User login
News and Views that Matter to Pediatricians
The leading independent newspaper covering news and commentary in pediatrics.
FDA okays first generic of ProAir HFA
Generic albuterol sulfate inhalation, from Perrigo Pharmaceutical, is indicated for the treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in people aged 4 years or older who have reversible obstructive airway disease, as well as for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm.
“Approval of the first generic drug product for one of the most commonly used rescue inhalers in the US is part of our long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic drug products that are as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, and to expand opportunities to bring generic copies of complex drugs to the market,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a news release.
Metered-dose inhalers are hard to duplicate because of the complexities of their formulation or mode of delivery. “As a result, too many complex drugs lack generic competition even after patents and exclusivities no longer block generic approval,” he explained.
“Supporting development and approval of generic copies of these complex medicines so that these products can get to patients has been a major focus of our efforts to improve competition and access and to lower drug prices. Getting more generic copies of complex drugs to the market is a key priority for how we’ll help bring new savings to consumers,” Hahn added.
In the United States, more than 26 million people suffer from asthma; about 7 million of these people are children.
Perrigo said it will immediately launch a limited quantity of generic albuterol sulfate and, in collaboration with its development and manufacturing partner, Catalent Pharma Solutions, is ramping up production to meet future demand.
The company “anticipates that we will be in a position to provide a steady supply of this product by the fourth quarter of 2020,” Perrigo Executive Vice President and Rx Pharmaceuticals President Sharon Kochan said in a statement.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Generic albuterol sulfate inhalation, from Perrigo Pharmaceutical, is indicated for the treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in people aged 4 years or older who have reversible obstructive airway disease, as well as for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm.
“Approval of the first generic drug product for one of the most commonly used rescue inhalers in the US is part of our long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic drug products that are as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, and to expand opportunities to bring generic copies of complex drugs to the market,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a news release.
Metered-dose inhalers are hard to duplicate because of the complexities of their formulation or mode of delivery. “As a result, too many complex drugs lack generic competition even after patents and exclusivities no longer block generic approval,” he explained.
“Supporting development and approval of generic copies of these complex medicines so that these products can get to patients has been a major focus of our efforts to improve competition and access and to lower drug prices. Getting more generic copies of complex drugs to the market is a key priority for how we’ll help bring new savings to consumers,” Hahn added.
In the United States, more than 26 million people suffer from asthma; about 7 million of these people are children.
Perrigo said it will immediately launch a limited quantity of generic albuterol sulfate and, in collaboration with its development and manufacturing partner, Catalent Pharma Solutions, is ramping up production to meet future demand.
The company “anticipates that we will be in a position to provide a steady supply of this product by the fourth quarter of 2020,” Perrigo Executive Vice President and Rx Pharmaceuticals President Sharon Kochan said in a statement.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Generic albuterol sulfate inhalation, from Perrigo Pharmaceutical, is indicated for the treatment or prevention of bronchospasm in people aged 4 years or older who have reversible obstructive airway disease, as well as for the prevention of exercise-induced bronchospasm.
“Approval of the first generic drug product for one of the most commonly used rescue inhalers in the US is part of our long-standing commitment to advance patient access to lower-cost, high-quality generic drug products that are as safe and effective as their brand name counterparts, and to expand opportunities to bring generic copies of complex drugs to the market,” FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, MD, said in a news release.
Metered-dose inhalers are hard to duplicate because of the complexities of their formulation or mode of delivery. “As a result, too many complex drugs lack generic competition even after patents and exclusivities no longer block generic approval,” he explained.
“Supporting development and approval of generic copies of these complex medicines so that these products can get to patients has been a major focus of our efforts to improve competition and access and to lower drug prices. Getting more generic copies of complex drugs to the market is a key priority for how we’ll help bring new savings to consumers,” Hahn added.
In the United States, more than 26 million people suffer from asthma; about 7 million of these people are children.
Perrigo said it will immediately launch a limited quantity of generic albuterol sulfate and, in collaboration with its development and manufacturing partner, Catalent Pharma Solutions, is ramping up production to meet future demand.
The company “anticipates that we will be in a position to provide a steady supply of this product by the fourth quarter of 2020,” Perrigo Executive Vice President and Rx Pharmaceuticals President Sharon Kochan said in a statement.
This article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
SCC survival remains poor in epidermolysis bullosa
LONDON – Median survival among patients with generalized severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB-GS) after a first diagnosis of mucocutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was 2.4 years in an observational, retrospective study.
The study, conducted at St. Thomas’ Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, was a review of all individuals with EB who had developed the skin cancer over a 28-year period, from 1991 to 2019.
A total of 44 subjects were identified who together had 221 primary SCCs. Considering all study subjects, the median age at first diagnosis of SCC was 32.6 years, with a mean of five tumors present. Almost 40% had metastatic tumors, and of the 57% who died during the observation period, 88% of deaths were attributable to the SCC.
“EB-associated SCCs differ from those in the general population,” the study’s investigators wrote in a poster presented at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (debra). “They affect a younger age group, and there are often multiple primaries,” they added. Furthermore, “they behave aggressively and metastasize early despite being well differentiated.”
Most (31) of the study participants had RDEB-GS and tended to develop their first SCC at a younger age than the group overall, at a median of 29.5 years (compared with 32.6 years for the overall group). The mean number of tumors was 5.8 among those with RDEB-GS, with over half (53.4%) of the SCCs being well differentiated and located on the hands, upper arms, feet, and lower legs. Median survival after a first diagnosis in this group was 2.4 years. The short survival after a first diagnosis of SCC “underscores the poor prognosis in this group,” the researchers wrote.
“As the largest cohort of EB SCC patients with comprehensive data regarding clinical course and management to date, our data reinforce the need for regular clinical surveillance for SCCs in EB patients,” the team concluded. This surveillance should start in adolescence for those with the severe generalized RDEB subtype, they advise, and from the third or fourth decade for other at-risk groups.
These data also highlight “the pressing need for more effective treatments,” the investigators wrote. Most (86.4%) of the SCCs among the patients in the study had been surgically removed by wide local excision, with a few patients undergoing lymph node dissection, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, electrochemotherapy, or receiving targeted cancer therapies such as erlotinib, cetuximab, or cemiplimab.
Surgery may not be an option for many patients, Jemima Mellerio, MD explained in an oral presentation at the meeting. Dr. Mellerio, a consultant dermatologist and chief of St John’s Institute of Dermatology at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation, London, noted that the location of the tumor was important, as sometimes it was not physically possible to excise it completely.
Guidelines on how to manage SCCs in patients with EB were published a few years ago (Br J Dermatol. 2016;174:56-67) and noted that the clinical detection of SCCs could be difficult because of chronic wound ulceration in these patients. The “possibility of malignancy should be borne in mind, with suspicious lesions biopsied for histological evaluation,” the document states. Evidence for many of the nonsurgical options – radiotherapy, conventional chemotherapy, biologic therapies – was poor, according to the guidelines, and effective nonsurgical options are still desperately needed.
Several avenues of research are being investigated, Dr. Mellerio noted, such as targeting the fibrotic process and perhaps using a micro-RNA inhibitor to stop the upregulation of certain microRNAs in fibroblasts. Targeting inflammatory mechanisms such as thrombospondin 1, which can lead to elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor–beta and contribute to extracellular matrix stiffness, also is under investigation. Raised interleukin-6 may be another target to consider.
Research shows that similar genes are mutated in EB-related and ultraviolet-related SCCs, Dr. Mellerio said. Indeed, mutations in HRAS, NOTCH1, TP53, and CDKN2A have been reported, but mutations in these genes occur much earlier in life in patients with EB. “Something else is going on,” she added, commenting that researchers are looking at apolipoprotein B editing complex (APOBEC) enzymes, which modulate DNA and can cause “particular types of genetic changes in EB cancers.”
One investigator who is studying the genetics of EB SCCs and how APOBEC enzymes might be involved is Andrew South, PhD, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. APOBEC enzymes are a very prominent source of mutations in RDEB. These mutations are found in 10%-20% of squamous cell carcinomas not associated with RDEB, and 80%-90% of head and neck cancers, he said during a separate talk at the meeting.
Dr. South observed that “RDEB squamous cell carcinoma does not show any particular somatic mutation or upregulation or downregulation of genes that differentiates it from other squamous cell carcinomas, which might be disappointing on the front of it, but actually it does mean that precision therapies that have been developed for other squamous cell carcinomas have application in RDEB.”
RDEB SCC shows the greatest similarity with head and neck SCC, Dr. South said. He also stressed that fibrosis is a major driver of cancer development, SCC tumors in RDEB are homogenous, and that frontline therapy is still unclear.
What is clear, however, is that interdisciplinary management of patients is crucial, said Leena Bruckner-Tuderman, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg, Germany.
“In severe RDEB, metastatic SCC is the leading cause of death at a young age. We need monitoring, careful diagnostics, and multidisciplinary treatment,” Dr. Bruckner-Tuderman said. The latter should be delivered by a coordinated team that consists of dermatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, and (molecular) tumor boards, she advised.
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Mellerio disclosed financial relationships with Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals and ProQR Therapeutics, and acted as an unpaid advisor to Helpberby Therapeutics. Dr. South disclosed financial relationships with Krystal Biotech Inc. and Amryt Genetics and has been an advisory board member for Abeona Therapeutics and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Bruckner-Tuderman disclosed receiving grants or research support from Constant Pharmaceuticals/Tarix Orphan.
LONDON – Median survival among patients with generalized severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB-GS) after a first diagnosis of mucocutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was 2.4 years in an observational, retrospective study.
The study, conducted at St. Thomas’ Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, was a review of all individuals with EB who had developed the skin cancer over a 28-year period, from 1991 to 2019.
A total of 44 subjects were identified who together had 221 primary SCCs. Considering all study subjects, the median age at first diagnosis of SCC was 32.6 years, with a mean of five tumors present. Almost 40% had metastatic tumors, and of the 57% who died during the observation period, 88% of deaths were attributable to the SCC.
“EB-associated SCCs differ from those in the general population,” the study’s investigators wrote in a poster presented at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (debra). “They affect a younger age group, and there are often multiple primaries,” they added. Furthermore, “they behave aggressively and metastasize early despite being well differentiated.”
Most (31) of the study participants had RDEB-GS and tended to develop their first SCC at a younger age than the group overall, at a median of 29.5 years (compared with 32.6 years for the overall group). The mean number of tumors was 5.8 among those with RDEB-GS, with over half (53.4%) of the SCCs being well differentiated and located on the hands, upper arms, feet, and lower legs. Median survival after a first diagnosis in this group was 2.4 years. The short survival after a first diagnosis of SCC “underscores the poor prognosis in this group,” the researchers wrote.
“As the largest cohort of EB SCC patients with comprehensive data regarding clinical course and management to date, our data reinforce the need for regular clinical surveillance for SCCs in EB patients,” the team concluded. This surveillance should start in adolescence for those with the severe generalized RDEB subtype, they advise, and from the third or fourth decade for other at-risk groups.
These data also highlight “the pressing need for more effective treatments,” the investigators wrote. Most (86.4%) of the SCCs among the patients in the study had been surgically removed by wide local excision, with a few patients undergoing lymph node dissection, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, electrochemotherapy, or receiving targeted cancer therapies such as erlotinib, cetuximab, or cemiplimab.
Surgery may not be an option for many patients, Jemima Mellerio, MD explained in an oral presentation at the meeting. Dr. Mellerio, a consultant dermatologist and chief of St John’s Institute of Dermatology at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation, London, noted that the location of the tumor was important, as sometimes it was not physically possible to excise it completely.
Guidelines on how to manage SCCs in patients with EB were published a few years ago (Br J Dermatol. 2016;174:56-67) and noted that the clinical detection of SCCs could be difficult because of chronic wound ulceration in these patients. The “possibility of malignancy should be borne in mind, with suspicious lesions biopsied for histological evaluation,” the document states. Evidence for many of the nonsurgical options – radiotherapy, conventional chemotherapy, biologic therapies – was poor, according to the guidelines, and effective nonsurgical options are still desperately needed.
Several avenues of research are being investigated, Dr. Mellerio noted, such as targeting the fibrotic process and perhaps using a micro-RNA inhibitor to stop the upregulation of certain microRNAs in fibroblasts. Targeting inflammatory mechanisms such as thrombospondin 1, which can lead to elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor–beta and contribute to extracellular matrix stiffness, also is under investigation. Raised interleukin-6 may be another target to consider.
Research shows that similar genes are mutated in EB-related and ultraviolet-related SCCs, Dr. Mellerio said. Indeed, mutations in HRAS, NOTCH1, TP53, and CDKN2A have been reported, but mutations in these genes occur much earlier in life in patients with EB. “Something else is going on,” she added, commenting that researchers are looking at apolipoprotein B editing complex (APOBEC) enzymes, which modulate DNA and can cause “particular types of genetic changes in EB cancers.”
One investigator who is studying the genetics of EB SCCs and how APOBEC enzymes might be involved is Andrew South, PhD, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. APOBEC enzymes are a very prominent source of mutations in RDEB. These mutations are found in 10%-20% of squamous cell carcinomas not associated with RDEB, and 80%-90% of head and neck cancers, he said during a separate talk at the meeting.
Dr. South observed that “RDEB squamous cell carcinoma does not show any particular somatic mutation or upregulation or downregulation of genes that differentiates it from other squamous cell carcinomas, which might be disappointing on the front of it, but actually it does mean that precision therapies that have been developed for other squamous cell carcinomas have application in RDEB.”
RDEB SCC shows the greatest similarity with head and neck SCC, Dr. South said. He also stressed that fibrosis is a major driver of cancer development, SCC tumors in RDEB are homogenous, and that frontline therapy is still unclear.
What is clear, however, is that interdisciplinary management of patients is crucial, said Leena Bruckner-Tuderman, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg, Germany.
