d. dose. These serious adverse events were considered unrelated to study medication and resolved by the study’s end. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, vomiting, upper respiratory tract infection, and pyrexia. Most were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to trofinetide.

The 200-mg/kg b.i.d. dose of trofinetide significantly improved outcomes on the Rett Syndrome Behavior Questionnaire (RSBQ), Clinical Global Impression Scale–Improvement (CGI-I), and Rett Syndrome Domain Specific Concerns (RTT-DSC), compared with placebo. The change of the median RTT-DSC score was 15%, and the change of the mean RSBQ score was 16%. More than 20% of participants receiving 200 mg/kg b.i.d. of trofinetide were rated much improved on the CGI-I, compared with less than 5% of controls.

“Overall, the observed clinical improvement in the present pediatric trial was more manifest than in the previous trial, with younger age (i.e., greater neuroplasticity), higher doses (i.e., higher drug exposure), and longer drug treatment duration (i.e., 28 days in Rett-001 vs. 42 days in Rett-002) as potential contributors,” said Dr. Glaze and his colleagues. “Future studies aiming at replicating the results of this pediatric trial would benefit from including the RSBQ as a primary endpoint and should also consider evaluating RSBQ subscales such as the General Mood.”

Neuren Pharmaceuticals and Rettsyndrome.org funded the study. Dr. Glaze is a consultant to Neuren Pharmaceuticals.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glaze DG et al. Neurology. 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007316.

In pediatric patients with Rett syndrome, twice-daily 200-mg/kg doses of trofinetide improve symptoms such as repetitive behaviors, breathing problems, mood dysregulation, and ambulation. Furthermore, the treatment is safe and well tolerated, according to results published online ahead of print March 27 in Neurology.

“These are very promising data for the Rett community that is currently without any [Food and Drug Administration]–approved treatment option,” Daniel Glaze, MD, said in a press release from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, which is developing trofinetide.

In 2017, a phase 2 study indicated that the drug was safe and tolerable when administered in doses of 70 mg/kg b.i.d. to adolescent and adult females with Rett syndrome. The study also provided initial evidence of the drug’s efficacy. Dr. Glaze, professor of pediatrics and neurology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, and his colleagues decided to conduct a larger phase 2 study that examined higher doses and a longer treatment duration.

The researchers first enrolled 62 participants in the study, all of whom received placebo b.i.d. for 14 days. They next randomized participants in equal groups to placebo or one of three twice-daily doses of trofinetide (i.e., 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg, and 200 mg/kg). After a blinded review of safety and tolerability data, Dr. Glaze and his colleagues enrolled 20 more participants and randomized them in equal groups to placebo or 200 mg/kg b.i.d. of trofinetide. This modification in study design was intended to increase the likelihood of detecting a clinical benefit. Randomized, double-blind treatment lasted for 42 days. Participants presented for a final visit at approximately 10 days after the treatment period ended.

A total of 82 girls aged 5-15 years participated in the study. They all met the 2010 diagnostic criteria for classic Rett syndrome, had a documented pathogenic MECP2 variant, were in the postregression stage of the syndrome, and had been stable on pharmacologic and behavioral treatments for at least 4 weeks. The sample’s mean age was 9.7 years, 94% were white, and mean weight was 26.1 kg. The treatment groups’ demographic characteristics were balanced.

All three doses of trofinetide were safe and tolerable. One participant in the 200-mg/kg b.i.d. group was withdrawn from the study at her parents’ request. Serious adverse events occurred in one control participant, one receiving the 100-mg/kg b.i.d. dose, and one receiving the 200-mg/kg b.i.d. dose. These serious adverse events were considered unrelated to study medication and resolved by the study’s end. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, vomiting, upper respiratory tract infection, and pyrexia. Most were mild or moderate and considered unrelated to trofinetide.

The 200-mg/kg b.i.d. dose of trofinetide significantly improved outcomes on the Rett Syndrome Behavior Questionnaire (RSBQ), Clinical Global Impression Scale–Improvement (CGI-I), and Rett Syndrome Domain Specific Concerns (RTT-DSC), compared with placebo. The change of the median RTT-DSC score was 15%, and the change of the mean RSBQ score was 16%. More than 20% of participants receiving 200 mg/kg b.i.d. of trofinetide were rated much improved on the CGI-I, compared with less than 5% of controls.