“In severe RDEB, metastatic SCC is the leading cause of death at a young age. We need monitoring, careful diagnostics, and multidisciplinary treatment,” Dr. Bruckner-Tuderman said. The latter should be delivered by a coordinated team that consists of dermatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, and (molecular) tumor boards, she advised.
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Mellerio disclosed financial relationships with Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals and ProQR Therapeutics, and acted as an unpaid advisor to Helpberby Therapeutics. Dr. South disclosed financial relationships with Krystal Biotech Inc. and Amryt Genetics and has been an advisory board member for Abeona Therapeutics and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Bruckner-Tuderman disclosed receiving grants or research support from Constant Pharmaceuticals/Tarix Orphan.
LONDON – Median survival among patients with generalized severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB-GS) after a first diagnosis of mucocutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was 2.4 years in an observational, retrospective study.
The study, conducted at St. Thomas’ Hospital and Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, was a review of all individuals with EB who had developed the skin cancer over a 28-year period, from 1991 to 2019.
A total of 44 subjects were identified who together had 221 primary SCCs. Considering all study subjects, the median age at first diagnosis of SCC was 32.6 years, with a mean of five tumors present. Almost 40% had metastatic tumors, and of the 57% who died during the observation period, 88% of deaths were attributable to the SCC.
“EB-associated SCCs differ from those in the general population,” the study’s investigators wrote in a poster presented at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (debra). “They affect a younger age group, and there are often multiple primaries,” they added. Furthermore, “they behave aggressively and metastasize early despite being well differentiated.”
Most (31) of the study participants had RDEB-GS and tended to develop their first SCC at a younger age than the group overall, at a median of 29.5 years (compared with 32.6 years for the overall group). The mean number of tumors was 5.8 among those with RDEB-GS, with over half (53.4%) of the SCCs being well differentiated and located on the hands, upper arms, feet, and lower legs. Median survival after a first diagnosis in this group was 2.4 years. The short survival after a first diagnosis of SCC “underscores the poor prognosis in this group,” the researchers wrote.
“As the largest cohort of EB SCC patients with comprehensive data regarding clinical course and management to date, our data reinforce the need for regular clinical surveillance for SCCs in EB patients,” the team concluded. This surveillance should start in adolescence for those with the severe generalized RDEB subtype, they advise, and from the third or fourth decade for other at-risk groups.
These data also highlight “the pressing need for more effective treatments,” the investigators wrote. Most (86.4%) of the SCCs among the patients in the study had been surgically removed by wide local excision, with a few patients undergoing lymph node dissection, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, electrochemotherapy, or receiving targeted cancer therapies such as erlotinib, cetuximab, or cemiplimab.
Surgery may not be an option for many patients, Jemima Mellerio, MD explained in an oral presentation at the meeting. Dr. Mellerio, a consultant dermatologist and chief of St John’s Institute of Dermatology at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation, London, noted that the location of the tumor was important, as sometimes it was not physically possible to excise it completely.
Guidelines on how to manage SCCs in patients with EB were published a few years ago (Br J Dermatol. 2016;174:56-67) and noted that the clinical detection of SCCs could be difficult because of chronic wound ulceration in these patients. The “possibility of malignancy should be borne in mind, with suspicious lesions biopsied for histological evaluation,” the document states. Evidence for many of the nonsurgical options – radiotherapy, conventional chemotherapy, biologic therapies – was poor, according to the guidelines, and effective nonsurgical options are still desperately needed.
Several avenues of research are being investigated, Dr. Mellerio noted, such as targeting the fibrotic process and perhaps using a micro-RNA inhibitor to stop the upregulation of certain microRNAs in fibroblasts. Targeting inflammatory mechanisms such as thrombospondin 1, which can lead to elevated levels of tumor necrosis factor–beta and contribute to extracellular matrix stiffness, also is under investigation. Raised interleukin-6 may be another target to consider.
Research shows that similar genes are mutated in EB-related and ultraviolet-related SCCs, Dr. Mellerio said. Indeed, mutations in HRAS, NOTCH1, TP53, and CDKN2A have been reported, but mutations in these genes occur much earlier in life in patients with EB. “Something else is going on,” she added, commenting that researchers are looking at apolipoprotein B editing complex (APOBEC) enzymes, which modulate DNA and can cause “particular types of genetic changes in EB cancers.”
One investigator who is studying the genetics of EB SCCs and how APOBEC enzymes might be involved is Andrew South, PhD, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. APOBEC enzymes are a very prominent source of mutations in RDEB. These mutations are found in 10%-20% of squamous cell carcinomas not associated with RDEB, and 80%-90% of head and neck cancers, he said during a separate talk at the meeting.
Dr. South observed that “RDEB squamous cell carcinoma does not show any particular somatic mutation or upregulation or downregulation of genes that differentiates it from other squamous cell carcinomas, which might be disappointing on the front of it, but actually it does mean that precision therapies that have been developed for other squamous cell carcinomas have application in RDEB.”
RDEB SCC shows the greatest similarity with head and neck SCC, Dr. South said. He also stressed that fibrosis is a major driver of cancer development, SCC tumors in RDEB are homogenous, and that frontline therapy is still unclear.
What is clear, however, is that interdisciplinary management of patients is crucial, said Leena Bruckner-Tuderman, MD, professor and chair of the department of dermatology at the University Medical Center, Albert Ludwig University of Freiburg, Germany.
“In severe RDEB, metastatic SCC is the leading cause of death at a young age. We need monitoring, careful diagnostics, and multidisciplinary treatment,” Dr. Bruckner-Tuderman said. The latter should be delivered by a coordinated team that consists of dermatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, and (molecular) tumor boards, she advised.
The study had no commercial funding. Dr. Mellerio disclosed financial relationships with Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals and ProQR Therapeutics, and acted as an unpaid advisor to Helpberby Therapeutics. Dr. South disclosed financial relationships with Krystal Biotech Inc. and Amryt Genetics and has been an advisory board member for Abeona Therapeutics and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Bruckner-Tuderman disclosed receiving grants or research support from Constant Pharmaceuticals/Tarix Orphan.
REPORTING FROM EB 2020
CDC expects eventual community spread of coronavirus in U.S.
“We have for many weeks been saying that, while we hope this is not going to be severe, we are planning as if it is,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, said during a Feb. 25, 2020, telebriefing with reporters. “The data over the last week and the spread in other countries has certainly raised our level of concern and raised our level expectation that we are going to have community spread here.”
Dr. Messonnier noted that the coronavirus is now showing signs of community spread without a known source of exposure in a number of countries, including in Hong Kong, Iran, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. This has now raised the belief that there will be more widespread outbreaks in the United States.
“What we still don’t know is what that will look like,” she said. “As many of you know, we can have community spread in the United States and have it be reasonably mild. We can have community spread in the U.S. and have it be very severe. That is what we don’t completely know yet and we certainly also don’t exactly know when it is going to happen.”
She reiterated the number of actions being taken to slow the potential spread in the United States, including detecting, tracking, and isolating all cases, as well as restricting travel into the United States and issuing travel advisories for countries where coronavirus outbreaks are known.
“We are doing this with the goal of slowing the introduction of this new virus into the U.S. and buying us more time to prepare,” Dr. Messonnier said, noting the containment strategies have been largely successful, though it will be more difficult as more countries experience community spread of the virus.
Dr. Messonnier also reiterated that at this time there are no vaccines and no medicines to treat the coronavirus. She stressed the need to adhere to nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), as they will be “the most important tools in our response to this virus.”
She said the NPIs will vary based on the severity of the outbreak in any given local community and include personal protective measures that individuals can take every day (many of which mirror the recommendations for preventing the spread of the seasonal flu virus), community NPIs that involve social distancing measures designed to keep people away from others, and environmental NPIs such as surface cleaning measures.
CDC’s latest warning comes as parent agency the Department of Health & Human Services is seeking $2.5 billion in funds from Congress to address the coronavirus outbreak.
During a separate press conference on the same day, HHS Secretary Alex Azar noted that there are five major priorities related to those funds, which would be used in the current year, including expansion of surveillance work within the influenza surveillance network; supporting public health preparedness and response for state and local governments; support the development of therapeutics and the development of vaccines; and the purchase of personal protective equipment for national stockpiles.
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health, added during the press conference that vaccine work is in progress and could be ready for phase 1 testing within a month and a half. If all goes well, it would still be at least 12 - 18 months following the completion of a phase 2 trial before it could be produced for mass consumption.
“It is certainly conceivable that this issue with this coronavirus will go well beyond this season into next season,” Dr. Fauci said. “So a vaccine may not solve the problems of the next couple of months, but it certainly would be an important tool that we would have and we will keep you posted on that.”
He also mentioned that NIAID is looking at a number of candidates for therapeutic treatment of coronavirus. He highlighted Gilead’s remdesivir, a nucleotide analog, as one which undergoing two trials – a randomized controlled trial in China and a copy of that trial in Nebraska among patients with the coronavirus who were taken from the Diamond Princess cruise line in Japan.
“I am optimistic that we will at least get an answer if we do have do have a therapy that really is a gamechanger because then we could do something from the standpoint of intervention for those who are sick,” Dr. Fauci said.
UPDATE: This story was updated 2/25 at 4:51 p.m. ET
“We have for many weeks been saying that, while we hope this is not going to be severe, we are planning as if it is,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, said during a Feb. 25, 2020, telebriefing with reporters. “The data over the last week and the spread in other countries has certainly raised our level of concern and raised our level expectation that we are going to have community spread here.”
Dr. Messonnier noted that the coronavirus is now showing signs of community spread without a known source of exposure in a number of countries, including in Hong Kong, Iran, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. This has now raised the belief that there will be more widespread outbreaks in the United States.
“What we still don’t know is what that will look like,” she said. “As many of you know, we can have community spread in the United States and have it be reasonably mild. We can have community spread in the U.S. and have it be very severe. That is what we don’t completely know yet and we certainly also don’t exactly know when it is going to happen.”
She reiterated the number of actions being taken to slow the potential spread in the United States, including detecting, tracking, and isolating all cases, as well as restricting travel into the United States and issuing travel advisories for countries where coronavirus outbreaks are known.
“We are doing this with the goal of slowing the introduction of this new virus into the U.S. and buying us more time to prepare,” Dr. Messonnier said, noting the containment strategies have been largely successful, though it will be more difficult as more countries experience community spread of the virus.
Dr. Messonnier also reiterated that at this time there are no vaccines and no medicines to treat the coronavirus. She stressed the need to adhere to nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), as they will be “the most important tools in our response to this virus.”
She said the NPIs will vary based on the severity of the outbreak in any given local community and include personal protective measures that individuals can take every day (many of which mirror the recommendations for preventing the spread of the seasonal flu virus), community NPIs that involve social distancing measures designed to keep people away from others, and environmental NPIs such as surface cleaning measures.
CDC’s latest warning comes as parent agency the Department of Health & Human Services is seeking $2.5 billion in funds from Congress to address the coronavirus outbreak.
During a separate press conference on the same day, HHS Secretary Alex Azar noted that there are five major priorities related to those funds, which would be used in the current year, including expansion of surveillance work within the influenza surveillance network; supporting public health preparedness and response for state and local governments; support the development of therapeutics and the development of vaccines; and the purchase of personal protective equipment for national stockpiles.
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health, added during the press conference that vaccine work is in progress and could be ready for phase 1 testing within a month and a half. If all goes well, it would still be at least 12 - 18 months following the completion of a phase 2 trial before it could be produced for mass consumption.
“It is certainly conceivable that this issue with this coronavirus will go well beyond this season into next season,” Dr. Fauci said. “So a vaccine may not solve the problems of the next couple of months, but it certainly would be an important tool that we would have and we will keep you posted on that.”
He also mentioned that NIAID is looking at a number of candidates for therapeutic treatment of coronavirus. He highlighted Gilead’s remdesivir, a nucleotide analog, as one which undergoing two trials – a randomized controlled trial in China and a copy of that trial in Nebraska among patients with the coronavirus who were taken from the Diamond Princess cruise line in Japan.
“I am optimistic that we will at least get an answer if we do have do have a therapy that really is a gamechanger because then we could do something from the standpoint of intervention for those who are sick,” Dr. Fauci said.
UPDATE: This story was updated 2/25 at 4:51 p.m. ET
“We have for many weeks been saying that, while we hope this is not going to be severe, we are planning as if it is,” Nancy Messonnier, MD, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases at the CDC, said during a Feb. 25, 2020, telebriefing with reporters. “The data over the last week and the spread in other countries has certainly raised our level of concern and raised our level expectation that we are going to have community spread here.”
Dr. Messonnier noted that the coronavirus is now showing signs of community spread without a known source of exposure in a number of countries, including in Hong Kong, Iran, Italy, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. This has now raised the belief that there will be more widespread outbreaks in the United States.
“What we still don’t know is what that will look like,” she said. “As many of you know, we can have community spread in the United States and have it be reasonably mild. We can have community spread in the U.S. and have it be very severe. That is what we don’t completely know yet and we certainly also don’t exactly know when it is going to happen.”
She reiterated the number of actions being taken to slow the potential spread in the United States, including detecting, tracking, and isolating all cases, as well as restricting travel into the United States and issuing travel advisories for countries where coronavirus outbreaks are known.
“We are doing this with the goal of slowing the introduction of this new virus into the U.S. and buying us more time to prepare,” Dr. Messonnier said, noting the containment strategies have been largely successful, though it will be more difficult as more countries experience community spread of the virus.
Dr. Messonnier also reiterated that at this time there are no vaccines and no medicines to treat the coronavirus. She stressed the need to adhere to nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), as they will be “the most important tools in our response to this virus.”