“Overall, the observed clinical improvement in the present pediatric trial was more manifest than in the previous trial, with younger age (i.e., greater neuroplasticity), higher doses (i.e., higher drug exposure), and longer drug treatment duration (i.e., 28 days in Rett-001 vs. 42 days in Rett-002) as potential contributors,” said Dr. Glaze and his colleagues. “Future studies aiming at replicating the results of this pediatric trial would benefit from including the RSBQ as a primary endpoint and should also consider evaluating RSBQ subscales such as the General Mood.”

Neuren Pharmaceuticals and Rettsyndrome.org funded the study. Dr. Glaze is a consultant to Neuren Pharmaceuticals.

egreb@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Glaze DG et al. Neurology. 2019 Mar 27. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000007316.

There is no apparent association between proinflammatory foods and increased risk of incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis, reported Alanna C. Bridgman of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and her associates.

©camij/thinkstockphotos.com

In a large, retrospective cohort study among women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS-II), including 85,185 psoriasis participants and 63,443 atopic dermatitis participants, Ms. Bridgman and her associates sought to determine whether proinflammatory diet increased the risk of incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis. Clinicians administered food frequency questionnaires every 4 years beginning in 1991 among female nurses aged 25-42 years.

Food groups included in the evaluation were those most predictive of three plasma markers of inflammation: interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and tumor necrosis factor–alpha R2 (TNF-R2). Proinflammatory foods included processed meat, red meat, organ meat, white fish, vegetables other than leafy green and dark yellow, refined grains, low- and high-energy drinks, and tomatoes. Anti-inflammatory foods included beer, wine, tea, coffee, dark yellow and green leafy vegetables, snacks such as popcorn and crackers, fruit juice, and pizza.

No association was found between proinflammatory diet and increased likelihood for incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis. Although proinflammatory dietary patterns were associated with psoriatic arthritis in the age-adjusted model, the hazard ratio was attenuated and found to be no longer statistically significant after adjustment for important confounders such as body mass index. In addition, no significant relationship between atopic dermatitis and proinflammatory diet was observed, they reported. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Ms. Bridgman and her associates measured dietary patterns using the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP); dietary patterns measuring high on the EDIP scale were associated with higher levels of TNF-alpha, TNF-alpha R1, TNF-alpha R2, CRP, IL-6, and adiponectin. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are Th1- and Th17-mediated diseases that exhibit higher serum levels of IL-6, CRP, and TNF-alpha, unlike atopic dermatitis, which is primarily a Th2-mediated condition featuring reduced involvement of the Th1/Th17 inflammatory cytokines.

Because a goal of the EDIP score was to “account for the overall effect of dietary patterns,” the researchers included in their analysis only those food groups that “explain the maximal variation in the three noted inflammatory biomarkers.”

All patients included in the study were questioned at baseline regarding their height and race/ethnicity. Weight, smoking status, and physical activity, and diagnoses of hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and asthma were monitored biennially.

Overall, patients with higher EDIP scores were found to have higher BMI, lower physical activity, and alcohol use, as well as increased rates of hypercholesterolemia and hypertension.

“Though we found no convincing evidence for an association with EDIP score for any of the investigated diseases, the results followed an internal pattern consistent with our hypotheses that higher EDIP scores would have more of an association with psoriatic disease than with atopic dermatitis,” the researchers wrote.

Citing recent evidence gathered in studies, such as the French NutriNet-Santé study, which demonstrated proinflammatory effects similar to those measured with the EDIP in cases where there was low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the authors attributed their contradictory findings to “important methodological differences.” Unlike the NutriNet-Santé study, which classified psoriasis by severity, Ms. Bridgman and her colleagues examined the overall risk of incident psoriasis. “It is possible that a dietary index associated with more Th-2 inflammation would yield different results,” they noted.

The large sample size, prospectively collected dietary, and psoriatic disease data, as well as the ability to adjust for important confounding factors, were included among the strengths of the study.

That the participants were limited to U.S. women could be considered a limitation because the results may not be generalizable to other populations. The results also may not be relevant to child-onset disease because the patient population included only cases of adult-onset atopic dermatitis. Questionnaire-based diagnoses increase the likelihood of misclassification, so “dilution of the case pool with false-positive cases would bias our results towards the null,” they added.