She said the NPIs will vary based on the severity of the outbreak in any given local community and include personal protective measures that individuals can take every day (many of which mirror the recommendations for preventing the spread of the seasonal flu virus), community NPIs that involve social distancing measures designed to keep people away from others, and environmental NPIs such as surface cleaning measures.
CDC’s latest warning comes as parent agency the Department of Health & Human Services is seeking $2.5 billion in funds from Congress to address the coronavirus outbreak.
During a separate press conference on the same day, HHS Secretary Alex Azar noted that there are five major priorities related to those funds, which would be used in the current year, including expansion of surveillance work within the influenza surveillance network; supporting public health preparedness and response for state and local governments; support the development of therapeutics and the development of vaccines; and the purchase of personal protective equipment for national stockpiles.
Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease at the National Institutes of Health, added during the press conference that vaccine work is in progress and could be ready for phase 1 testing within a month and a half. If all goes well, it would still be at least 12 - 18 months following the completion of a phase 2 trial before it could be produced for mass consumption.
“It is certainly conceivable that this issue with this coronavirus will go well beyond this season into next season,” Dr. Fauci said. “So a vaccine may not solve the problems of the next couple of months, but it certainly would be an important tool that we would have and we will keep you posted on that.”
He also mentioned that NIAID is looking at a number of candidates for therapeutic treatment of coronavirus. He highlighted Gilead’s remdesivir, a nucleotide analog, as one which undergoing two trials – a randomized controlled trial in China and a copy of that trial in Nebraska among patients with the coronavirus who were taken from the Diamond Princess cruise line in Japan.
“I am optimistic that we will at least get an answer if we do have do have a therapy that really is a gamechanger because then we could do something from the standpoint of intervention for those who are sick,” Dr. Fauci said.
UPDATE: This story was updated 2/25 at 4:51 p.m. ET
ID Blog: SARS-CoV-2 – What’s in a name?
Coming up with a moniker for the new coronavirus shows the perils of naming names.
There is no Baby Book of Names or hurricane alphabet to readily name diseases and their causal entities. Throughout history and even in the modern era, a host of considerations have intruded on the decision as to what to call these blights upon humanity. Names have varied from inflammatory to misleading, from colloquial to scientific. And when it concerns a new epidemiological entity such as the latest coronavirus outbreak originating in China, health organizations, media, politicians, scientific taxonomy commissions, and the public at large all have a stake in the naming.
From “Wuhan virus” to “novel coronavirus-2019” to “COVID-19 virus,” the name of the new coronavirus that first appeared in China has been evolving to its now official designation: SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). But where did the final name come from, how does such a name become official, and who makes it so?
Virus taxonomy
The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) named the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 based upon its genetic relationship to the original SARS-CoV that caused an outbreak of disease in 2002–2003.
According to the ICTV website, the first internationally organized attempts to introduce order into the bewildering variety of viruses took place at the International Congress of Microbiology held in Moscow in 1966 where a committee was created that later became the ICTV and was given the task of developing a single, universal taxonomic scheme for all the viruses infecting animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, and archaea. The ICTV was created as a committee of the virology division of the International Union of Microbiological Societies and is governed by statutes approved by the virology division. Virus classification and nomenclature are subject to rules set out in an International Code.
These designate that: “The universal virus classification system shall employ the hierarchical levels of realm, subrealm, kingdom, subkingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, subclass, order, suborder, family, subfamily, genus, subgenus and species.”
Many of the topmost areas of classification are based on whether the viruses are DNA or RNA, single or double stranded, and have a simple protein shell or a complex lipoprotein envelope. Other levels of classification include host species, type of replication, and type of diseases they cause, the later exemplified in the SARS designation for this virus.
There are 98 international study groups (SGs) covering all major virus orders, families, and genera that are part of the ICTV, and it was the one dedicated to the single-stranded RNA coronaviruses, the CSG, that came up with the SARS-CoV-2 name and first referenced it in their Feb 11 publication in the Cold Springs Harbor preprint journal bioRxiv.
“Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),” they wrote.
According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information Taxonomy Browser, with respect to the original SARS CoV virus, of which this is a relative, the full taxonomic designation is: Viruses, Riboviria, Nidovirales, Cornidovirineae, Coronaviridae, Orthocoronavirinae, Betacoronavirus, Sarbecovirus.
The problem with naming names
The World Health Organization currently is not using the official scientific name of the virus, but rather is merely labeling it with regard to the disease: COVID-19, which simply refers to coronavirus disease 2019.
They are following a modern standard by which disease names avoid inflammatory connotations with people and places. Too often in the past from syphilis as the “French pox,” the 1918 influenza as the “Spanish flu,” AIDS as the “gay plague,” Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and the currently named “WuFlu,” which made an appearance early in the new outbreak and which is symbolic of a sudden wave of anti-Asian, and specifically Chinese, prejudice.
Chinatown districts even in the United States are being affected economically through unwarranted fear associated with the virus. And there have been equivalently virulent outbreaks of hate speech against Asian individuals in places untouched by the new virus.
However, although SARS-CoV-2 as a name avoids such problems, different considerations led the WHO to reject it in its discussions, determining that its use ties it to tightly to the much more deadly SARS-CoV-1 virus in the public mind, risking greater fear and panic, especially in Asia, where SARS-CoV-1 had the biggest impact.
Back in 1896, William Sykes, MD, writing in the first flush of the triumph of germ theory in modern medicine, attempted to give some guidance to how medical science should best come up with new names of diseases by merging the demands of common parlance with those of taxonomic legitimacy. His “On the Origin and History of Disease-Names,” published in the Lancet, had clearcut advice: “It is vain to attempt to replace a folk name or one widely adopted by the people by a new one deliberately coined by scholars, and this for the following reasons: first, whatever names may be accepted by medical men must be translated by them into the vernacular of their patients, and by a resulting reaction the vernacular name comes to be the commoner one with themselves; and, secondly, there is no continuity or unchangeableness in the terms invented by savants, which are amended, improved upon, and displaced by the next writer on the subject, or, even more absurdly still, by the very inventors themselves in a subsequent publication.”
This is the reason that virus taxonomy provides names based upon unchangeable scientific descriptors of the actual disease causing entity, as illustrated by the decisions of the ICTV. In addition, the genomic sequences being provided by the scientific community are all being organized under the SARS-CoV-2 name and thus are cementing that moniker as the only acceptable scientific one.
Whether the rest of the world universally adopts SARS-CoV-2 as a name is still in question. If the outbreak spreads significantly beyond its current limits, fear and confusion – and simply the need for a more familiar-sounding label – may lead the general public to adopt more colloquial designations than those that science attempts to impose, as Dr. Sykes suggested back in 1896. That remains to be seen.
mlesney@mdedge.com
Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & cellular biology at Georgetown University, Washington.
Coming up with a moniker for the new coronavirus shows the perils of naming names.
Coming up with a moniker for the new coronavirus shows the perils of naming names.
There is no Baby Book of Names or hurricane alphabet to readily name diseases and their causal entities. Throughout history and even in the modern era, a host of considerations have intruded on the decision as to what to call these blights upon humanity. Names have varied from inflammatory to misleading, from colloquial to scientific. And when it concerns a new epidemiological entity such as the latest coronavirus outbreak originating in China, health organizations, media, politicians, scientific taxonomy commissions, and the public at large all have a stake in the naming.
From “Wuhan virus” to “novel coronavirus-2019” to “COVID-19 virus,” the name of the new coronavirus that first appeared in China has been evolving to its now official designation: SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). But where did the final name come from, how does such a name become official, and who makes it so?
Virus taxonomy
The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) named the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 based upon its genetic relationship to the original SARS-CoV that caused an outbreak of disease in 2002–2003.
According to the ICTV website, the first internationally organized attempts to introduce order into the bewildering variety of viruses took place at the International Congress of Microbiology held in Moscow in 1966 where a committee was created that later became the ICTV and was given the task of developing a single, universal taxonomic scheme for all the viruses infecting animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, and archaea. The ICTV was created as a committee of the virology division of the International Union of Microbiological Societies and is governed by statutes approved by the virology division. Virus classification and nomenclature are subject to rules set out in an International Code.
These designate that: “The universal virus classification system shall employ the hierarchical levels of realm, subrealm, kingdom, subkingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, subclass, order, suborder, family, subfamily, genus, subgenus and species.”
Many of the topmost areas of classification are based on whether the viruses are DNA or RNA, single or double stranded, and have a simple protein shell or a complex lipoprotein envelope. Other levels of classification include host species, type of replication, and type of diseases they cause, the later exemplified in the SARS designation for this virus.
There are 98 international study groups (SGs) covering all major virus orders, families, and genera that are part of the ICTV, and it was the one dedicated to the single-stranded RNA coronaviruses, the CSG, that came up with the SARS-CoV-2 name and first referenced it in their Feb 11 publication in the Cold Springs Harbor preprint journal bioRxiv.
“Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),” they wrote.
According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information Taxonomy Browser, with respect to the original SARS CoV virus, of which this is a relative, the full taxonomic designation is: Viruses, Riboviria, Nidovirales, Cornidovirineae, Coronaviridae, Orthocoronavirinae, Betacoronavirus, Sarbecovirus.
The problem with naming names
The World Health Organization currently is not using the official scientific name of the virus, but rather is merely labeling it with regard to the disease: COVID-19, which simply refers to coronavirus disease 2019.
They are following a modern standard by which disease names avoid inflammatory connotations with people and places. Too often in the past from syphilis as the “French pox,” the 1918 influenza as the “Spanish flu,” AIDS as the “gay plague,” Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and the currently named “WuFlu,” which made an appearance early in the new outbreak and which is symbolic of a sudden wave of anti-Asian, and specifically Chinese, prejudice.
Chinatown districts even in the United States are being affected economically through unwarranted fear associated with the virus. And there have been equivalently virulent outbreaks of hate speech against Asian individuals in places untouched by the new virus.
However, although SARS-CoV-2 as a name avoids such problems, different considerations led the WHO to reject it in its discussions, determining that its use ties it to tightly to the much more deadly SARS-CoV-1 virus in the public mind, risking greater fear and panic, especially in Asia, where SARS-CoV-1 had the biggest impact.
Back in 1896, William Sykes, MD, writing in the first flush of the triumph of germ theory in modern medicine, attempted to give some guidance to how medical science should best come up with new names of diseases by merging the demands of common parlance with those of taxonomic legitimacy. His “On the Origin and History of Disease-Names,” published in the Lancet, had clearcut advice: “It is vain to attempt to replace a folk name or one widely adopted by the people by a new one deliberately coined by scholars, and this for the following reasons: first, whatever names may be accepted by medical men must be translated by them into the vernacular of their patients, and by a resulting reaction the vernacular name comes to be the commoner one with themselves; and, secondly, there is no continuity or unchangeableness in the terms invented by savants, which are amended, improved upon, and displaced by the next writer on the subject, or, even more absurdly still, by the very inventors themselves in a subsequent publication.”
This is the reason that virus taxonomy provides names based upon unchangeable scientific descriptors of the actual disease causing entity, as illustrated by the decisions of the ICTV. In addition, the genomic sequences being provided by the scientific community are all being organized under the SARS-CoV-2 name and thus are cementing that moniker as the only acceptable scientific one.
Whether the rest of the world universally adopts SARS-CoV-2 as a name is still in question. If the outbreak spreads significantly beyond its current limits, fear and confusion – and simply the need for a more familiar-sounding label – may lead the general public to adopt more colloquial designations than those that science attempts to impose, as Dr. Sykes suggested back in 1896. That remains to be seen.
mlesney@mdedge.com
Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & cellular biology at Georgetown University, Washington.
There is no Baby Book of Names or hurricane alphabet to readily name diseases and their causal entities. Throughout history and even in the modern era, a host of considerations have intruded on the decision as to what to call these blights upon humanity. Names have varied from inflammatory to misleading, from colloquial to scientific. And when it concerns a new epidemiological entity such as the latest coronavirus outbreak originating in China, health organizations, media, politicians, scientific taxonomy commissions, and the public at large all have a stake in the naming.
From “Wuhan virus” to “novel coronavirus-2019” to “COVID-19 virus,” the name of the new coronavirus that first appeared in China has been evolving to its now official designation: SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2). But where did the final name come from, how does such a name become official, and who makes it so?
Virus taxonomy
The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) named the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 based upon its genetic relationship to the original SARS-CoV that caused an outbreak of disease in 2002–2003.
According to the ICTV website, the first internationally organized attempts to introduce order into the bewildering variety of viruses took place at the International Congress of Microbiology held in Moscow in 1966 where a committee was created that later became the ICTV and was given the task of developing a single, universal taxonomic scheme for all the viruses infecting animals, plants, fungi, bacteria, and archaea. The ICTV was created as a committee of the virology division of the International Union of Microbiological Societies and is governed by statutes approved by the virology division. Virus classification and nomenclature are subject to rules set out in an International Code.
These designate that: “The universal virus classification system shall employ the hierarchical levels of realm, subrealm, kingdom, subkingdom, phylum, subphylum, class, subclass, order, suborder, family, subfamily, genus, subgenus and species.”
Many of the topmost areas of classification are based on whether the viruses are DNA or RNA, single or double stranded, and have a simple protein shell or a complex lipoprotein envelope. Other levels of classification include host species, type of replication, and type of diseases they cause, the later exemplified in the SARS designation for this virus.
There are 98 international study groups (SGs) covering all major virus orders, families, and genera that are part of the ICTV, and it was the one dedicated to the single-stranded RNA coronaviruses, the CSG, that came up with the SARS-CoV-2 name and first referenced it in their Feb 11 publication in the Cold Springs Harbor preprint journal bioRxiv.
“Based on phylogeny, taxonomy and established practice, the CSG formally recognizes this virus as a sister to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses (SARS-CoVs) of the species severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus and designates it as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),” they wrote.
According to the National Center for Biotechnology Information Taxonomy Browser, with respect to the original SARS CoV virus, of which this is a relative, the full taxonomic designation is: Viruses, Riboviria, Nidovirales, Cornidovirineae, Coronaviridae, Orthocoronavirinae, Betacoronavirus, Sarbecovirus.
The problem with naming names
The World Health Organization currently is not using the official scientific name of the virus, but rather is merely labeling it with regard to the disease: COVID-19, which simply refers to coronavirus disease 2019.
They are following a modern standard by which disease names avoid inflammatory connotations with people and places. Too often in the past from syphilis as the “French pox,” the 1918 influenza as the “Spanish flu,” AIDS as the “gay plague,” Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and the currently named “WuFlu,” which made an appearance early in the new outbreak and which is symbolic of a sudden wave of anti-Asian, and specifically Chinese, prejudice.
Chinatown districts even in the United States are being affected economically through unwarranted fear associated with the virus. And there have been equivalently virulent outbreaks of hate speech against Asian individuals in places untouched by the new virus.
However, although SARS-CoV-2 as a name avoids such problems, different considerations led the WHO to reject it in its discussions, determining that its use ties it to tightly to the much more deadly SARS-CoV-1 virus in the public mind, risking greater fear and panic, especially in Asia, where SARS-CoV-1 had the biggest impact.
Back in 1896, William Sykes, MD, writing in the first flush of the triumph of germ theory in modern medicine, attempted to give some guidance to how medical science should best come up with new names of diseases by merging the demands of common parlance with those of taxonomic legitimacy. His “On the Origin and History of Disease-Names,” published in the Lancet, had clearcut advice: “It is vain to attempt to replace a folk name or one widely adopted by the people by a new one deliberately coined by scholars, and this for the following reasons: first, whatever names may be accepted by medical men must be translated by them into the vernacular of their patients, and by a resulting reaction the vernacular name comes to be the commoner one with themselves; and, secondly, there is no continuity or unchangeableness in the terms invented by savants, which are amended, improved upon, and displaced by the next writer on the subject, or, even more absurdly still, by the very inventors themselves in a subsequent publication.”
This is the reason that virus taxonomy provides names based upon unchangeable scientific descriptors of the actual disease causing entity, as illustrated by the decisions of the ICTV. In addition, the genomic sequences being provided by the scientific community are all being organized under the SARS-CoV-2 name and thus are cementing that moniker as the only acceptable scientific one.
Whether the rest of the world universally adopts SARS-CoV-2 as a name is still in question. If the outbreak spreads significantly beyond its current limits, fear and confusion – and simply the need for a more familiar-sounding label – may lead the general public to adopt more colloquial designations than those that science attempts to impose, as Dr. Sykes suggested back in 1896. That remains to be seen.
mlesney@mdedge.com
Mark Lesney is the managing editor of MDedge.com/IDPractioner. He has a PhD in plant virology and a PhD in the history of science, with a focus on the history of biotechnology and medicine. He has served as an adjunct assistant professor of the department of biochemistry and molecular & cellular biology at Georgetown University, Washington.
Prioritize oral health in children with DEB
LONDON – , pediatric dentist Susanne Krämer told attendees at the first EB World Congress.
While it may not be the first thing on the minds of families coming to terms with their children having a chronic and potentially debilitating skin disease, it is important to consider oral health early to ensure healthy dentition and mouth function, both of which will affect the ability to eat and thus nutrition.
When there are a lot of other health issues, “dentistry is not a priority,” Dr. Krämer acknowledged in an interview at the meeting, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).
Something as simple as brushing teeth can be very distressing for parents of a child with EB, she observed, especially if there is dysphagia and toothpaste may be getting into the airways accidentally.
Oral health was one of the topics that patients with EB and their families said would be good to have some guidance on when they were surveyed by DEBRA International. This led the charity to develop its first clinical practice guideline in 2012. Dr. Krämer was the lead author of the guidelines, which are about to be updated and republished.
The “Oral Health for Patients with Epidermolysis Bullosa – Best Clinical Practice Guidelines” (Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012;22 Suppl 1:1-35) are in the final stages of being revised, said Dr. Krämer, who is head of the department of pediatric dentistry at the University of Chile in Santiago. Although there is not much new evidence since the guidelines were first published, “we do have a lot of new technologies within dentistry that can aid the care of EB,” she said.
An important addition to the upcoming 2020 guidelines is a chapter on the patient-clinician partnership. This was added because “you can have fantastic technologies, but if you don’t have a confident relationship with the family and the patient, you won’t be able to proceed.” Dr. Krämer explained: “Patients with EB are so fragile and so afraid of being hurt that they won’t open their mouth unless there is a confidence with the clinician and they trust [him or her]; once they trust, they [will] open the mouth and you can work.”
Dr. Krämer noted that timing of the first dental appointment will depend on the referral pathway for every country and then every service. In her specialist practice the aim is to see newly diagnosed babies before the age of 3 months. “Lots of people would argue they don’t have teeth, but I need to educate the families on several aspects of oral health from early on.”
Older patients with EB may be more aware of the importance of a healthy mouth from a functional point of view and the need to eat and swallow normally, Dr. Krämer said, adding that the “social aspects of having a healthy smile are very important as well.”
Oral care in EB has come a long way since the 1970s when teeth extraction was recommended as the primary dental treatment option. “If you refer to literature in the 90s, that said we can actually restore the teeth in the patients with EB, and what we are now saying is that we have to prevent oral disease,” Dr. Krämer said.
Can oral disease be prevented completely? Yes, she said, but only in a few patients. “We still have decay in a lot of our patients, but far less than what we have had before. It will depend on the compliance of the family and the patient,” Dr. Krämer noted.
Compliance also is a factor in improving mouth function after surgery, which may be done to prevent the tongue from fusing to the bottom of the mouth and to relieve or prevent microstomia, which limits mouth opening.
“We are doing a lot of surgeries to release the fibrotic scars ... we have done it in both children and adults, but there have been better results in adults, because they are able to comply with the course of exercises” after surgery, Dr. Krämer said.
Results of an as-yet unpublished randomized controlled trial of postoperative mouth exercises demonstrate that patients who did the exercises, which involved using a device to stretch the mouth three times a day for 3 months, saw improvements in mouth opening. Once they stopped doing the exercises, however, these improvements faded. Considering the time spent on dressing changes and other exercises, this is perhaps understandable, she acknowledged.
Prevention, education, continual follow-up, and early referral are key to good oral health, Dr. Krämer emphasized. “If there is patient-clinician partnership confidence, they can have regular checkups with dental cleaning, with a fluoride varnish, different preventive strategies so they do not need to get to the point where they need general anesthesia or extractions.” Extractions still will be done, she added, but more for orthodontic reasons, because the teeth do not fit in the mouth. “That is our ideal world, that is where we want to go.”
LONDON – , pediatric dentist Susanne Krämer told attendees at the first EB World Congress.
While it may not be the first thing on the minds of families coming to terms with their children having a chronic and potentially debilitating skin disease, it is important to consider oral health early to ensure healthy dentition and mouth function, both of which will affect the ability to eat and thus nutrition.
When there are a lot of other health issues, “dentistry is not a priority,” Dr. Krämer acknowledged in an interview at the meeting, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).
Something as simple as brushing teeth can be very distressing for parents of a child with EB, she observed, especially if there is dysphagia and toothpaste may be getting into the airways accidentally.
Oral health was one of the topics that patients with EB and their families said would be good to have some guidance on when they were surveyed by DEBRA International. This led the charity to develop its first clinical practice guideline in 2012. Dr. Krämer was the lead author of the guidelines, which are about to be updated and republished.
The “Oral Health for Patients with Epidermolysis Bullosa – Best Clinical Practice Guidelines” (Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012;22 Suppl 1:1-35) are in the final stages of being revised, said Dr. Krämer, who is head of the department of pediatric dentistry at the University of Chile in Santiago. Although there is not much new evidence since the guidelines were first published, “we do have a lot of new technologies within dentistry that can aid the care of EB,” she said.
An important addition to the upcoming 2020 guidelines is a chapter on the patient-clinician partnership. This was added because “you can have fantastic technologies, but if you don’t have a confident relationship with the family and the patient, you won’t be able to proceed.” Dr. Krämer explained: “Patients with EB are so fragile and so afraid of being hurt that they won’t open their mouth unless there is a confidence with the clinician and they trust [him or her]; once they trust, they [will] open the mouth and you can work.”
Dr. Krämer noted that timing of the first dental appointment will depend on the referral pathway for every country and then every service. In her specialist practice the aim is to see newly diagnosed babies before the age of 3 months. “Lots of people would argue they don’t have teeth, but I need to educate the families on several aspects of oral health from early on.”
Older patients with EB may be more aware of the importance of a healthy mouth from a functional point of view and the need to eat and swallow normally, Dr. Krämer said, adding that the “social aspects of having a healthy smile are very important as well.”
Oral care in EB has come a long way since the 1970s when teeth extraction was recommended as the primary dental treatment option. “If you refer to literature in the 90s, that said we can actually restore the teeth in the patients with EB, and what we are now saying is that we have to prevent oral disease,” Dr. Krämer said.
Can oral disease be prevented completely? Yes, she said, but only in a few patients. “We still have decay in a lot of our patients, but far less than what we have had before. It will depend on the compliance of the family and the patient,” Dr. Krämer noted.
Compliance also is a factor in improving mouth function after surgery, which may be done to prevent the tongue from fusing to the bottom of the mouth and to relieve or prevent microstomia, which limits mouth opening.
“We are doing a lot of surgeries to release the fibrotic scars ... we have done it in both children and adults, but there have been better results in adults, because they are able to comply with the course of exercises” after surgery, Dr. Krämer said.
Results of an as-yet unpublished randomized controlled trial of postoperative mouth exercises demonstrate that patients who did the exercises, which involved using a device to stretch the mouth three times a day for 3 months, saw improvements in mouth opening. Once they stopped doing the exercises, however, these improvements faded. Considering the time spent on dressing changes and other exercises, this is perhaps understandable, she acknowledged.
Prevention, education, continual follow-up, and early referral are key to good oral health, Dr. Krämer emphasized. “If there is patient-clinician partnership confidence, they can have regular checkups with dental cleaning, with a fluoride varnish, different preventive strategies so they do not need to get to the point where they need general anesthesia or extractions.” Extractions still will be done, she added, but more for orthodontic reasons, because the teeth do not fit in the mouth. “That is our ideal world, that is where we want to go.”
LONDON – , pediatric dentist Susanne Krämer told attendees at the first EB World Congress.
While it may not be the first thing on the minds of families coming to terms with their children having a chronic and potentially debilitating skin disease, it is important to consider oral health early to ensure healthy dentition and mouth function, both of which will affect the ability to eat and thus nutrition.
When there are a lot of other health issues, “dentistry is not a priority,” Dr. Krämer acknowledged in an interview at the meeting, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).
Something as simple as brushing teeth can be very distressing for parents of a child with EB, she observed, especially if there is dysphagia and toothpaste may be getting into the airways accidentally.
Oral health was one of the topics that patients with EB and their families said would be good to have some guidance on when they were surveyed by DEBRA International. This led the charity to develop its first clinical practice guideline in 2012. Dr. Krämer was the lead author of the guidelines, which are about to be updated and republished.
The “Oral Health for Patients with Epidermolysis Bullosa – Best Clinical Practice Guidelines” (Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012;22 Suppl 1:1-35) are in the final stages of being revised, said Dr. Krämer, who is head of the department of pediatric dentistry at the University of Chile in Santiago. Although there is not much new evidence since the guidelines were first published, “we do have a lot of new technologies within dentistry that can aid the care of EB,” she said.
An important addition to the upcoming 2020 guidelines is a chapter on the patient-clinician partnership. This was added because “you can have fantastic technologies, but if you don’t have a confident relationship with the family and the patient, you won’t be able to proceed.” Dr. Krämer explained: “Patients with EB are so fragile and so afraid of being hurt that they won’t open their mouth unless there is a confidence with the clinician and they trust [him or her]; once they trust, they [will] open the mouth and you can work.”
Dr. Krämer noted that timing of the first dental appointment will depend on the referral pathway for every country and then every service. In her specialist practice the aim is to see newly diagnosed babies before the age of 3 months. “Lots of people would argue they don’t have teeth, but I need to educate the families on several aspects of oral health from early on.”
Older patients with EB may be more aware of the importance of a healthy mouth from a functional point of view and the need to eat and swallow normally, Dr. Krämer said, adding that the “social aspects of having a healthy smile are very important as well.”
Oral care in EB has come a long way since the 1970s when teeth extraction was recommended as the primary dental treatment option. “If you refer to literature in the 90s, that said we can actually restore the teeth in the patients with EB, and what we are now saying is that we have to prevent oral disease,” Dr. Krämer said.
Can oral disease be prevented completely? Yes, she said, but only in a few patients. “We still have decay in a lot of our patients, but far less than what we have had before. It will depend on the compliance of the family and the patient,” Dr. Krämer noted.
Compliance also is a factor in improving mouth function after surgery, which may be done to prevent the tongue from fusing to the bottom of the mouth and to relieve or prevent microstomia, which limits mouth opening.
“We are doing a lot of surgeries to release the fibrotic scars ... we have done it in both children and adults, but there have been better results in adults, because they are able to comply with the course of exercises” after surgery, Dr. Krämer said.
Results of an as-yet unpublished randomized controlled trial of postoperative mouth exercises demonstrate that patients who did the exercises, which involved using a device to stretch the mouth three times a day for 3 months, saw improvements in mouth opening. Once they stopped doing the exercises, however, these improvements faded. Considering the time spent on dressing changes and other exercises, this is perhaps understandable, she acknowledged.