Ultimately, the authors noted that proinflammatory diet may be associated with other health risks, but these do not warrant counseling patients concerning their possible impact in cases of psoriatic disease or atopic dermatitis.

The study was funded by Brown University department of dermatology and from Regeneron, Sanofi, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute. Two coauthors, one of whom has a patent pending for the nix-tix tick remover, disclosed ties with various companies.

SOURCE: Bridgman AC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Feb 21. pii: S0190-9622(19)30329-9.

There is no apparent association between proinflammatory foods and increased risk of incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis, reported Alanna C. Bridgman of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and her associates.

©camij/thinkstockphotos.com

In a large, retrospective cohort study among women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS-II), including 85,185 psoriasis participants and 63,443 atopic dermatitis participants, Ms. Bridgman and her associates sought to determine whether proinflammatory diet increased the risk of incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis. Clinicians administered food frequency questionnaires every 4 years beginning in 1991 among female nurses aged 25-42 years.

Food groups included in the evaluation were those most predictive of three plasma markers of inflammation: interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and tumor necrosis factor–alpha R2 (TNF-R2). Proinflammatory foods included processed meat, red meat, organ meat, white fish, vegetables other than leafy green and dark yellow, refined grains, low- and high-energy drinks, and tomatoes. Anti-inflammatory foods included beer, wine, tea, coffee, dark yellow and green leafy vegetables, snacks such as popcorn and crackers, fruit juice, and pizza.

No association was found between proinflammatory diet and increased likelihood for incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis. Although proinflammatory dietary patterns were associated with psoriatic arthritis in the age-adjusted model, the hazard ratio was attenuated and found to be no longer statistically significant after adjustment for important confounders such as body mass index. In addition, no significant relationship between atopic dermatitis and proinflammatory diet was observed, they reported. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Ms. Bridgman and her associates measured dietary patterns using the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP); dietary patterns measuring high on the EDIP scale were associated with higher levels of TNF-alpha, TNF-alpha R1, TNF-alpha R2, CRP, IL-6, and adiponectin. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are Th1- and Th17-mediated diseases that exhibit higher serum levels of IL-6, CRP, and TNF-alpha, unlike atopic dermatitis, which is primarily a Th2-mediated condition featuring reduced involvement of the Th1/Th17 inflammatory cytokines.

Because a goal of the EDIP score was to “account for the overall effect of dietary patterns,” the researchers included in their analysis only those food groups that “explain the maximal variation in the three noted inflammatory biomarkers.”

All patients included in the study were questioned at baseline regarding their height and race/ethnicity. Weight, smoking status, and physical activity, and diagnoses of hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and asthma were monitored biennially.

Overall, patients with higher EDIP scores were found to have higher BMI, lower physical activity, and alcohol use, as well as increased rates of hypercholesterolemia and hypertension.

“Though we found no convincing evidence for an association with EDIP score for any of the investigated diseases, the results followed an internal pattern consistent with our hypotheses that higher EDIP scores would have more of an association with psoriatic disease than with atopic dermatitis,” the researchers wrote.

Citing recent evidence gathered in studies, such as the French NutriNet-Santé study, which demonstrated proinflammatory effects similar to those measured with the EDIP in cases where there was low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the authors attributed their contradictory findings to “important methodological differences.” Unlike the NutriNet-Santé study, which classified psoriasis by severity, Ms. Bridgman and her colleagues examined the overall risk of incident psoriasis. “It is possible that a dietary index associated with more Th-2 inflammation would yield different results,” they noted.

The large sample size, prospectively collected dietary, and psoriatic disease data, as well as the ability to adjust for important confounding factors, were included among the strengths of the study.

That the participants were limited to U.S. women could be considered a limitation because the results may not be generalizable to other populations. The results also may not be relevant to child-onset disease because the patient population included only cases of adult-onset atopic dermatitis. Questionnaire-based diagnoses increase the likelihood of misclassification, so “dilution of the case pool with false-positive cases would bias our results towards the null,” they added.

Ultimately, the authors noted that proinflammatory diet may be associated with other health risks, but these do not warrant counseling patients concerning their possible impact in cases of psoriatic disease or atopic dermatitis.

The study was funded by Brown University department of dermatology and from Regeneron, Sanofi, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute. Two coauthors, one of whom has a patent pending for the nix-tix tick remover, disclosed ties with various companies.