Prevention, education, continual follow-up, and early referral are key to good oral health, Dr. Krämer emphasized. “If there is patient-clinician partnership confidence, they can have regular checkups with dental cleaning, with a fluoride varnish, different preventive strategies so they do not need to get to the point where they need general anesthesia or extractions.” Extractions still will be done, she added, but more for orthodontic reasons, because the teeth do not fit in the mouth. “That is our ideal world, that is where we want to go.”
REPORTING FROM EB 2020
Drop in flu activity suggests season may have peaked
Influenza activity dropped during the week ending Feb. 15, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That decline, along with revised data from the 2 previous weeks, suggests that the 2019-2020 season has peaked for the second time. The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) came in at 6.1% for the week ending Feb. 15, after two straight weeks at 6.7%, the CDC’s influenza division reported Feb. 21.
The rates for those 2 earlier weeks had previously been reported at 6.8% (Feb. 8) and 6.6% (Feb. 1), which means that there have now been 2 consecutive weeks without an increase in national ILI activity.
State-level activity was down slightly as well. For the week ending Feb. 15, there were 39 states and Puerto Rico at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, compared with 41 states and Puerto Rico the week before. The number of states in the “high” range, which includes levels 8 and 9, went from 44 to 45, however, CDC data show.
Laboratory measures also dropped a bit. For the week, 29.6% of respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza, compared with 30.3% the previous week. The predominance of influenza A continued to increase, as type A went from 59.4% to 63.5% of positive specimens and type B dropped from 40.6% to 36.5%, the influenza division said.
In a separate report, the CDC announced interim flu vaccine effectiveness estimates.For the 2019-2020 season so far, “flu vaccines are reducing doctor’s visits for flu illness by almost half (45%). This is consistent with estimates of flu vaccine effectiveness (VE) from previous flu seasons that ranged from 40% to 60% when flu vaccine viruses were similar to circulating influenza viruses,” the CDC said.
Although VE among children aged 6 months to 17 years is even higher, at 55%, this season “has been especially bad for children. Flu hospitalization rates among children are higher than at this time in other recent seasons, including the 2017-18 season,” the CDC noted.
The number of pediatric flu deaths for 2019-2020 – now up to 105 – is “higher for the same time period than in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC added.
Interim VE estimates for other age groups are 25% for adults aged 18-49 and 43% for those 50 years and older. “The lower VE point estimates observed among adults 18-49 years appear to be associated with a trend suggesting lower VE in this age group against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses,” the CDC said.
Influenza activity dropped during the week ending Feb. 15, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That decline, along with revised data from the 2 previous weeks, suggests that the 2019-2020 season has peaked for the second time. The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) came in at 6.1% for the week ending Feb. 15, after two straight weeks at 6.7%, the CDC’s influenza division reported Feb. 21.
The rates for those 2 earlier weeks had previously been reported at 6.8% (Feb. 8) and 6.6% (Feb. 1), which means that there have now been 2 consecutive weeks without an increase in national ILI activity.
State-level activity was down slightly as well. For the week ending Feb. 15, there were 39 states and Puerto Rico at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, compared with 41 states and Puerto Rico the week before. The number of states in the “high” range, which includes levels 8 and 9, went from 44 to 45, however, CDC data show.
Laboratory measures also dropped a bit. For the week, 29.6% of respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza, compared with 30.3% the previous week. The predominance of influenza A continued to increase, as type A went from 59.4% to 63.5% of positive specimens and type B dropped from 40.6% to 36.5%, the influenza division said.
In a separate report, the CDC announced interim flu vaccine effectiveness estimates.For the 2019-2020 season so far, “flu vaccines are reducing doctor’s visits for flu illness by almost half (45%). This is consistent with estimates of flu vaccine effectiveness (VE) from previous flu seasons that ranged from 40% to 60% when flu vaccine viruses were similar to circulating influenza viruses,” the CDC said.
Although VE among children aged 6 months to 17 years is even higher, at 55%, this season “has been especially bad for children. Flu hospitalization rates among children are higher than at this time in other recent seasons, including the 2017-18 season,” the CDC noted.
The number of pediatric flu deaths for 2019-2020 – now up to 105 – is “higher for the same time period than in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC added.
Interim VE estimates for other age groups are 25% for adults aged 18-49 and 43% for those 50 years and older. “The lower VE point estimates observed among adults 18-49 years appear to be associated with a trend suggesting lower VE in this age group against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses,” the CDC said.
Influenza activity dropped during the week ending Feb. 15, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That decline, along with revised data from the 2 previous weeks, suggests that the 2019-2020 season has peaked for the second time. The rate of outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) came in at 6.1% for the week ending Feb. 15, after two straight weeks at 6.7%, the CDC’s influenza division reported Feb. 21.
The rates for those 2 earlier weeks had previously been reported at 6.8% (Feb. 8) and 6.6% (Feb. 1), which means that there have now been 2 consecutive weeks without an increase in national ILI activity.
State-level activity was down slightly as well. For the week ending Feb. 15, there were 39 states and Puerto Rico at the highest level of activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale, compared with 41 states and Puerto Rico the week before. The number of states in the “high” range, which includes levels 8 and 9, went from 44 to 45, however, CDC data show.
Laboratory measures also dropped a bit. For the week, 29.6% of respiratory specimens tested positive for influenza, compared with 30.3% the previous week. The predominance of influenza A continued to increase, as type A went from 59.4% to 63.5% of positive specimens and type B dropped from 40.6% to 36.5%, the influenza division said.
In a separate report, the CDC announced interim flu vaccine effectiveness estimates.For the 2019-2020 season so far, “flu vaccines are reducing doctor’s visits for flu illness by almost half (45%). This is consistent with estimates of flu vaccine effectiveness (VE) from previous flu seasons that ranged from 40% to 60% when flu vaccine viruses were similar to circulating influenza viruses,” the CDC said.
Although VE among children aged 6 months to 17 years is even higher, at 55%, this season “has been especially bad for children. Flu hospitalization rates among children are higher than at this time in other recent seasons, including the 2017-18 season,” the CDC noted.
The number of pediatric flu deaths for 2019-2020 – now up to 105 – is “higher for the same time period than in every season since reporting began in 2004-05, with the exception of the 2009 pandemic,” the CDC added.
Interim VE estimates for other age groups are 25% for adults aged 18-49 and 43% for those 50 years and older. “The lower VE point estimates observed among adults 18-49 years appear to be associated with a trend suggesting lower VE in this age group against A(H1N1)pdm09 viruses,” the CDC said.
FROM THE CDC
WHO urges that ‘window of opportunity’ on containing novel coronavirus not be missed
As of 6 a.m. Geneva time, Feb. 21, China reported 75,567 cases of COVID-19 and 2,239 deaths, including a total of 892 new confirmed cases that were reported in China in the past 24 hours, with 118 deaths, stated Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, MD, World Health Organization Director-General, in a Feb. 21 news conference on the COVID-19 outbreak.
What he described as “the significant decline in newly reported cases” is partly because of a change in reporting in which China switched from including “clinically diagnosed” cases to reporting only “suspected” and “laboratory confirmed cases.” The reporting procedure changed because the medical facilities in Wuhan regained the capability of checking all suspected cases with laboratory tests. As a result, some cases that were clinically confirmed were subtracted from the total because they tested negative, said Dr. Ghebreyesus.
Although the number of cases in Hubuei province continues to decline, the WHO is concerned about an increase seen in Shandong province and they are seeking more information. Outside China, there are now 1,152 cases in 26 countries and eight deaths. “Although the number of cases outside of China remains small, we are concerned about the cases with no clear epidemiological link, such as travel history to China, or contact with a confirmed case,” said Dr. Ghebreyesus. “Apart from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, the Republic of Korea now has the most cases outside China, and we are working closely with that government to understand the transmission dynamics that led to this increase.”
“We are also concerned about the increase of cases in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there are now 18 cases and four deaths in just the past 2 days.”
“Our particular concern is for COVID-19 to spread in countries with weaker health systems,” he said, adding that tomorrow, he will address an emergency meeting of African health ministers held jointly by the African Union and the African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention on dealing with COVID-19.
Dr. Ghebreyesus also announced that today the WHO has designated six special envoys on COVID-19 to provide strategic advice and high-level political advocacy and engagement in different parts of the world.
In his remarks, Dr. Ghebreyesus particularly stressed that: “The measures that China and other countries have taken have given us a fighting chance of containing the spread of the virus. We call on all countries to continue their commitment for containment measures, while preparing for community transmission if it occurs. We must not look back and regret that we failed to take advantage of the window of opportunity that we have now.”
In the question and answer period, Dr. Ghebreyesus specifically addressed the issue of misinformation and conspiracy theories being promulgated by certain individuals and on social media about the source of the virus, especially those people who believe that it was designed in a Chinese virus laboratory. Scientists play an important role in refuting such particular misinformation, he said, and research must continue to track down the actual source in nature.
To that regard, a paper published online in the Lancet on Feb. 19, provided a consensus statement by more than 25 health scientists outside of China stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.”
The WHO issues daily coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports on its website and provides these telebriefing updates daily.
As of 6 a.m. Geneva time, Feb. 21, China reported 75,567 cases of COVID-19 and 2,239 deaths, including a total of 892 new confirmed cases that were reported in China in the past 24 hours, with 118 deaths, stated Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, MD, World Health Organization Director-General, in a Feb. 21 news conference on the COVID-19 outbreak.
What he described as “the significant decline in newly reported cases” is partly because of a change in reporting in which China switched from including “clinically diagnosed” cases to reporting only “suspected” and “laboratory confirmed cases.” The reporting procedure changed because the medical facilities in Wuhan regained the capability of checking all suspected cases with laboratory tests. As a result, some cases that were clinically confirmed were subtracted from the total because they tested negative, said Dr. Ghebreyesus.
Although the number of cases in Hubuei province continues to decline, the WHO is concerned about an increase seen in Shandong province and they are seeking more information. Outside China, there are now 1,152 cases in 26 countries and eight deaths. “Although the number of cases outside of China remains small, we are concerned about the cases with no clear epidemiological link, such as travel history to China, or contact with a confirmed case,” said Dr. Ghebreyesus. “Apart from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, the Republic of Korea now has the most cases outside China, and we are working closely with that government to understand the transmission dynamics that led to this increase.”
“We are also concerned about the increase of cases in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there are now 18 cases and four deaths in just the past 2 days.”
“Our particular concern is for COVID-19 to spread in countries with weaker health systems,” he said, adding that tomorrow, he will address an emergency meeting of African health ministers held jointly by the African Union and the African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention on dealing with COVID-19.
Dr. Ghebreyesus also announced that today the WHO has designated six special envoys on COVID-19 to provide strategic advice and high-level political advocacy and engagement in different parts of the world.
In his remarks, Dr. Ghebreyesus particularly stressed that: “The measures that China and other countries have taken have given us a fighting chance of containing the spread of the virus. We call on all countries to continue their commitment for containment measures, while preparing for community transmission if it occurs. We must not look back and regret that we failed to take advantage of the window of opportunity that we have now.”
In the question and answer period, Dr. Ghebreyesus specifically addressed the issue of misinformation and conspiracy theories being promulgated by certain individuals and on social media about the source of the virus, especially those people who believe that it was designed in a Chinese virus laboratory. Scientists play an important role in refuting such particular misinformation, he said, and research must continue to track down the actual source in nature.
To that regard, a paper published online in the Lancet on Feb. 19, provided a consensus statement by more than 25 health scientists outside of China stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.”
The WHO issues daily coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports on its website and provides these telebriefing updates daily.
As of 6 a.m. Geneva time, Feb. 21, China reported 75,567 cases of COVID-19 and 2,239 deaths, including a total of 892 new confirmed cases that were reported in China in the past 24 hours, with 118 deaths, stated Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, MD, World Health Organization Director-General, in a Feb. 21 news conference on the COVID-19 outbreak.
What he described as “the significant decline in newly reported cases” is partly because of a change in reporting in which China switched from including “clinically diagnosed” cases to reporting only “suspected” and “laboratory confirmed cases.” The reporting procedure changed because the medical facilities in Wuhan regained the capability of checking all suspected cases with laboratory tests. As a result, some cases that were clinically confirmed were subtracted from the total because they tested negative, said Dr. Ghebreyesus.
Although the number of cases in Hubuei province continues to decline, the WHO is concerned about an increase seen in Shandong province and they are seeking more information. Outside China, there are now 1,152 cases in 26 countries and eight deaths. “Although the number of cases outside of China remains small, we are concerned about the cases with no clear epidemiological link, such as travel history to China, or contact with a confirmed case,” said Dr. Ghebreyesus. “Apart from the Diamond Princess cruise ship, the Republic of Korea now has the most cases outside China, and we are working closely with that government to understand the transmission dynamics that led to this increase.”
“We are also concerned about the increase of cases in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there are now 18 cases and four deaths in just the past 2 days.”
“Our particular concern is for COVID-19 to spread in countries with weaker health systems,” he said, adding that tomorrow, he will address an emergency meeting of African health ministers held jointly by the African Union and the African Centres for Disease Control and Prevention on dealing with COVID-19.
Dr. Ghebreyesus also announced that today the WHO has designated six special envoys on COVID-19 to provide strategic advice and high-level political advocacy and engagement in different parts of the world.
In his remarks, Dr. Ghebreyesus particularly stressed that: “The measures that China and other countries have taken have given us a fighting chance of containing the spread of the virus. We call on all countries to continue their commitment for containment measures, while preparing for community transmission if it occurs. We must not look back and regret that we failed to take advantage of the window of opportunity that we have now.”
In the question and answer period, Dr. Ghebreyesus specifically addressed the issue of misinformation and conspiracy theories being promulgated by certain individuals and on social media about the source of the virus, especially those people who believe that it was designed in a Chinese virus laboratory. Scientists play an important role in refuting such particular misinformation, he said, and research must continue to track down the actual source in nature.
To that regard, a paper published online in the Lancet on Feb. 19, provided a consensus statement by more than 25 health scientists outside of China stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analyzed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife, as have so many other emerging pathogens.”
The WHO issues daily coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports on its website and provides these telebriefing updates daily.
REPORTING FROM A WHO TELEBRIEFING
Excessive masculinity linked to high suicide risk
Excessive masculinity is linked to a significantly increased risk for death by suicide in men, new research suggests.
In the first study to show this association, investigators found that men with high traditional masculinity (HTM) – a set of norms that includes competitiveness, emotional restriction, and aggression – were about two and half times more likely to die by suicide than their counterparts without HTM. The finding underscores the “central role” of gender in suicide death.
“We found that high-traditional-masculinity men were 2.4 times more likely to die by suicide than those who were not [of] high traditional masculinity. We feel this is a significant finding, and one that’s very rare to have evidence for,” study investigator Daniel Coleman, PhD, said in an interview.
“Our other findings are also important and interesting,” added Dr. Coleman, associate professor of social service at Fordham University, New York. “One was that high traditional masculinity was associated with a host of other significant risk factors for suicide death. So not only does high traditional masculinity add to the risk of suicide death, it also may have indirect effects through other variables, such as acting-out behavior.”
The study was published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Psychiatry (doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4702).
First look
In the United States, death by suicide is 3.5 times more common in men than in women. Several potential drivers may explain this phenomenon; one plausible factor may be high levels of what the investigators describe as “traditional masculinity.”
Interestingly, previous studies suggest that HTM men experience suicidal thoughts to a greater degree than do other persons (Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;52[3]:319-27). Nevertheless, the potential influence of HTM and suicide mortality has not been examined before now.
The study is a secondary analysis of the longitudinal Add Health (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health) study, which began in 1995 and followed 20,745 adolescents through young adulthood. Not only did that study show a direct association between measures of HTM and death by suicide, but it also corroborated the connection between HTM and other risk factors for suicide revealed in earlier research (Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2016 Apr;46[2]:191-205).
To tease out this relationship, Dr. Coleman and colleagues used data from the nationally representative Add Health study. That earlier research concluded that nine Add Health variables were associated with suicide; these included suicide by a family member, being expelled from school, running away from home, using a weapon, being of white race, a past history of smoking, being in a serious fight in the past year, delinquency, and fighting.
In the current study, the researchers hypothesized that HTM would be associated with these nine variables, in addition to suicide, depression, and gun access.
In the Add Health study, the adolescents were followed over time. In the current analysis, the researchers matched data from that study with death records from the National Death Index from 2014. Death by suicide was defined using National Death Index procedures.
The investigators then used an established procedure for scoring gender-typed attitudes and behaviors. As part of this, a single latent probability variable for identifying oneself as male was generated from 16 gender-discriminating variables.
Participants who were found to score at least a 73% probability of identifying as male (greater than 1 standard deviation above the mean) were classified as HTM.
“There’s been a lot of speculating about masculinity as a risk factor for male suicides,” Dr. Coleman said. “But it’s very difficult to study suicide death and something psychosocial like masculinity. So this was an attempt to fill that gap and test the hypothesis that’s being discussed quite a bit.”
A relevant risk factor
Twenty-two deaths occurred among the Add Health participants. Of those participants, 21 were men (odds ratio, 21.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-161; P less than .001).
The analysis showed that all nine risks for suicide that were highlighted in previous research were positively associated with HTM, with small to medium effect sizes. Of these, the most pronounced was family member suicide, with an OR of 1.89 (95% CI, 1.3-2.7).
Most tellingly, HTM men were 2.4 times more likely to end their lives by suicide than were men not defined as such (95% CI, 0.99-6.0; P less than .046). Nevertheless, HTM men were also 1.45 times less likely to report suicidal ideation (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81; P less than .001). There was no association between HTM and nonfatal suicide attempts.
Interestingly, HTM men were slightly more likely to report easy access to guns (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20; P less than .04), but they had lower levels of depression (Cohen’s d, 0.17; P less than .001).
HTM not only has a direct association with suicide but also with a web of indirect effects as well, thanks to its association with all the other risks identified in the previous study by another group of investigators.
HTM may be an underlying influence in male suicide that increases the probability of externalizing such behavioral risk factors as anger, violence, gun access, and school problems.
The finding that almost all of the people who died by suicide were men underscores the central role that gender plays in these tragedies. As such, the investigators hope that the study prompts more research, as well as intervention efforts aimed at the role of masculinity in suicide.
“There are already things going on around the world to try to address the risk factors of masculinity for suicide death,” Dr. Coleman said. “So even though we haven’t had the evidence that it’s a risk factor, people have been operating under that assumption anyway.
“Hopefully our research contributes to raising the profile that high traditional masculinity is a relevant risk factor that we can organize prevention and treatment around.”
An important contribution
Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, commenting on the findings in an interview, said the study makes an important contribution to suicide research.
“Any study that tries to link a living sample with death data, as they did here, is important,” said Dr. Kaplan, professor of social welfare at the Luskin School of Public Affairs of the University of California, Los Angeles.
“It’s also important because it begins to scratch the surface of more proximal or distal factors that are associated with suicide, and masculinity is one of those factors,” Dr. Kaplan added.
“In an incremental way, it begins to add to the puzzle of why men have a higher mortality rate than their female counterparts. Because when it comes to suicide, men and women really are apples and oranges.”
Dr. Kaplan believes HTM is one of several traits that may lead men to take their own lives.
“There are all sorts of other issues. For example, masculinity might be interacting with some of the harsh socioeconomic conditions that many men face. I think all of this points to the real need to understand why men die from suicide,” he said.
The Add Health study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. No direct support was received from the grant for the current study. Dr. Coleman and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Excessive masculinity is linked to a significantly increased risk for death by suicide in men, new research suggests.
In the first study to show this association, investigators found that men with high traditional masculinity (HTM) – a set of norms that includes competitiveness, emotional restriction, and aggression – were about two and half times more likely to die by suicide than their counterparts without HTM. The finding underscores the “central role” of gender in suicide death.
“We found that high-traditional-masculinity men were 2.4 times more likely to die by suicide than those who were not [of] high traditional masculinity. We feel this is a significant finding, and one that’s very rare to have evidence for,” study investigator Daniel Coleman, PhD, said in an interview.
“Our other findings are also important and interesting,” added Dr. Coleman, associate professor of social service at Fordham University, New York. “One was that high traditional masculinity was associated with a host of other significant risk factors for suicide death. So not only does high traditional masculinity add to the risk of suicide death, it also may have indirect effects through other variables, such as acting-out behavior.”
The study was published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Psychiatry (doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4702).
First look
In the United States, death by suicide is 3.5 times more common in men than in women. Several potential drivers may explain this phenomenon; one plausible factor may be high levels of what the investigators describe as “traditional masculinity.”
Interestingly, previous studies suggest that HTM men experience suicidal thoughts to a greater degree than do other persons (Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;52[3]:319-27). Nevertheless, the potential influence of HTM and suicide mortality has not been examined before now.
The study is a secondary analysis of the longitudinal Add Health (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health) study, which began in 1995 and followed 20,745 adolescents through young adulthood. Not only did that study show a direct association between measures of HTM and death by suicide, but it also corroborated the connection between HTM and other risk factors for suicide revealed in earlier research (Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2016 Apr;46[2]:191-205).
To tease out this relationship, Dr. Coleman and colleagues used data from the nationally representative Add Health study. That earlier research concluded that nine Add Health variables were associated with suicide; these included suicide by a family member, being expelled from school, running away from home, using a weapon, being of white race, a past history of smoking, being in a serious fight in the past year, delinquency, and fighting.
In the current study, the researchers hypothesized that HTM would be associated with these nine variables, in addition to suicide, depression, and gun access.
In the Add Health study, the adolescents were followed over time. In the current analysis, the researchers matched data from that study with death records from the National Death Index from 2014. Death by suicide was defined using National Death Index procedures.
The investigators then used an established procedure for scoring gender-typed attitudes and behaviors. As part of this, a single latent probability variable for identifying oneself as male was generated from 16 gender-discriminating variables.
Participants who were found to score at least a 73% probability of identifying as male (greater than 1 standard deviation above the mean) were classified as HTM.
“There’s been a lot of speculating about masculinity as a risk factor for male suicides,” Dr. Coleman said. “But it’s very difficult to study suicide death and something psychosocial like masculinity. So this was an attempt to fill that gap and test the hypothesis that’s being discussed quite a bit.”
A relevant risk factor
Twenty-two deaths occurred among the Add Health participants. Of those participants, 21 were men (odds ratio, 21.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-161; P less than .001).
The analysis showed that all nine risks for suicide that were highlighted in previous research were positively associated with HTM, with small to medium effect sizes. Of these, the most pronounced was family member suicide, with an OR of 1.89 (95% CI, 1.3-2.7).
Most tellingly, HTM men were 2.4 times more likely to end their lives by suicide than were men not defined as such (95% CI, 0.99-6.0; P less than .046). Nevertheless, HTM men were also 1.45 times less likely to report suicidal ideation (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81; P less than .001). There was no association between HTM and nonfatal suicide attempts.
Interestingly, HTM men were slightly more likely to report easy access to guns (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20; P less than .04), but they had lower levels of depression (Cohen’s d, 0.17; P less than .001).
HTM not only has a direct association with suicide but also with a web of indirect effects as well, thanks to its association with all the other risks identified in the previous study by another group of investigators.
HTM may be an underlying influence in male suicide that increases the probability of externalizing such behavioral risk factors as anger, violence, gun access, and school problems.
The finding that almost all of the people who died by suicide were men underscores the central role that gender plays in these tragedies. As such, the investigators hope that the study prompts more research, as well as intervention efforts aimed at the role of masculinity in suicide.
“There are already things going on around the world to try to address the risk factors of masculinity for suicide death,” Dr. Coleman said. “So even though we haven’t had the evidence that it’s a risk factor, people have been operating under that assumption anyway.
“Hopefully our research contributes to raising the profile that high traditional masculinity is a relevant risk factor that we can organize prevention and treatment around.”
An important contribution
Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, commenting on the findings in an interview, said the study makes an important contribution to suicide research.
“Any study that tries to link a living sample with death data, as they did here, is important,” said Dr. Kaplan, professor of social welfare at the Luskin School of Public Affairs of the University of California, Los Angeles.
“It’s also important because it begins to scratch the surface of more proximal or distal factors that are associated with suicide, and masculinity is one of those factors,” Dr. Kaplan added.
“In an incremental way, it begins to add to the puzzle of why men have a higher mortality rate than their female counterparts. Because when it comes to suicide, men and women really are apples and oranges.”
Dr. Kaplan believes HTM is one of several traits that may lead men to take their own lives.
“There are all sorts of other issues. For example, masculinity might be interacting with some of the harsh socioeconomic conditions that many men face. I think all of this points to the real need to understand why men die from suicide,” he said.
The Add Health study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. No direct support was received from the grant for the current study. Dr. Coleman and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Excessive masculinity is linked to a significantly increased risk for death by suicide in men, new research suggests.
In the first study to show this association, investigators found that men with high traditional masculinity (HTM) – a set of norms that includes competitiveness, emotional restriction, and aggression – were about two and half times more likely to die by suicide than their counterparts without HTM. The finding underscores the “central role” of gender in suicide death.
“We found that high-traditional-masculinity men were 2.4 times more likely to die by suicide than those who were not [of] high traditional masculinity. We feel this is a significant finding, and one that’s very rare to have evidence for,” study investigator Daniel Coleman, PhD, said in an interview.
“Our other findings are also important and interesting,” added Dr. Coleman, associate professor of social service at Fordham University, New York. “One was that high traditional masculinity was associated with a host of other significant risk factors for suicide death. So not only does high traditional masculinity add to the risk of suicide death, it also may have indirect effects through other variables, such as acting-out behavior.”
The study was published online Feb. 12 in JAMA Psychiatry (doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.4702).
First look
In the United States, death by suicide is 3.5 times more common in men than in women. Several potential drivers may explain this phenomenon; one plausible factor may be high levels of what the investigators describe as “traditional masculinity.”
Interestingly, previous studies suggest that HTM men experience suicidal thoughts to a greater degree than do other persons (Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017 Mar;52[3]:319-27). Nevertheless, the potential influence of HTM and suicide mortality has not been examined before now.
The study is a secondary analysis of the longitudinal Add Health (the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health) study, which began in 1995 and followed 20,745 adolescents through young adulthood. Not only did that study show a direct association between measures of HTM and death by suicide, but it also corroborated the connection between HTM and other risk factors for suicide revealed in earlier research (Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2016 Apr;46[2]:191-205).
To tease out this relationship, Dr. Coleman and colleagues used data from the nationally representative Add Health study. That earlier research concluded that nine Add Health variables were associated with suicide; these included suicide by a family member, being expelled from school, running away from home, using a weapon, being of white race, a past history of smoking, being in a serious fight in the past year, delinquency, and fighting.
In the current study, the researchers hypothesized that HTM would be associated with these nine variables, in addition to suicide, depression, and gun access.
In the Add Health study, the adolescents were followed over time. In the current analysis, the researchers matched data from that study with death records from the National Death Index from 2014. Death by suicide was defined using National Death Index procedures.
The investigators then used an established procedure for scoring gender-typed attitudes and behaviors. As part of this, a single latent probability variable for identifying oneself as male was generated from 16 gender-discriminating variables.
Participants who were found to score at least a 73% probability of identifying as male (greater than 1 standard deviation above the mean) were classified as HTM.
“There’s been a lot of speculating about masculinity as a risk factor for male suicides,” Dr. Coleman said. “But it’s very difficult to study suicide death and something psychosocial like masculinity. So this was an attempt to fill that gap and test the hypothesis that’s being discussed quite a bit.”