SOURCE: Bridgman AC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Feb 21. pii: S0190-9622(19)30329-9.

There is no apparent association between proinflammatory foods and increased risk of incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis, reported Alanna C. Bridgman of Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and her associates.

©camij/thinkstockphotos.com

In a large, retrospective cohort study among women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS-II), including 85,185 psoriasis participants and 63,443 atopic dermatitis participants, Ms. Bridgman and her associates sought to determine whether proinflammatory diet increased the risk of incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis. Clinicians administered food frequency questionnaires every 4 years beginning in 1991 among female nurses aged 25-42 years.

Food groups included in the evaluation were those most predictive of three plasma markers of inflammation: interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), and tumor necrosis factor–alpha R2 (TNF-R2). Proinflammatory foods included processed meat, red meat, organ meat, white fish, vegetables other than leafy green and dark yellow, refined grains, low- and high-energy drinks, and tomatoes. Anti-inflammatory foods included beer, wine, tea, coffee, dark yellow and green leafy vegetables, snacks such as popcorn and crackers, fruit juice, and pizza.

No association was found between proinflammatory diet and increased likelihood for incident psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or atopic dermatitis. Although proinflammatory dietary patterns were associated with psoriatic arthritis in the age-adjusted model, the hazard ratio was attenuated and found to be no longer statistically significant after adjustment for important confounders such as body mass index. In addition, no significant relationship between atopic dermatitis and proinflammatory diet was observed, they reported. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Ms. Bridgman and her associates measured dietary patterns using the Empirical Dietary Inflammatory Pattern (EDIP); dietary patterns measuring high on the EDIP scale were associated with higher levels of TNF-alpha, TNF-alpha R1, TNF-alpha R2, CRP, IL-6, and adiponectin. Psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis are Th1- and Th17-mediated diseases that exhibit higher serum levels of IL-6, CRP, and TNF-alpha, unlike atopic dermatitis, which is primarily a Th2-mediated condition featuring reduced involvement of the Th1/Th17 inflammatory cytokines.

Because a goal of the EDIP score was to “account for the overall effect of dietary patterns,” the researchers included in their analysis only those food groups that “explain the maximal variation in the three noted inflammatory biomarkers.”

All patients included in the study were questioned at baseline regarding their height and race/ethnicity. Weight, smoking status, and physical activity, and diagnoses of hypercholesterolemia, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and asthma were monitored biennially.

Overall, patients with higher EDIP scores were found to have higher BMI, lower physical activity, and alcohol use, as well as increased rates of hypercholesterolemia and hypertension.

“Though we found no convincing evidence for an association with EDIP score for any of the investigated diseases, the results followed an internal pattern consistent with our hypotheses that higher EDIP scores would have more of an association with psoriatic disease than with atopic dermatitis,” the researchers wrote.

Citing recent evidence gathered in studies, such as the French NutriNet-Santé study, which demonstrated proinflammatory effects similar to those measured with the EDIP in cases where there was low adherence to the Mediterranean diet, the authors attributed their contradictory findings to “important methodological differences.” Unlike the NutriNet-Santé study, which classified psoriasis by severity, Ms. Bridgman and her colleagues examined the overall risk of incident psoriasis. “It is possible that a dietary index associated with more Th-2 inflammation would yield different results,” they noted.

The large sample size, prospectively collected dietary, and psoriatic disease data, as well as the ability to adjust for important confounding factors, were included among the strengths of the study.

That the participants were limited to U.S. women could be considered a limitation because the results may not be generalizable to other populations. The results also may not be relevant to child-onset disease because the patient population included only cases of adult-onset atopic dermatitis. Questionnaire-based diagnoses increase the likelihood of misclassification, so “dilution of the case pool with false-positive cases would bias our results towards the null,” they added.

Ultimately, the authors noted that proinflammatory diet may be associated with other health risks, but these do not warrant counseling patients concerning their possible impact in cases of psoriatic disease or atopic dermatitis.

The study was funded by Brown University department of dermatology and from Regeneron, Sanofi, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Cancer Institute. Two coauthors, one of whom has a patent pending for the nix-tix tick remover, disclosed ties with various companies.

SOURCE: Bridgman AC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019 Feb 21. pii: S0190-9622(19)30329-9.