A relevant risk factor
Twenty-two deaths occurred among the Add Health participants. Of those participants, 21 were men (odds ratio, 21.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.9-161; P less than .001).
The analysis showed that all nine risks for suicide that were highlighted in previous research were positively associated with HTM, with small to medium effect sizes. Of these, the most pronounced was family member suicide, with an OR of 1.89 (95% CI, 1.3-2.7).
Most tellingly, HTM men were 2.4 times more likely to end their lives by suicide than were men not defined as such (95% CI, 0.99-6.0; P less than .046). Nevertheless, HTM men were also 1.45 times less likely to report suicidal ideation (OR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60-0.81; P less than .001). There was no association between HTM and nonfatal suicide attempts.
Interestingly, HTM men were slightly more likely to report easy access to guns (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.20; P less than .04), but they had lower levels of depression (Cohen’s d, 0.17; P less than .001).
HTM not only has a direct association with suicide but also with a web of indirect effects as well, thanks to its association with all the other risks identified in the previous study by another group of investigators.
HTM may be an underlying influence in male suicide that increases the probability of externalizing such behavioral risk factors as anger, violence, gun access, and school problems.
The finding that almost all of the people who died by suicide were men underscores the central role that gender plays in these tragedies. As such, the investigators hope that the study prompts more research, as well as intervention efforts aimed at the role of masculinity in suicide.
“There are already things going on around the world to try to address the risk factors of masculinity for suicide death,” Dr. Coleman said. “So even though we haven’t had the evidence that it’s a risk factor, people have been operating under that assumption anyway.
“Hopefully our research contributes to raising the profile that high traditional masculinity is a relevant risk factor that we can organize prevention and treatment around.”
An important contribution
Mark S. Kaplan, DrPH, commenting on the findings in an interview, said the study makes an important contribution to suicide research.
“Any study that tries to link a living sample with death data, as they did here, is important,” said Dr. Kaplan, professor of social welfare at the Luskin School of Public Affairs of the University of California, Los Angeles.
“It’s also important because it begins to scratch the surface of more proximal or distal factors that are associated with suicide, and masculinity is one of those factors,” Dr. Kaplan added.
“In an incremental way, it begins to add to the puzzle of why men have a higher mortality rate than their female counterparts. Because when it comes to suicide, men and women really are apples and oranges.”
Dr. Kaplan believes HTM is one of several traits that may lead men to take their own lives.
“There are all sorts of other issues. For example, masculinity might be interacting with some of the harsh socioeconomic conditions that many men face. I think all of this points to the real need to understand why men die from suicide,” he said.
The Add Health study is funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. No direct support was received from the grant for the current study. Dr. Coleman and Dr. Kaplan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adolescent obesity linked with midlife cancer risk
Obesity during adolescence is associated with increased midlife cancer risk, according to findings from a large population-based cohort of Israeli teens examined between 1967 and 2010.
The association, which was stronger in individuals in the later period of the cohort than in those in the earlier years, suggests that the burden of obesity-related cancers might increase over time, given the increasing prevalence of adolescent obesity, wrote Ariel Furer, MD, of Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet.
Obesity is a known causal factor for several types of cancer, but most studies have looked at middle-age or older individuals and had relatively short follow-up, and period effects are rarely assessed, the investigators said, noting that “the attributable burden of obesity-related cancer was previously calculated with an unverified assumption that the association remained unchanged over time.
“In contrast to this paucity of knowledge, the prevalence of youth obesity – particularly severe obesity – has increased worldwide, which parallels the rise in youth cancer incidence,” they wrote.
To address this paucity of data, the researchers reviewed medical and sociodemographic data for adolescents who were assessed at age 17 years for medical eligibility for mandatory military service, and linked that information with data from the National Cancer Registry to create a unified file. The primary study outcome was any cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 1967, and Dec. 31, 2012, and a secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality through Dec. 31, 2017, among those who developed cancer.
Among nearly 2.3 million participating adolescents who were evaluated for associations between body mass index at age 17 years and later cancer incidence, 1,370,020 were men with more than 29.5 million person-years of follow-up, and 928,110 were women with more than 18 million person-years of follow-up. The numbers of incident cancer cases in the men and women were 26,353 and 29,488, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 43.2 and 40.0 years, respectively, the investigators reported (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X).
Adolescent obesity in men was significantly associated with midlife cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.26), but in women, no association was seen due to the previously reported inverse associations between obesity and cervical and breast cancers, they said.
However, when those cancers were excluded for women, the adjusted hazard ratio was similar to that for men (HR, 1.27).
Cancer incidence in both men and women increased gradually across BMI percentiles, and for both sexes, overweight BMI was associated with an increased cancer risk after 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.14 for men, 1.22 for women after exclusion of cervical and breast cancer). Therefore, in some cases the increased cancer risk in those who were overweight as teens was evident before age 30 years, the authors noted.
Further, BMI was positively associated with greater mortality risk. For men, 5-year survival rates were 75.2% in those with adolescent BMI in the 5th-49th percentile, compared with 72.2% in those with BMI in the obesity range (95th percentile or greater), and the corresponding rates in women were 89.3% and 83.1% (HR, 1.33 and 1.89, respectively).
Of note, the investigators identified a period effect. That is, after stratification by enrollment period/cancer recording period (1967-1981/1982-1996 vs. 1982-1996/1997-2011), a stronger association was noted in individuals who entered the study during the later period, compared with those who entered in the early period (HR, 1.36 vs. 1.13; adjusted HR, 1.11 vs. 1.07 per 5 kg/m2). Possible mechanisms for this finding include environmental and nutritional factors, increased use of medical services, and changes in early cancer screening techniques, but further study is needed to verify the trend and “refine the exact nature of carcinogenic elements, compared with earlier periods,” they said.
Also of note, some cancers that were not associated with BMI in the early period, including stomach cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and colorectal and oral cavity cancers, became significantly associated with BMI in the late period.
“The projected population attributable risk percentage, using 2017 prevalence data of high BMI, was 5.1% for any cancer in men and 5.7% for cancers other than breast and cervical in women,” the researchers wrote, noting that this “is probably an underestimation, given the accentuation of the BMI-cancer association and the rapid increase in adolescent obesity prevalence within the past decade in Israel and worldwide.”
In an accompanying editorial, the journal editors noted that the findings by Dr. Furer and colleagues highlight the need to tackle obesity early in life and the need for obesity prevention strategies to reduce cancer incidence and mortality for those cancers that can be prevented by lifestyle modifications. They added, however, that care would be needed to avoid stigmatizing those with obesity, as obesity itself is a “multifactorial condition driven by social injustice and health inequalities” that most often affect those who are least able to implement lifestyle change (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.106/S2213-8587(20)30031-0).
They also emphasized that the links between obesity and cancer, like those between obesity and other diseases such as diabetes, underscore the fact that noncommunicable diseases do not exist in isolation, and that tackling them requires bold action, a consolidated approach, and elimination of the environmental and social factors driving the epidemic.
The study was limited by a number of factors, including the lack of data on lifestyle factors, underrepresentation of some ethnicities, and lack of data on BMI and medical comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, strengths of the study include the systematic data collection, narrow range of age at study entry, strict control of coexisting conditions, and high statistical power, which strengthen the generalizability of the results, the investigators said, concluding, therefore, that “[c]urrent trends of rising BMI among adolescents could constitute an important intervention target for cancer prevention.”
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Furer A et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X.
Obesity during adolescence is associated with increased midlife cancer risk, according to findings from a large population-based cohort of Israeli teens examined between 1967 and 2010.
The association, which was stronger in individuals in the later period of the cohort than in those in the earlier years, suggests that the burden of obesity-related cancers might increase over time, given the increasing prevalence of adolescent obesity, wrote Ariel Furer, MD, of Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet.
Obesity is a known causal factor for several types of cancer, but most studies have looked at middle-age or older individuals and had relatively short follow-up, and period effects are rarely assessed, the investigators said, noting that “the attributable burden of obesity-related cancer was previously calculated with an unverified assumption that the association remained unchanged over time.
“In contrast to this paucity of knowledge, the prevalence of youth obesity – particularly severe obesity – has increased worldwide, which parallels the rise in youth cancer incidence,” they wrote.
To address this paucity of data, the researchers reviewed medical and sociodemographic data for adolescents who were assessed at age 17 years for medical eligibility for mandatory military service, and linked that information with data from the National Cancer Registry to create a unified file. The primary study outcome was any cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 1967, and Dec. 31, 2012, and a secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality through Dec. 31, 2017, among those who developed cancer.
Among nearly 2.3 million participating adolescents who were evaluated for associations between body mass index at age 17 years and later cancer incidence, 1,370,020 were men with more than 29.5 million person-years of follow-up, and 928,110 were women with more than 18 million person-years of follow-up. The numbers of incident cancer cases in the men and women were 26,353 and 29,488, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 43.2 and 40.0 years, respectively, the investigators reported (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X).
Adolescent obesity in men was significantly associated with midlife cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.26), but in women, no association was seen due to the previously reported inverse associations between obesity and cervical and breast cancers, they said.
However, when those cancers were excluded for women, the adjusted hazard ratio was similar to that for men (HR, 1.27).
Cancer incidence in both men and women increased gradually across BMI percentiles, and for both sexes, overweight BMI was associated with an increased cancer risk after 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.14 for men, 1.22 for women after exclusion of cervical and breast cancer). Therefore, in some cases the increased cancer risk in those who were overweight as teens was evident before age 30 years, the authors noted.
Further, BMI was positively associated with greater mortality risk. For men, 5-year survival rates were 75.2% in those with adolescent BMI in the 5th-49th percentile, compared with 72.2% in those with BMI in the obesity range (95th percentile or greater), and the corresponding rates in women were 89.3% and 83.1% (HR, 1.33 and 1.89, respectively).
Of note, the investigators identified a period effect. That is, after stratification by enrollment period/cancer recording period (1967-1981/1982-1996 vs. 1982-1996/1997-2011), a stronger association was noted in individuals who entered the study during the later period, compared with those who entered in the early period (HR, 1.36 vs. 1.13; adjusted HR, 1.11 vs. 1.07 per 5 kg/m2). Possible mechanisms for this finding include environmental and nutritional factors, increased use of medical services, and changes in early cancer screening techniques, but further study is needed to verify the trend and “refine the exact nature of carcinogenic elements, compared with earlier periods,” they said.
Also of note, some cancers that were not associated with BMI in the early period, including stomach cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and colorectal and oral cavity cancers, became significantly associated with BMI in the late period.
“The projected population attributable risk percentage, using 2017 prevalence data of high BMI, was 5.1% for any cancer in men and 5.7% for cancers other than breast and cervical in women,” the researchers wrote, noting that this “is probably an underestimation, given the accentuation of the BMI-cancer association and the rapid increase in adolescent obesity prevalence within the past decade in Israel and worldwide.”
In an accompanying editorial, the journal editors noted that the findings by Dr. Furer and colleagues highlight the need to tackle obesity early in life and the need for obesity prevention strategies to reduce cancer incidence and mortality for those cancers that can be prevented by lifestyle modifications. They added, however, that care would be needed to avoid stigmatizing those with obesity, as obesity itself is a “multifactorial condition driven by social injustice and health inequalities” that most often affect those who are least able to implement lifestyle change (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.106/S2213-8587(20)30031-0).
They also emphasized that the links between obesity and cancer, like those between obesity and other diseases such as diabetes, underscore the fact that noncommunicable diseases do not exist in isolation, and that tackling them requires bold action, a consolidated approach, and elimination of the environmental and social factors driving the epidemic.
The study was limited by a number of factors, including the lack of data on lifestyle factors, underrepresentation of some ethnicities, and lack of data on BMI and medical comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, strengths of the study include the systematic data collection, narrow range of age at study entry, strict control of coexisting conditions, and high statistical power, which strengthen the generalizability of the results, the investigators said, concluding, therefore, that “[c]urrent trends of rising BMI among adolescents could constitute an important intervention target for cancer prevention.”
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Furer A et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X.
Obesity during adolescence is associated with increased midlife cancer risk, according to findings from a large population-based cohort of Israeli teens examined between 1967 and 2010.
The association, which was stronger in individuals in the later period of the cohort than in those in the earlier years, suggests that the burden of obesity-related cancers might increase over time, given the increasing prevalence of adolescent obesity, wrote Ariel Furer, MD, of Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps, Ramat Gan, and colleagues. Their report is in The Lancet.
Obesity is a known causal factor for several types of cancer, but most studies have looked at middle-age or older individuals and had relatively short follow-up, and period effects are rarely assessed, the investigators said, noting that “the attributable burden of obesity-related cancer was previously calculated with an unverified assumption that the association remained unchanged over time.
“In contrast to this paucity of knowledge, the prevalence of youth obesity – particularly severe obesity – has increased worldwide, which parallels the rise in youth cancer incidence,” they wrote.
To address this paucity of data, the researchers reviewed medical and sociodemographic data for adolescents who were assessed at age 17 years for medical eligibility for mandatory military service, and linked that information with data from the National Cancer Registry to create a unified file. The primary study outcome was any cancer diagnosis between Jan. 1, 1967, and Dec. 31, 2012, and a secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality through Dec. 31, 2017, among those who developed cancer.
Among nearly 2.3 million participating adolescents who were evaluated for associations between body mass index at age 17 years and later cancer incidence, 1,370,020 were men with more than 29.5 million person-years of follow-up, and 928,110 were women with more than 18 million person-years of follow-up. The numbers of incident cancer cases in the men and women were 26,353 and 29,488, and the mean ages at diagnosis were 43.2 and 40.0 years, respectively, the investigators reported (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X).
Adolescent obesity in men was significantly associated with midlife cancer incidence (hazard ratio, 1.26), but in women, no association was seen due to the previously reported inverse associations between obesity and cervical and breast cancers, they said.
However, when those cancers were excluded for women, the adjusted hazard ratio was similar to that for men (HR, 1.27).
Cancer incidence in both men and women increased gradually across BMI percentiles, and for both sexes, overweight BMI was associated with an increased cancer risk after 10 years of follow-up (HR, 1.14 for men, 1.22 for women after exclusion of cervical and breast cancer). Therefore, in some cases the increased cancer risk in those who were overweight as teens was evident before age 30 years, the authors noted.
Further, BMI was positively associated with greater mortality risk. For men, 5-year survival rates were 75.2% in those with adolescent BMI in the 5th-49th percentile, compared with 72.2% in those with BMI in the obesity range (95th percentile or greater), and the corresponding rates in women were 89.3% and 83.1% (HR, 1.33 and 1.89, respectively).
Of note, the investigators identified a period effect. That is, after stratification by enrollment period/cancer recording period (1967-1981/1982-1996 vs. 1982-1996/1997-2011), a stronger association was noted in individuals who entered the study during the later period, compared with those who entered in the early period (HR, 1.36 vs. 1.13; adjusted HR, 1.11 vs. 1.07 per 5 kg/m2). Possible mechanisms for this finding include environmental and nutritional factors, increased use of medical services, and changes in early cancer screening techniques, but further study is needed to verify the trend and “refine the exact nature of carcinogenic elements, compared with earlier periods,” they said.
Also of note, some cancers that were not associated with BMI in the early period, including stomach cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, thyroid cancer, and colorectal and oral cavity cancers, became significantly associated with BMI in the late period.
“The projected population attributable risk percentage, using 2017 prevalence data of high BMI, was 5.1% for any cancer in men and 5.7% for cancers other than breast and cervical in women,” the researchers wrote, noting that this “is probably an underestimation, given the accentuation of the BMI-cancer association and the rapid increase in adolescent obesity prevalence within the past decade in Israel and worldwide.”
In an accompanying editorial, the journal editors noted that the findings by Dr. Furer and colleagues highlight the need to tackle obesity early in life and the need for obesity prevention strategies to reduce cancer incidence and mortality for those cancers that can be prevented by lifestyle modifications. They added, however, that care would be needed to avoid stigmatizing those with obesity, as obesity itself is a “multifactorial condition driven by social injustice and health inequalities” that most often affect those who are least able to implement lifestyle change (Lancet. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.106/S2213-8587(20)30031-0).
They also emphasized that the links between obesity and cancer, like those between obesity and other diseases such as diabetes, underscore the fact that noncommunicable diseases do not exist in isolation, and that tackling them requires bold action, a consolidated approach, and elimination of the environmental and social factors driving the epidemic.
The study was limited by a number of factors, including the lack of data on lifestyle factors, underrepresentation of some ethnicities, and lack of data on BMI and medical comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. However, strengths of the study include the systematic data collection, narrow range of age at study entry, strict control of coexisting conditions, and high statistical power, which strengthen the generalizability of the results, the investigators said, concluding, therefore, that “[c]urrent trends of rising BMI among adolescents could constitute an important intervention target for cancer prevention.”
The authors reported having no disclosures.
SOURCE: Furer A et al. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2020 Feb 3. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30019-X.
FROM THE LANCET
Reassurance on general anesthesia in young kids
LAHAINA, HAWAII – Two recent large, well-conducted, and persuasive Jessica Sprague, MD, said at the SDEF Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
“These two studies can be cited in conversation with parents and are very reassuring for a single episode of general anesthesia,” observed Dr. Sprague, a dermatologist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, both in San Diego.
“As a take home, I think we can feel pretty confident that single exposure to short-duration general anesthesia does not have any adverse neurocognitive effects,” she added.
In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration issued a drug safety communication that general anesthesia lasting for more than 3 hours in children aged less than 3 years, or repeated shorter-duration general anesthesia, may affect the development of children’s brains. This edict caused considerable turmoil among both physicians and parents. The warning was based upon animal studies suggesting adverse effects, including abnormal axon formation and other structural changes, impaired learning and memory, and heightened emotional reactivity to threats. Preliminary human cohort studies generated conflicting results, but were tough to interpret because of potential confounding issues, most prominently the distinct possibility that the very reason the child was undergoing general anesthesia might inherently predispose to neurodevelopmental problems, the dermatologist explained.
Enter the GAS trial, a multinational, assessor-blinded study in which 722 generally healthy infants undergoing hernia repair at 28 centers in the United States and six other countries were randomized to general anesthesia for a median of 54 minutes or awake regional anesthesia. Assessment via a detailed neuropsychological test battery and parent questionnaires at age 2 and 5 years showed no between-group differences at all. Of note, the GAS trial was funded by the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and similar national health care agencies in the other participating countries (Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393[10172]:664-77).
The other major recent research contribution was a province-wide Ontario study led by investigators at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. This retrospective study included 2,346 sibling pairs aged 4-5 years in which one child in each pair received general anesthesia as a preschooler. All participants underwent testing using the comprehensive Early Development Instrument. Reassuringly, no between-group differences were found in any of the five domains assessed by the testing: language and cognitive development, physical health and well-being, emotional health and maturity, social knowledge and competence, and communication skills and general knowledge (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 1;173[1]:29-36).
These two studies address a pressing issue, since 10% of children in the United States and other developed countries receive general anesthesia within their first 3 years of life. Common indications in dermatology include excisional surgery, laser therapy for extensive port wine birthmarks, and diagnostic MRIs.
Dr. Sprague advised that, based upon the new data, “you definitely do not want to delay necessary imaging studies or surgeries, but MRIs can often be done without general anesthesia in infants less than 2 months old. If you have an infant who needs an MRI for something like PHACE syndrome [posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangioma, arterial lesions, cardiac abnormalities, and eye abnormalities], if you can get them in before 2 months of age sometimes you can avoid the general anesthesia if you wrap them tight enough. But once they get over 2 months ,there’s too much wiggle and it’s pretty impossible.”
Her other suggestions:
- Consider delaying nonurgent surgeries and imaging until at least age 6 months and ideally 3 years. “Parents will eventually want surgery to be done for a benign-appearing congenital nevus on the cheek, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be done before 6 months. The same with a residual hemangioma. I would recommend doing it before they go to kindergarten and before they get a sort of sense of what their self looks like, but you have some time between ages 3 and 5 to do that,” Dr. Sprague said.
- Seek out an anesthesiologist who has extensive experience with infants and young children, as is common at a dedicated children’s hospital. “If you live somewhere where the anesthesiologists are primarily seeing adult patients, they’re just not as good,” according to the pediatric dermatologist.
- Definitely consider a topical anesthesia strategy in infants who require multiple procedures, because there remains some unresolved concern about the potential neurodevelopmental impact of multiple bouts of general anesthesia.
Dr. Sprague reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
The SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
LAHAINA, HAWAII – Two recent large, well-conducted, and persuasive Jessica Sprague, MD, said at the SDEF Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
“These two studies can be cited in conversation with parents and are very reassuring for a single episode of general anesthesia,” observed Dr. Sprague, a dermatologist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, both in San Diego.
“As a take home, I think we can feel pretty confident that single exposure to short-duration general anesthesia does not have any adverse neurocognitive effects,” she added.
In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration issued a drug safety communication that general anesthesia lasting for more than 3 hours in children aged less than 3 years, or repeated shorter-duration general anesthesia, may affect the development of children’s brains. This edict caused considerable turmoil among both physicians and parents. The warning was based upon animal studies suggesting adverse effects, including abnormal axon formation and other structural changes, impaired learning and memory, and heightened emotional reactivity to threats. Preliminary human cohort studies generated conflicting results, but were tough to interpret because of potential confounding issues, most prominently the distinct possibility that the very reason the child was undergoing general anesthesia might inherently predispose to neurodevelopmental problems, the dermatologist explained.
Enter the GAS trial, a multinational, assessor-blinded study in which 722 generally healthy infants undergoing hernia repair at 28 centers in the United States and six other countries were randomized to general anesthesia for a median of 54 minutes or awake regional anesthesia. Assessment via a detailed neuropsychological test battery and parent questionnaires at age 2 and 5 years showed no between-group differences at all. Of note, the GAS trial was funded by the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and similar national health care agencies in the other participating countries (Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393[10172]:664-77).
The other major recent research contribution was a province-wide Ontario study led by investigators at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. This retrospective study included 2,346 sibling pairs aged 4-5 years in which one child in each pair received general anesthesia as a preschooler. All participants underwent testing using the comprehensive Early Development Instrument. Reassuringly, no between-group differences were found in any of the five domains assessed by the testing: language and cognitive development, physical health and well-being, emotional health and maturity, social knowledge and competence, and communication skills and general knowledge (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 1;173[1]:29-36).
These two studies address a pressing issue, since 10% of children in the United States and other developed countries receive general anesthesia within their first 3 years of life. Common indications in dermatology include excisional surgery, laser therapy for extensive port wine birthmarks, and diagnostic MRIs.
Dr. Sprague advised that, based upon the new data, “you definitely do not want to delay necessary imaging studies or surgeries, but MRIs can often be done without general anesthesia in infants less than 2 months old. If you have an infant who needs an MRI for something like PHACE syndrome [posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangioma, arterial lesions, cardiac abnormalities, and eye abnormalities], if you can get them in before 2 months of age sometimes you can avoid the general anesthesia if you wrap them tight enough. But once they get over 2 months ,there’s too much wiggle and it’s pretty impossible.”
Her other suggestions:
- Consider delaying nonurgent surgeries and imaging until at least age 6 months and ideally 3 years. “Parents will eventually want surgery to be done for a benign-appearing congenital nevus on the cheek, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be done before 6 months. The same with a residual hemangioma. I would recommend doing it before they go to kindergarten and before they get a sort of sense of what their self looks like, but you have some time between ages 3 and 5 to do that,” Dr. Sprague said.
- Seek out an anesthesiologist who has extensive experience with infants and young children, as is common at a dedicated children’s hospital. “If you live somewhere where the anesthesiologists are primarily seeing adult patients, they’re just not as good,” according to the pediatric dermatologist.
- Definitely consider a topical anesthesia strategy in infants who require multiple procedures, because there remains some unresolved concern about the potential neurodevelopmental impact of multiple bouts of general anesthesia.
Dr. Sprague reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
The SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
LAHAINA, HAWAII – Two recent large, well-conducted, and persuasive Jessica Sprague, MD, said at the SDEF Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
“These two studies can be cited in conversation with parents and are very reassuring for a single episode of general anesthesia,” observed Dr. Sprague, a dermatologist at Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, both in San Diego.
“As a take home, I think we can feel pretty confident that single exposure to short-duration general anesthesia does not have any adverse neurocognitive effects,” she added.
In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration issued a drug safety communication that general anesthesia lasting for more than 3 hours in children aged less than 3 years, or repeated shorter-duration general anesthesia, may affect the development of children’s brains. This edict caused considerable turmoil among both physicians and parents. The warning was based upon animal studies suggesting adverse effects, including abnormal axon formation and other structural changes, impaired learning and memory, and heightened emotional reactivity to threats. Preliminary human cohort studies generated conflicting results, but were tough to interpret because of potential confounding issues, most prominently the distinct possibility that the very reason the child was undergoing general anesthesia might inherently predispose to neurodevelopmental problems, the dermatologist explained.
Enter the GAS trial, a multinational, assessor-blinded study in which 722 generally healthy infants undergoing hernia repair at 28 centers in the United States and six other countries were randomized to general anesthesia for a median of 54 minutes or awake regional anesthesia. Assessment via a detailed neuropsychological test battery and parent questionnaires at age 2 and 5 years showed no between-group differences at all. Of note, the GAS trial was funded by the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, and similar national health care agencies in the other participating countries (Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393[10172]:664-77).
The other major recent research contribution was a province-wide Ontario study led by investigators at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. This retrospective study included 2,346 sibling pairs aged 4-5 years in which one child in each pair received general anesthesia as a preschooler. All participants underwent testing using the comprehensive Early Development Instrument. Reassuringly, no between-group differences were found in any of the five domains assessed by the testing: language and cognitive development, physical health and well-being, emotional health and maturity, social knowledge and competence, and communication skills and general knowledge (JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Jan 1;173[1]:29-36).
These two studies address a pressing issue, since 10% of children in the United States and other developed countries receive general anesthesia within their first 3 years of life. Common indications in dermatology include excisional surgery, laser therapy for extensive port wine birthmarks, and diagnostic MRIs.
Dr. Sprague advised that, based upon the new data, “you definitely do not want to delay necessary imaging studies or surgeries, but MRIs can often be done without general anesthesia in infants less than 2 months old. If you have an infant who needs an MRI for something like PHACE syndrome [posterior fossa brain malformations, hemangioma, arterial lesions, cardiac abnormalities, and eye abnormalities], if you can get them in before 2 months of age sometimes you can avoid the general anesthesia if you wrap them tight enough. But once they get over 2 months ,there’s too much wiggle and it’s pretty impossible.”
Her other suggestions:
- Consider delaying nonurgent surgeries and imaging until at least age 6 months and ideally 3 years. “Parents will eventually want surgery to be done for a benign-appearing congenital nevus on the cheek, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be done before 6 months. The same with a residual hemangioma. I would recommend doing it before they go to kindergarten and before they get a sort of sense of what their self looks like, but you have some time between ages 3 and 5 to do that,” Dr. Sprague said.
- Seek out an anesthesiologist who has extensive experience with infants and young children, as is common at a dedicated children’s hospital. “If you live somewhere where the anesthesiologists are primarily seeing adult patients, they’re just not as good,” according to the pediatric dermatologist.
- Definitely consider a topical anesthesia strategy in infants who require multiple procedures, because there remains some unresolved concern about the potential neurodevelopmental impact of multiple bouts of general anesthesia.
Dr. Sprague reported having no financial conflicts regarding her presentation.
The SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM SDEF HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR