In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D helped decrease the risk that these individuals would develop diabetes, suggests a meta-analysis of three trials.

Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).

All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.

The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.

They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.

Differences from previous analyses

The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.

The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”

Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.

“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”

“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.

Small reduction but large population

The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.

As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.

“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.

Editorialists urge caution

In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.

They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.

“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.

Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.

“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.

Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.

Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.

Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.

Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.

Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.

Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.

The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D helped decrease the risk that these individuals would develop diabetes, suggests a meta-analysis of three trials.

Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).

All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.

The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.

They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.

Differences from previous analyses

The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.

The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”

Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.

“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”

“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.

Small reduction but large population

The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.

As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.

“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.

Editorialists urge caution

In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.

They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.

“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.

Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.

“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.

Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.

Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.

Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.

Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.

Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.

Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.

The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

In adults with prediabetes, vitamin D helped decrease the risk that these individuals would develop diabetes, suggests a meta-analysis of three trials.

Results of the analysis, led by Anastassios G. Pittas, MD, MS, with the division of endocrinology, diabetes, and metabolism at Tufts Medical Center, in Boston, were published online in Annals of Internal Medicine (2023 Feb 7. doi: 10.7326/M22-3018).

All three eligible trials included in the analysis were randomized, double blinded, and placebo controlled. The three eligible trials tested three oral formulations of Vitamin D: cholecalciferol, 20,000 IU (500 mcg) weekly; cholecalciferol, 4,000 IU (100 mcg) daily; or eldecalcitol, 0.75 mcg daily, against placebos.

The authors of the new paper found that vitamin D reduced the risk for diabetes in people with prediabetes by a statistically significant 15% in adjusted analyses. The 3-year absolute risk reduction was 3.3%.

They found no difference in the rate ratios for adverse events (kidney stones, 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.99; hypercalcemia, 2.34; 95% CI, 0.83-6.66]; hypercalciuria, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.83-3.28]; death, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.31-2.36]) when study participants got vitamin D instead of placebo.

Differences from previous analyses

The relationship between vitamin D levels and risk for type 2 diabetes has been studied in previous trials and results have been mixed.

The authors note that two previous meta-analyses included trials “that had relatively short durations for assessment of diabetes risk (for example, ≤ 1 year), had high risk of bias (for example, open-label trials), or were not specifically designed and conducted for primary prevention of type 2 diabetes, potentially undermining the validity of the results.”

Each of the trials in this meta-analysis had a low risk of bias as determined by the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, Dr. Pittas and colleagues said.

“The present study does not reach an opposite conclusion from the D2d study,” said Dr. Pittas, who coauthored that paper as well. “Rather, it confirms the results of the D2d study. In D2d and two other similar vitamin D and diabetes prevention trials (one in Norway and one in Japan), vitamin D reduced the rate of progression to diabetes in adults with prediabetes, but the observed differences were not statistically significant because the reported relative risk reductions (10%-13%) were smaller than each trial was powered to detect (25%-36%).”

“Individual participant data meta-analyses increase the statistical power to detect an effect. After combining data, we found that vitamin D reduced the risk of progression from prediabetes to diabetes by 15% and this result was statistically significant. So, the conclusion of the meta-analysis is essentially the same conclusion as in D2d and the other two trials. The difference is that the result is now statistically significant,” Dr. Pittas added.

Small reduction but large population

The authors acknowledged that the absolute risk reduction number is small, especially when compared with the risk reduction seen with intensive lifestyle changes (58%) and metformin (31%), as reported in an article published in the New England of Journal of Medicine (2002 Feb 7;346:393-403). But “extrapolating to the more than 374 million adults worldwide who have prediabetes suggests that inexpensive vitamin D supplementation could delay the development of diabetes in more than 10 million people,” they said.

As for how high vitamin D levels need to be, the authors write that their research indicates that the optimal level of vitamin D in the blood needed to reduce diabetes risk may be higher than an Institute of Medicine committee recommendation in 2011.

“The blood 25-hydroxy vitamin D level needed to optimally reduce diabetes risk may be near and possibly above the range of 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL) that the 2011 Institute of Medicine Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D provided as the range corresponding to the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 4,000 IU/d for vitamin D,” the authors of the new paper said.

Editorialists urge caution

In an accompanying editorial also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Malachi J. McKenna, MD, with the department of clinical chemistry, at St. Vincent’s University Hospital, and Mary A.T. Flynn, PhD, RD, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in Dublin, urge caution regarding vitamin D dosing.

They write that there are important distinctions between vitamin D supplements and vitamin D therapy, and the potential harms of high-dose vitamin D are still unclear.

“Vitamin D supplementation of 10 to 20 mcg (400 to 800 IU) daily can be applied safely at the population level to prevent skeletal and possibly nonskeletal disease. Very-high-dose vitamin D therapy might prevent type 2 diabetes in some patients but may also cause harm,” they note.

Dr. Pittas said in an interview that there have been some studies with high-dose vitamin D (up to 500,000 IU a year in one study) that reported an increased fall risk in older adults who had high fall risk. “However, these findings are not generalizable to other populations that are younger and at low or average fall risk, such as the prediabetes population to which the results of this meta-analysis apply,” he noted.

“The benefit-to-risk ratio for vitamin D depends on the target population and medical condition,” Dr. Pittas said. “The editorial refers to the NAM (National Academy of Medicine) vitamin D guidelines for the general, healthy population to promote bone health. The guidelines should not be extrapolated to specific populations, for example [patients with] prediabetes,” where the vitamin D benefit-to-risk ratio would be different from that in the general population.

Dr. Pittas and colleagues caution that the people studied in this meta-analysis were at high risk for type 2 diabetes, so these results do not apply to the general healthy population. The results also should not be extrapolated to people at average risk for any type of diabetes, they add.

Several physicians either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on this research.

Dr. Pittas reports the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association made payments to his institution to conduct Vitamin D-related research. He is an unpaid cochair of the Endocrine Society’s Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D Deficiency Clinical Practice Guideline team.

Coauthor Dr. Jorde reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, North Norwegian Regional Health Authorities, and the Research Council of Norway.

Dr. Dawson-Hughes reports she is on the DSMB for AgNovos Healthcare. AgNovos is developing a bone implant to reduce hip fracture risk and she gets a stipend from the company. She reports Helsinn Therapeutics provided anamorelin and matching placebo for an NIH-funded clinical trial.

Dr. Trikalinos was supported by the D2d study. He is a technical methodological consultant to Latham and Watkins, who is retained by Pacira Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Angellotti has been employed by Takeda and owns stock in the company.

The editorialists report no relevant financial relationships.

Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care providers (PCPs) have been addressing an increasing frequency of mental health concerns, particularly anxiety and stress-related diagnoses, based on a recent study.

These findings point to a sizable gap in psychiatric care that has likely been exacerbated by the pandemic, reported lead author Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, MBA, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Medical Director of Population Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

To ensure that PCPs can effectively manage this burden, innovative approaches are needed, such as value-based care models, billing codes for integrated behavioral health, and e-consultations with psychiatric colleagues, they added.

“Previous studies demonstrated that the rate of adult mental health outpatient visits increased between 1995 and 2010,” Dr. Rotenstein and colleagues wrote in Health Affairs. “However, more than a decade later, the extent to which the rate of primary care visits addressing mental health concerns has changed is unclear, with multiple health care delivery trends potentially influencing a further increase in prevalence.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators turned to the 2006-2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, a nationally representative, serial, cross-sectional dataset. The present analysis included 109,898 visits representing 3,891,233,060 weighted visits.

Over the study period, the proportion of PCP visits that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9%.

This latter figure has probably increased since the onset of the pandemic, the investigators wrote, while availability of psychiatric care hasn’t kept pace, meaning PCPs are increasingly on the hook for managing mental illness.

“Even before the pandemic, one in five Americans lived with a mental health condition,” Dr. Rotenstein said in a written comment. “The COVID pandemic has only accelerated demand for mental health treatment. ... We know that there aren’t enough psychiatrists to meet this demand.”

Over the course of the study period, the rate of depression and affective disorders diagnoses slowed while anxiety and stress-related disorders were increasingly diagnosed.

“Particularly given the common co-occurrence of anxiety and depression, the trends we identified may represent physicians’ greater comfort over time with accurately diagnosing anxiety in the primary care setting, potentially for diagnoses that previously would have been classified as depression,” the investigators wrote, noting these findings align with a 2014 study by Olfson and colleagues.

Multiple factors associated with primary care mental health visits

Several variables were associated with significantly greater likelihood that a mental health concern would be addressed at a given visit, including female sex, younger age, payment via Medicare or Medicaid, and the physician being the patient’s regular physician.

“Our study demonstrated that mental health concerns were significantly more likely to be addressed in a visit with one’s usual primary care physician,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “This finding emphasizes the value of the longitudinal, supportive relationship developed in primary care for raising and addressing the full continuum of a patient’s needs, including mental health concerns.”

The investigators also observed significant associations between race/ethnicity and likelihood of addressing a mental health concern.

Compared with White patients, Black patients were 40% less likely to have a primary care visit with a mental health concern (odds ratio, 0.6; P less than .001). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 40% less likely than non-Hispanic patients to have a visit with a mental health concern (OR, 0.6; P less than .001).

“Unfortunately, our data don’t give us insight into why Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have a mental health concern addressed in the context of a primary care visit,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “However, the data do suggest an urgent need to better understand and subsequently address the underlying causes of these disparities.”

She suggested several possible explanations, including differences in rates of screening, issues with access to care, insurance coverage disparities, and communication or cultural barriers.

Stuck in the reimbursement trap

Michael Klinkman, MD , professor of family medicine and learning health sciences at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, said the data align with his own clinical experience.

“The proportion of visits where depression was addresed went down, but the baseline is going up, so I don’t think we’re dealing with any less depression,” Dr. Klinkman said in an interview. “It’s just that there’s a lot more anxiety and stress that we’re finding and dealing with in primary care.”

While most family doctors are comfortable with best practices in managing these conditions, they may feel increasingly overburdened by the sheer number of patients with mental illness under their care alone, according to Dr. Klinkman.

“Primary care docs are increasingly feeling like they’re on their own in dealing with mental health problems,” he said.

While he agreed in theory with the interventions proposed by Dr. Rotenstein and colleagues, some solutions, like billing code changes, may ultimately worsen the burden on primary care providers.

“My fear in all of this, frankly, is that we’re going to create a better sense of the need for primary care practice in general to address mental health and social care issues, and we’re just going to create a lot more work and more widget-counting around doing that,” said Dr. Klinkman. 

Value-based care appears to be a better solution, he said, since “we’re trying to take care of a human being, not the 1,050 pieces of that human being’s care that we’re trying to bundle up with different codes.”

A flat-fee, per-patient model, however, is unlikely to gain traction in the United States.

Dr. Klinkman has been involved in health care system reform up to the federal level, where he has encountered politicians who understood the issues but were incapable of helping because of partisan gridlock, he said. “It’s just politically near impossible to make changes in this basic health care business model.”

Policymakers advised Dr. Klinkman and his colleagues to strive for incremental changes, leaving them to grapple with increasingly complex reimbursement rules.

“We’re kind of stuck in this trap of trying to create new codes for services that we think ought to be better reimbursed,” Dr. Klinkman said. “We’re missing the person in all of this – the human being we’re trying to serve.”

The investigators, Dr. Cain, and Dr. Klinkman disclosed no conflicts of interest.

*This article was updated on 2/27/2023.

Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care providers (PCPs) have been addressing an increasing frequency of mental health concerns, particularly anxiety and stress-related diagnoses, based on a recent study.

These findings point to a sizable gap in psychiatric care that has likely been exacerbated by the pandemic, reported lead author Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, MBA, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Medical Director of Population Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

To ensure that PCPs can effectively manage this burden, innovative approaches are needed, such as value-based care models, billing codes for integrated behavioral health, and e-consultations with psychiatric colleagues, they added.

“Previous studies demonstrated that the rate of adult mental health outpatient visits increased between 1995 and 2010,” Dr. Rotenstein and colleagues wrote in Health Affairs. “However, more than a decade later, the extent to which the rate of primary care visits addressing mental health concerns has changed is unclear, with multiple health care delivery trends potentially influencing a further increase in prevalence.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators turned to the 2006-2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, a nationally representative, serial, cross-sectional dataset. The present analysis included 109,898 visits representing 3,891,233,060 weighted visits.

Over the study period, the proportion of PCP visits that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9%.

This latter figure has probably increased since the onset of the pandemic, the investigators wrote, while availability of psychiatric care hasn’t kept pace, meaning PCPs are increasingly on the hook for managing mental illness.

“Even before the pandemic, one in five Americans lived with a mental health condition,” Dr. Rotenstein said in a written comment. “The COVID pandemic has only accelerated demand for mental health treatment. ... We know that there aren’t enough psychiatrists to meet this demand.”

Over the course of the study period, the rate of depression and affective disorders diagnoses slowed while anxiety and stress-related disorders were increasingly diagnosed.

“Particularly given the common co-occurrence of anxiety and depression, the trends we identified may represent physicians’ greater comfort over time with accurately diagnosing anxiety in the primary care setting, potentially for diagnoses that previously would have been classified as depression,” the investigators wrote, noting these findings align with a 2014 study by Olfson and colleagues.

Multiple factors associated with primary care mental health visits

Several variables were associated with significantly greater likelihood that a mental health concern would be addressed at a given visit, including female sex, younger age, payment via Medicare or Medicaid, and the physician being the patient’s regular physician.

“Our study demonstrated that mental health concerns were significantly more likely to be addressed in a visit with one’s usual primary care physician,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “This finding emphasizes the value of the longitudinal, supportive relationship developed in primary care for raising and addressing the full continuum of a patient’s needs, including mental health concerns.”

The investigators also observed significant associations between race/ethnicity and likelihood of addressing a mental health concern.

Compared with White patients, Black patients were 40% less likely to have a primary care visit with a mental health concern (odds ratio, 0.6; P less than .001). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 40% less likely than non-Hispanic patients to have a visit with a mental health concern (OR, 0.6; P less than .001).

“Unfortunately, our data don’t give us insight into why Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have a mental health concern addressed in the context of a primary care visit,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “However, the data do suggest an urgent need to better understand and subsequently address the underlying causes of these disparities.”

She suggested several possible explanations, including differences in rates of screening, issues with access to care, insurance coverage disparities, and communication or cultural barriers.

Stuck in the reimbursement trap

Michael Klinkman, MD , professor of family medicine and learning health sciences at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, said the data align with his own clinical experience.

“The proportion of visits where depression was addresed went down, but the baseline is going up, so I don’t think we’re dealing with any less depression,” Dr. Klinkman said in an interview. “It’s just that there’s a lot more anxiety and stress that we’re finding and dealing with in primary care.”

While most family doctors are comfortable with best practices in managing these conditions, they may feel increasingly overburdened by the sheer number of patients with mental illness under their care alone, according to Dr. Klinkman.

“Primary care docs are increasingly feeling like they’re on their own in dealing with mental health problems,” he said.

While he agreed in theory with the interventions proposed by Dr. Rotenstein and colleagues, some solutions, like billing code changes, may ultimately worsen the burden on primary care providers.

“My fear in all of this, frankly, is that we’re going to create a better sense of the need for primary care practice in general to address mental health and social care issues, and we’re just going to create a lot more work and more widget-counting around doing that,” said Dr. Klinkman. 

Value-based care appears to be a better solution, he said, since “we’re trying to take care of a human being, not the 1,050 pieces of that human being’s care that we’re trying to bundle up with different codes.”

A flat-fee, per-patient model, however, is unlikely to gain traction in the United States.

Dr. Klinkman has been involved in health care system reform up to the federal level, where he has encountered politicians who understood the issues but were incapable of helping because of partisan gridlock, he said. “It’s just politically near impossible to make changes in this basic health care business model.”

Policymakers advised Dr. Klinkman and his colleagues to strive for incremental changes, leaving them to grapple with increasingly complex reimbursement rules.

“We’re kind of stuck in this trap of trying to create new codes for services that we think ought to be better reimbursed,” Dr. Klinkman said. “We’re missing the person in all of this – the human being we’re trying to serve.”

The investigators, Dr. Cain, and Dr. Klinkman disclosed no conflicts of interest.

*This article was updated on 2/27/2023.

Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, primary care providers (PCPs) have been addressing an increasing frequency of mental health concerns, particularly anxiety and stress-related diagnoses, based on a recent study.

These findings point to a sizable gap in psychiatric care that has likely been exacerbated by the pandemic, reported lead author Lisa S. Rotenstein, MD, MBA, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Medical Director of Population Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston, and colleagues.

To ensure that PCPs can effectively manage this burden, innovative approaches are needed, such as value-based care models, billing codes for integrated behavioral health, and e-consultations with psychiatric colleagues, they added.

“Previous studies demonstrated that the rate of adult mental health outpatient visits increased between 1995 and 2010,” Dr. Rotenstein and colleagues wrote in Health Affairs. “However, more than a decade later, the extent to which the rate of primary care visits addressing mental health concerns has changed is unclear, with multiple health care delivery trends potentially influencing a further increase in prevalence.”

To address this knowledge gap, the investigators turned to the 2006-2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys, a nationally representative, serial, cross-sectional dataset. The present analysis included 109,898 visits representing 3,891,233,060 weighted visits.

Over the study period, the proportion of PCP visits that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9%.

This latter figure has probably increased since the onset of the pandemic, the investigators wrote, while availability of psychiatric care hasn’t kept pace, meaning PCPs are increasingly on the hook for managing mental illness.

“Even before the pandemic, one in five Americans lived with a mental health condition,” Dr. Rotenstein said in a written comment. “The COVID pandemic has only accelerated demand for mental health treatment. ... We know that there aren’t enough psychiatrists to meet this demand.”

Over the course of the study period, the rate of depression and affective disorders diagnoses slowed while anxiety and stress-related disorders were increasingly diagnosed.

“Particularly given the common co-occurrence of anxiety and depression, the trends we identified may represent physicians’ greater comfort over time with accurately diagnosing anxiety in the primary care setting, potentially for diagnoses that previously would have been classified as depression,” the investigators wrote, noting these findings align with a 2014 study by Olfson and colleagues.

Multiple factors associated with primary care mental health visits

Several variables were associated with significantly greater likelihood that a mental health concern would be addressed at a given visit, including female sex, younger age, payment via Medicare or Medicaid, and the physician being the patient’s regular physician.

“Our study demonstrated that mental health concerns were significantly more likely to be addressed in a visit with one’s usual primary care physician,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “This finding emphasizes the value of the longitudinal, supportive relationship developed in primary care for raising and addressing the full continuum of a patient’s needs, including mental health concerns.”

The investigators also observed significant associations between race/ethnicity and likelihood of addressing a mental health concern.

Compared with White patients, Black patients were 40% less likely to have a primary care visit with a mental health concern (odds ratio, 0.6; P less than .001). Similarly, Hispanic patients were 40% less likely than non-Hispanic patients to have a visit with a mental health concern (OR, 0.6; P less than .001).

“Unfortunately, our data don’t give us insight into why Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to have a mental health concern addressed in the context of a primary care visit,” Dr. Rotenstein said. “However, the data do suggest an urgent need to better understand and subsequently address the underlying causes of these disparities.”

She suggested several possible explanations, including differences in rates of screening, issues with access to care, insurance coverage disparities, and communication or cultural barriers.

Stuck in the reimbursement trap

Michael Klinkman, MD , professor of family medicine and learning health sciences at the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, said the data align with his own clinical experience.

“The proportion of visits where depression was addresed went down, but the baseline is going up, so I don’t think we’re dealing with any less depression,” Dr. Klinkman said in an interview. “It’s just that there’s a lot more anxiety and stress that we’re finding and dealing with in primary care.”

While most family doctors are comfortable with best practices in managing these conditions, they may feel increasingly overburdened by the sheer number of patients with mental illness under their care alone, according to Dr. Klinkman.

“Primary care docs are increasingly feeling like they’re on their own in dealing with mental health problems,” he said.

While he agreed in theory with the interventions proposed by Dr. Rotenstein and colleagues, some solutions, like billing code changes, may ultimately worsen the burden on primary care providers.

“My fear in all of this, frankly, is that we’re going to create a better sense of the need for primary care practice in general to address mental health and social care issues, and we’re just going to create a lot more work and more widget-counting around doing that,” said Dr. Klinkman. 

Value-based care appears to be a better solution, he said, since “we’re trying to take care of a human being, not the 1,050 pieces of that human being’s care that we’re trying to bundle up with different codes.”

A flat-fee, per-patient model, however, is unlikely to gain traction in the United States.

Dr. Klinkman has been involved in health care system reform up to the federal level, where he has encountered politicians who understood the issues but were incapable of helping because of partisan gridlock, he said. “It’s just politically near impossible to make changes in this basic health care business model.”

Policymakers advised Dr. Klinkman and his colleagues to strive for incremental changes, leaving them to grapple with increasingly complex reimbursement rules.

“We’re kind of stuck in this trap of trying to create new codes for services that we think ought to be better reimbursed,” Dr. Klinkman said. “We’re missing the person in all of this – the human being we’re trying to serve.”

The investigators, Dr. Cain, and Dr. Klinkman disclosed no conflicts of interest.

*This article was updated on 2/27/2023.

AURORA, COLO. – Inflammatory bowel disease doesn’t respect international borders, and clinicians who help in diet planning for patients with IBD should take into account cultural differences regarding food and eating, a nutrition specialist recommends.

“Many patients are in an environment that they’re not used to, an environment where most people speak English and their customs and their language may differ from the individual providing care to them. They’re often told, in addition, to eat foods that they may not even have heard of. It can really be a scary situation for many of these patients,” said Neha D. Shah, MPH, RD, CNSC, a dietitian at University of California San Francisco Health.

“Put yourself in their shoes. [Consider] what would make you feel more comfortable in that environment, and then apply that perspective to the care of your patient,” she advised colleagues at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Ms. Shah explained that by incorporating understanding of cultural differences and food culture into the care of persons with IBD, clinicians can help patients from different ethnic backgrounds accept diets that both contain familiar foods and also help to ameliorate their gastrointestinal symptoms.
 

Food culture and acculturation

As of 2016, the estimated prevalence of IBD among pediatric patients in the United States was 77 per 100,000, and the prevalence in adults was estimated at 478.4 per 100,000. In a 2021 study of the effects of race and ethnicity on the diagnosis and management of IBD, the authors estimated that the prevalence of IBD in the United States was about 3.1 million persons, or 1.3% of the population, with an increase in prevalence in non-White persons and ethnicities, she noted.

Some of the increasing prevalence among minority populations may be attributable to diet acculturation, when members of a particular group partially or completely adopt the eating patterns and/or food choices of the host country.
 

Culturally appropriate foods

The term “food culture” refers to “the sociocultural aspect of eating, and include[s] the beliefs, values, and attitudes a community may accept around food,” she said.

Ms. Shah provided examples of culturally appropriate foods that may be tolerated by patients with IBD, such as beans, tortillas, chicken with rice, guacamole, mangos, and tomatoes in persons from South America, or lentils, breads, rice, oats, spinach, and tea among patients from the Indian subcontinent.

By understanding and respecting cultural differences, learning how to best communicate with persons of other cultures, and by being aware of one’s own biases, clinicians can better help patients create diet plans that fit within their expectations and lifestyles, she said.

For example, patients can be encouraged to incorporate more culturally familiar plant-based foods such as legumes to manage active disease and maintain remissions.

Patients with active disease should have at least one-half cup of one form of culturally appropriate fiber at each meal. The dietitian should consider recommending blending fiber into other foods or serving it cooked, mashed, or minced, depending upon the patient’s level of tolerance.

During the transition phase, patients can reintroduce an additional half cup of fiber at one meal, then at two meals, and finally at three daily meals. Patients can see whether they can tolerate more raw or whole high-fiber foods at this stage.

During remissions, patients should be advised to add two to three foods containing culturally appropriate fiber at each meal, she said.
 

‘Eye-opening’ realization

“I think it’s really eye-opening for us to think about how we have to have culturally sensitive discussions with our patients,” commented Sandra Kim, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who moderated the session.

Dr. Kim asked Ms. Shah what advice she’d give to pediatric gastroenterologists about engaging patients and their families.

The clinician should ask both patients and parents about what the child eats and what the challenges of eating under certain circumstances are, and have culturally appropriate resources on hand.

Ms. Shah did not report a funding source for her work. She disclosed compensation as editor of the Journal of Practical Gastroeneterology and as GI on Demand–consultant for a joint virtual platform from the American College of Gastroenterology and Gastro Girl. She also serves as treasurer and director of operations for the South Asian IBD Alliance.
 

AURORA, COLO. – Inflammatory bowel disease doesn’t respect international borders, and clinicians who help in diet planning for patients with IBD should take into account cultural differences regarding food and eating, a nutrition specialist recommends.

“Many patients are in an environment that they’re not used to, an environment where most people speak English and their customs and their language may differ from the individual providing care to them. They’re often told, in addition, to eat foods that they may not even have heard of. It can really be a scary situation for many of these patients,” said Neha D. Shah, MPH, RD, CNSC, a dietitian at University of California San Francisco Health.

“Put yourself in their shoes. [Consider] what would make you feel more comfortable in that environment, and then apply that perspective to the care of your patient,” she advised colleagues at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Ms. Shah explained that by incorporating understanding of cultural differences and food culture into the care of persons with IBD, clinicians can help patients from different ethnic backgrounds accept diets that both contain familiar foods and also help to ameliorate their gastrointestinal symptoms.
 

Food culture and acculturation

As of 2016, the estimated prevalence of IBD among pediatric patients in the United States was 77 per 100,000, and the prevalence in adults was estimated at 478.4 per 100,000. In a 2021 study of the effects of race and ethnicity on the diagnosis and management of IBD, the authors estimated that the prevalence of IBD in the United States was about 3.1 million persons, or 1.3% of the population, with an increase in prevalence in non-White persons and ethnicities, she noted.

Some of the increasing prevalence among minority populations may be attributable to diet acculturation, when members of a particular group partially or completely adopt the eating patterns and/or food choices of the host country.
 

Culturally appropriate foods

The term “food culture” refers to “the sociocultural aspect of eating, and include[s] the beliefs, values, and attitudes a community may accept around food,” she said.

Ms. Shah provided examples of culturally appropriate foods that may be tolerated by patients with IBD, such as beans, tortillas, chicken with rice, guacamole, mangos, and tomatoes in persons from South America, or lentils, breads, rice, oats, spinach, and tea among patients from the Indian subcontinent.

By understanding and respecting cultural differences, learning how to best communicate with persons of other cultures, and by being aware of one’s own biases, clinicians can better help patients create diet plans that fit within their expectations and lifestyles, she said.

For example, patients can be encouraged to incorporate more culturally familiar plant-based foods such as legumes to manage active disease and maintain remissions.

Patients with active disease should have at least one-half cup of one form of culturally appropriate fiber at each meal. The dietitian should consider recommending blending fiber into other foods or serving it cooked, mashed, or minced, depending upon the patient’s level of tolerance.

During the transition phase, patients can reintroduce an additional half cup of fiber at one meal, then at two meals, and finally at three daily meals. Patients can see whether they can tolerate more raw or whole high-fiber foods at this stage.

During remissions, patients should be advised to add two to three foods containing culturally appropriate fiber at each meal, she said.
 

‘Eye-opening’ realization

“I think it’s really eye-opening for us to think about how we have to have culturally sensitive discussions with our patients,” commented Sandra Kim, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who moderated the session.

Dr. Kim asked Ms. Shah what advice she’d give to pediatric gastroenterologists about engaging patients and their families.

The clinician should ask both patients and parents about what the child eats and what the challenges of eating under certain circumstances are, and have culturally appropriate resources on hand.

Ms. Shah did not report a funding source for her work. She disclosed compensation as editor of the Journal of Practical Gastroeneterology and as GI on Demand–consultant for a joint virtual platform from the American College of Gastroenterology and Gastro Girl. She also serves as treasurer and director of operations for the South Asian IBD Alliance.
 

AURORA, COLO. – Inflammatory bowel disease doesn’t respect international borders, and clinicians who help in diet planning for patients with IBD should take into account cultural differences regarding food and eating, a nutrition specialist recommends.

“Many patients are in an environment that they’re not used to, an environment where most people speak English and their customs and their language may differ from the individual providing care to them. They’re often told, in addition, to eat foods that they may not even have heard of. It can really be a scary situation for many of these patients,” said Neha D. Shah, MPH, RD, CNSC, a dietitian at University of California San Francisco Health.

“Put yourself in their shoes. [Consider] what would make you feel more comfortable in that environment, and then apply that perspective to the care of your patient,” she advised colleagues at the annual Crohn’s & Colitis Congress^®, a partnership of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation and the American Gastroenterological Association.

Ms. Shah explained that by incorporating understanding of cultural differences and food culture into the care of persons with IBD, clinicians can help patients from different ethnic backgrounds accept diets that both contain familiar foods and also help to ameliorate their gastrointestinal symptoms.
 

Food culture and acculturation

As of 2016, the estimated prevalence of IBD among pediatric patients in the United States was 77 per 100,000, and the prevalence in adults was estimated at 478.4 per 100,000. In a 2021 study of the effects of race and ethnicity on the diagnosis and management of IBD, the authors estimated that the prevalence of IBD in the United States was about 3.1 million persons, or 1.3% of the population, with an increase in prevalence in non-White persons and ethnicities, she noted.

Some of the increasing prevalence among minority populations may be attributable to diet acculturation, when members of a particular group partially or completely adopt the eating patterns and/or food choices of the host country.
 

Culturally appropriate foods

The term “food culture” refers to “the sociocultural aspect of eating, and include[s] the beliefs, values, and attitudes a community may accept around food,” she said.

Ms. Shah provided examples of culturally appropriate foods that may be tolerated by patients with IBD, such as beans, tortillas, chicken with rice, guacamole, mangos, and tomatoes in persons from South America, or lentils, breads, rice, oats, spinach, and tea among patients from the Indian subcontinent.

By understanding and respecting cultural differences, learning how to best communicate with persons of other cultures, and by being aware of one’s own biases, clinicians can better help patients create diet plans that fit within their expectations and lifestyles, she said.

For example, patients can be encouraged to incorporate more culturally familiar plant-based foods such as legumes to manage active disease and maintain remissions.

Patients with active disease should have at least one-half cup of one form of culturally appropriate fiber at each meal. The dietitian should consider recommending blending fiber into other foods or serving it cooked, mashed, or minced, depending upon the patient’s level of tolerance.

During the transition phase, patients can reintroduce an additional half cup of fiber at one meal, then at two meals, and finally at three daily meals. Patients can see whether they can tolerate more raw or whole high-fiber foods at this stage.

During remissions, patients should be advised to add two to three foods containing culturally appropriate fiber at each meal, she said.
 

‘Eye-opening’ realization

“I think it’s really eye-opening for us to think about how we have to have culturally sensitive discussions with our patients,” commented Sandra Kim, MD, from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who moderated the session.

Dr. Kim asked Ms. Shah what advice she’d give to pediatric gastroenterologists about engaging patients and their families.

The clinician should ask both patients and parents about what the child eats and what the challenges of eating under certain circumstances are, and have culturally appropriate resources on hand.

Ms. Shah did not report a funding source for her work. She disclosed compensation as editor of the Journal of Practical Gastroeneterology and as GI on Demand–consultant for a joint virtual platform from the American College of Gastroenterology and Gastro Girl. She also serves as treasurer and director of operations for the South Asian IBD Alliance.
 

“Go outside and play!”

How many times did your mother tell you that?

Turns out that, like with chicken soup, she was right.

A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that urban dwellers who spent time outdoors in green areas, such as parks and forests, had lower use of antihypertensive, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications than those who didn’t. People who just looked at such areas from a window didn’t have lower medication use than those who weren’t exposed to them at all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Go outside and play!”

How many times did your mother tell you that?

Turns out that, like with chicken soup, she was right.

A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that urban dwellers who spent time outdoors in green areas, such as parks and forests, had lower use of antihypertensive, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications than those who didn’t. People who just looked at such areas from a window didn’t have lower medication use than those who weren’t exposed to them at all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

“Go outside and play!”

How many times did your mother tell you that?

Turns out that, like with chicken soup, she was right.

A recent article in Occupational and Environmental Medicine found that urban dwellers who spent time outdoors in green areas, such as parks and forests, had lower use of antihypertensive, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications than those who didn’t. People who just looked at such areas from a window didn’t have lower medication use than those who weren’t exposed to them at all.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis or primary Sjogren’s syndrome plus interstitial lung disease had higher levels of systemic sclerosis–specific antibodies than those without lung disease, based on data from 101 individuals.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been associated with the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the prevalence of SSc autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) has not been explored, wrote Vasilike Koulouri, MD, of Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, the researchers reviewed serum data from patients with RA and SS using immunoblot assays to determine the prevalence of SSc-specific and anti-Ro52 autoantibodies, both of which have been associated with ILD in SSc patients.

The study population included 28 RA patients with ILD, 32 RA patients without ILD, 9 primary SS patients with ILD, and 32 primary SS patients with no ILD. The mean age of the RA participants was 63.4 years, 70% were women, and the mean age at RA diagnosis was 50.2 years. The mean age of the primary SS group was 60.3 years, 87.8% were female, and the mean age at diagnosis was 52.7 years.

Overall, SSc-specific antibodies across all titers were detected more frequently in RA patients with ILD compared with those with no ILD, though not statistically significant (42.9% vs. 21.9%, P = .08). However, “This trend was mainly attributed to the statistically significant difference between the two groups at strong titers (25% vs. 3.1%, P = .01),” the researchers wrote. Notably, RA patients with strong titer SSc-specific antibodies showed an 11-fold increased risk for ILD, they added.

No significant differences appeared in the prevalence of SSc-specific or Ro52 autoantibodies between primary SS patients with and without ILD, which might be attributable in part to the increased prevalence of anticentromere antibodies in primary SS, the researchers said.

RA patients who were positive for SSc-specific antibodies at strong titers were significantly more likely to have respiratory abnormalities than those who were negative (87.5% vs. 47.2%, P = .04), but no such differences appeared in primary SS patients.

“Early detection of SSc antibodies could be important in clinical practice as it may mandate further diagnostic (for example, screening for pulmonary hypertension) and therapeutic approaches of these patients,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the small sample size, but also the potential for false-positive results on antibody titers, lack of data on the clinical significance of medium autoantibody titers, and the lack of long-term follow-up data, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that many seropositive RA patients with evidence of ILD “may evolve to a clinically evident overlap of RA and SSc” that would benefit from targeted treatment, they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from Novartis AG and by the Molecular Immunology and Clinical Applications Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis or primary Sjogren’s syndrome plus interstitial lung disease had higher levels of systemic sclerosis–specific antibodies than those without lung disease, based on data from 101 individuals.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been associated with the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the prevalence of SSc autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) has not been explored, wrote Vasilike Koulouri, MD, of Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, the researchers reviewed serum data from patients with RA and SS using immunoblot assays to determine the prevalence of SSc-specific and anti-Ro52 autoantibodies, both of which have been associated with ILD in SSc patients.

The study population included 28 RA patients with ILD, 32 RA patients without ILD, 9 primary SS patients with ILD, and 32 primary SS patients with no ILD. The mean age of the RA participants was 63.4 years, 70% were women, and the mean age at RA diagnosis was 50.2 years. The mean age of the primary SS group was 60.3 years, 87.8% were female, and the mean age at diagnosis was 52.7 years.

Overall, SSc-specific antibodies across all titers were detected more frequently in RA patients with ILD compared with those with no ILD, though not statistically significant (42.9% vs. 21.9%, P = .08). However, “This trend was mainly attributed to the statistically significant difference between the two groups at strong titers (25% vs. 3.1%, P = .01),” the researchers wrote. Notably, RA patients with strong titer SSc-specific antibodies showed an 11-fold increased risk for ILD, they added.

No significant differences appeared in the prevalence of SSc-specific or Ro52 autoantibodies between primary SS patients with and without ILD, which might be attributable in part to the increased prevalence of anticentromere antibodies in primary SS, the researchers said.

RA patients who were positive for SSc-specific antibodies at strong titers were significantly more likely to have respiratory abnormalities than those who were negative (87.5% vs. 47.2%, P = .04), but no such differences appeared in primary SS patients.

“Early detection of SSc antibodies could be important in clinical practice as it may mandate further diagnostic (for example, screening for pulmonary hypertension) and therapeutic approaches of these patients,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the small sample size, but also the potential for false-positive results on antibody titers, lack of data on the clinical significance of medium autoantibody titers, and the lack of long-term follow-up data, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that many seropositive RA patients with evidence of ILD “may evolve to a clinically evident overlap of RA and SSc” that would benefit from targeted treatment, they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from Novartis AG and by the Molecular Immunology and Clinical Applications Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with rheumatoid arthritis or primary Sjogren’s syndrome plus interstitial lung disease had higher levels of systemic sclerosis–specific antibodies than those without lung disease, based on data from 101 individuals.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) has been associated with the development of interstitial lung disease (ILD), but the prevalence of SSc autoantibodies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and primary Sjogren’s syndrome (SS) has not been explored, wrote Vasilike Koulouri, MD, of Kapodistrian University of Athens, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journal of Translational Autoimmunity, the researchers reviewed serum data from patients with RA and SS using immunoblot assays to determine the prevalence of SSc-specific and anti-Ro52 autoantibodies, both of which have been associated with ILD in SSc patients.

The study population included 28 RA patients with ILD, 32 RA patients without ILD, 9 primary SS patients with ILD, and 32 primary SS patients with no ILD. The mean age of the RA participants was 63.4 years, 70% were women, and the mean age at RA diagnosis was 50.2 years. The mean age of the primary SS group was 60.3 years, 87.8% were female, and the mean age at diagnosis was 52.7 years.

Overall, SSc-specific antibodies across all titers were detected more frequently in RA patients with ILD compared with those with no ILD, though not statistically significant (42.9% vs. 21.9%, P = .08). However, “This trend was mainly attributed to the statistically significant difference between the two groups at strong titers (25% vs. 3.1%, P = .01),” the researchers wrote. Notably, RA patients with strong titer SSc-specific antibodies showed an 11-fold increased risk for ILD, they added.

No significant differences appeared in the prevalence of SSc-specific or Ro52 autoantibodies between primary SS patients with and without ILD, which might be attributable in part to the increased prevalence of anticentromere antibodies in primary SS, the researchers said.

RA patients who were positive for SSc-specific antibodies at strong titers were significantly more likely to have respiratory abnormalities than those who were negative (87.5% vs. 47.2%, P = .04), but no such differences appeared in primary SS patients.

“Early detection of SSc antibodies could be important in clinical practice as it may mandate further diagnostic (for example, screening for pulmonary hypertension) and therapeutic approaches of these patients,” the researchers wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors, mainly the small sample size, but also the potential for false-positive results on antibody titers, lack of data on the clinical significance of medium autoantibody titers, and the lack of long-term follow-up data, the researchers noted.

However, the results suggest that many seropositive RA patients with evidence of ILD “may evolve to a clinically evident overlap of RA and SSc” that would benefit from targeted treatment, they concluded.

The study was supported by a grant from Novartis AG and by the Molecular Immunology and Clinical Applications Unit, Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Use of a remote electrical neuromodulation device every other day helped patients significantly reduce the number of migraine days compared with a placebo device, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

The prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial showed that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) with Nerivio (Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd.; Bridgewater, N.J.) found a mean reduction/decrease in the number of migraine days by an average of 4.0 days per month, according to Stewart J. Tepper MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.*

“The statistically significant results were maintained in separate subanalyses of the chronic and episodic subsamples, as well as in the separate subanalyses of participants who used and did not use migraine prophylaxis,” Dr. Tepper and colleagues wrote.

A nonpharmacological alternative

Researchers randomized 248 participants into active and placebo groups, with 95 participants in the active group and 84 participants in the placebo group meeting the criteria for a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Most of the participants in the ITT dataset were women (85.9%) with an average age of 41.7 years, and a baseline average of 12.2 migraine days and 15.6 headache days. Overall, 52.4% of participants in the ITT dataset had chronic migraine, 25.0% had migraine with aura, and 41.1% were taking preventative medication.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues followed participants for 4 weeks at baseline for observation followed by 8 weeks of participants using the REN device every other day for 45 minutes, or a placebo device that “produces electrical pulses of the same maximum intensity (34 mA) and overall energy, but with different pulse durations and much lower frequencies compared with the active device.” Participants completed a daily diary where they recorded their symptoms.

Researchers assessed the mean change in number of migraine days per month as a primary outcome, and evaluated participants who experienced episodic and chronic migraines separately in subgroup analyses. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in number of moderate or severe headache days, 50% reduction in mean number of headache days compared with baseline, Headache Impact Test short form (HIT-6) and Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function Domain total score mean change at 12 weeks compared with week 1, and reduction in mean number of days taking acute headache or migraine medication.

Participants receiving REN treatment had a significant reduction in mean migraine days per month compared with the placebo group (4.0 days vs. 1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, –3.9 days to –1.5 days; P < .001). In subgroup analyses, a significant reduction in migraine days was seen in participants receiving REN treatment with episodic migraine (3.2 days vs. 1.0 days; P = .003) and chronic migraine (4.7 days vs. 1.6 days; P = .001) compared with placebo.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues found a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days among participants receiving REN treatment compared with placebo (3.8 days vs. 2.2 days; P = .005), a significant reduction in headache days overall compared with placebo (4.5 days vs. 1.8 days; P < .001), a significant percentage of patients who experienced 50% reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days compared with placebo (51.6% vs. 35.7%; P = .033), and a significant reduction in acute medication days compared with placebo (3.5 days vs. 1.4 days; P = .001). Dr. Tepper and colleagues found no serious device-related adverse events in either group.

The researchers noted that REN therapy is a “much-needed nonpharmacological alternative” to other preventive and acute treatments for migraine. “Given the previously well-established clinical efficacy and high safety profile in acute treatment of migraine, REN can cover the entire treatment spectrum of migraine, including both acute and preventive treatments,” they said.

‘A good place to start’

Commenting on the study, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said the study was well designed, but acknowledged the 8-week follow-up time for participants as one potential area where he would have wanted to see more data.

As a medical device cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine, the REM device also appears to be effective as a migraine preventative based on the results of the study with “virtually no adverse events,” he noted.

“I think this is a great treatment. I think it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Rapoport said. Given the low adverse event rate, he said he would be willing to offer the device to patients as a first option for preventing migraine and either switch to another preventative option or add an additional medication in combination based on how the patient responds. However, at the moment, he noted that this device is not covered by insurance.

Now that a REN device has been shown to work in the acute setting and as a preventative, Dr. Rapoport said he is interested in seeing other devices that have been cleared by the FDA as migraine treatments evaluated in migraine prevention. “I think we need more patients tried on the devices so we get an idea of which ones work acutely, which ones work preventively,” he said.

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board positions, consultancies, grants, research principal investigator roles, royalties, speakers bureau positions, and stockholders for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, and other organizations. Several authors disclosed ties with Theranica, the manufacturer of the REN device used in the study. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a consultant for Theranica, but was not involved in studies associated with the REN device.

Correction, 2/10/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the reduction in number of migraine days.

Use of a remote electrical neuromodulation device every other day helped patients significantly reduce the number of migraine days compared with a placebo device, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

The prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial showed that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) with Nerivio (Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd.; Bridgewater, N.J.) found a mean reduction/decrease in the number of migraine days by an average of 4.0 days per month, according to Stewart J. Tepper MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.*

“The statistically significant results were maintained in separate subanalyses of the chronic and episodic subsamples, as well as in the separate subanalyses of participants who used and did not use migraine prophylaxis,” Dr. Tepper and colleagues wrote.

A nonpharmacological alternative

Researchers randomized 248 participants into active and placebo groups, with 95 participants in the active group and 84 participants in the placebo group meeting the criteria for a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Most of the participants in the ITT dataset were women (85.9%) with an average age of 41.7 years, and a baseline average of 12.2 migraine days and 15.6 headache days. Overall, 52.4% of participants in the ITT dataset had chronic migraine, 25.0% had migraine with aura, and 41.1% were taking preventative medication.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues followed participants for 4 weeks at baseline for observation followed by 8 weeks of participants using the REN device every other day for 45 minutes, or a placebo device that “produces electrical pulses of the same maximum intensity (34 mA) and overall energy, but with different pulse durations and much lower frequencies compared with the active device.” Participants completed a daily diary where they recorded their symptoms.

Researchers assessed the mean change in number of migraine days per month as a primary outcome, and evaluated participants who experienced episodic and chronic migraines separately in subgroup analyses. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in number of moderate or severe headache days, 50% reduction in mean number of headache days compared with baseline, Headache Impact Test short form (HIT-6) and Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function Domain total score mean change at 12 weeks compared with week 1, and reduction in mean number of days taking acute headache or migraine medication.

Participants receiving REN treatment had a significant reduction in mean migraine days per month compared with the placebo group (4.0 days vs. 1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, –3.9 days to –1.5 days; P < .001). In subgroup analyses, a significant reduction in migraine days was seen in participants receiving REN treatment with episodic migraine (3.2 days vs. 1.0 days; P = .003) and chronic migraine (4.7 days vs. 1.6 days; P = .001) compared with placebo.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues found a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days among participants receiving REN treatment compared with placebo (3.8 days vs. 2.2 days; P = .005), a significant reduction in headache days overall compared with placebo (4.5 days vs. 1.8 days; P < .001), a significant percentage of patients who experienced 50% reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days compared with placebo (51.6% vs. 35.7%; P = .033), and a significant reduction in acute medication days compared with placebo (3.5 days vs. 1.4 days; P = .001). Dr. Tepper and colleagues found no serious device-related adverse events in either group.

The researchers noted that REN therapy is a “much-needed nonpharmacological alternative” to other preventive and acute treatments for migraine. “Given the previously well-established clinical efficacy and high safety profile in acute treatment of migraine, REN can cover the entire treatment spectrum of migraine, including both acute and preventive treatments,” they said.

‘A good place to start’

Commenting on the study, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said the study was well designed, but acknowledged the 8-week follow-up time for participants as one potential area where he would have wanted to see more data.

As a medical device cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine, the REM device also appears to be effective as a migraine preventative based on the results of the study with “virtually no adverse events,” he noted.

“I think this is a great treatment. I think it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Rapoport said. Given the low adverse event rate, he said he would be willing to offer the device to patients as a first option for preventing migraine and either switch to another preventative option or add an additional medication in combination based on how the patient responds. However, at the moment, he noted that this device is not covered by insurance.

Now that a REN device has been shown to work in the acute setting and as a preventative, Dr. Rapoport said he is interested in seeing other devices that have been cleared by the FDA as migraine treatments evaluated in migraine prevention. “I think we need more patients tried on the devices so we get an idea of which ones work acutely, which ones work preventively,” he said.

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board positions, consultancies, grants, research principal investigator roles, royalties, speakers bureau positions, and stockholders for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, and other organizations. Several authors disclosed ties with Theranica, the manufacturer of the REN device used in the study. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a consultant for Theranica, but was not involved in studies associated with the REN device.

Correction, 2/10/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the reduction in number of migraine days.

Use of a remote electrical neuromodulation device every other day helped patients significantly reduce the number of migraine days compared with a placebo device, according to recent research published in the journal Headache.

The prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial showed that remote electrical neuromodulation (REN) with Nerivio (Theranica Bio-Electronics Ltd.; Bridgewater, N.J.) found a mean reduction/decrease in the number of migraine days by an average of 4.0 days per month, according to Stewart J. Tepper MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H., and colleagues.*

“The statistically significant results were maintained in separate subanalyses of the chronic and episodic subsamples, as well as in the separate subanalyses of participants who used and did not use migraine prophylaxis,” Dr. Tepper and colleagues wrote.

A nonpharmacological alternative

Researchers randomized 248 participants into active and placebo groups, with 95 participants in the active group and 84 participants in the placebo group meeting the criteria for a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analysis. Most of the participants in the ITT dataset were women (85.9%) with an average age of 41.7 years, and a baseline average of 12.2 migraine days and 15.6 headache days. Overall, 52.4% of participants in the ITT dataset had chronic migraine, 25.0% had migraine with aura, and 41.1% were taking preventative medication.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues followed participants for 4 weeks at baseline for observation followed by 8 weeks of participants using the REN device every other day for 45 minutes, or a placebo device that “produces electrical pulses of the same maximum intensity (34 mA) and overall energy, but with different pulse durations and much lower frequencies compared with the active device.” Participants completed a daily diary where they recorded their symptoms.

Researchers assessed the mean change in number of migraine days per month as a primary outcome, and evaluated participants who experienced episodic and chronic migraines separately in subgroup analyses. Secondary outcome measures included mean change in number of moderate or severe headache days, 50% reduction in mean number of headache days compared with baseline, Headache Impact Test short form (HIT-6) and Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire (MSQ) Role Function Domain total score mean change at 12 weeks compared with week 1, and reduction in mean number of days taking acute headache or migraine medication.

Participants receiving REN treatment had a significant reduction in mean migraine days per month compared with the placebo group (4.0 days vs. 1.3 days; 95% confidence interval, –3.9 days to –1.5 days; P < .001). In subgroup analyses, a significant reduction in migraine days was seen in participants receiving REN treatment with episodic migraine (3.2 days vs. 1.0 days; P = .003) and chronic migraine (4.7 days vs. 1.6 days; P = .001) compared with placebo.

Dr. Tepper and colleagues found a significant reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days among participants receiving REN treatment compared with placebo (3.8 days vs. 2.2 days; P = .005), a significant reduction in headache days overall compared with placebo (4.5 days vs. 1.8 days; P < .001), a significant percentage of patients who experienced 50% reduction in moderate and/or severe headache days compared with placebo (51.6% vs. 35.7%; P = .033), and a significant reduction in acute medication days compared with placebo (3.5 days vs. 1.4 days; P = .001). Dr. Tepper and colleagues found no serious device-related adverse events in either group.

The researchers noted that REN therapy is a “much-needed nonpharmacological alternative” to other preventive and acute treatments for migraine. “Given the previously well-established clinical efficacy and high safety profile in acute treatment of migraine, REN can cover the entire treatment spectrum of migraine, including both acute and preventive treatments,” they said.

‘A good place to start’

Commenting on the study, Alan M. Rapoport, MD, clinical professor of neurology at University of California, Los Angeles; past president of the International Headache Society; and editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews, said the study was well designed, but acknowledged the 8-week follow-up time for participants as one potential area where he would have wanted to see more data.

As a medical device cleared for use by the Food and Drug Administration for acute treatment of migraine, the REM device also appears to be effective as a migraine preventative based on the results of the study with “virtually no adverse events,” he noted.

“I think this is a great treatment. I think it’s a good place to start,” Dr. Rapoport said. Given the low adverse event rate, he said he would be willing to offer the device to patients as a first option for preventing migraine and either switch to another preventative option or add an additional medication in combination based on how the patient responds. However, at the moment, he noted that this device is not covered by insurance.

Now that a REN device has been shown to work in the acute setting and as a preventative, Dr. Rapoport said he is interested in seeing other devices that have been cleared by the FDA as migraine treatments evaluated in migraine prevention. “I think we need more patients tried on the devices so we get an idea of which ones work acutely, which ones work preventively,” he said.

The authors reported personal and institutional relationships in the form of advisory board positions, consultancies, grants, research principal investigator roles, royalties, speakers bureau positions, and stockholders for a variety of pharmaceutical companies, agencies, and other organizations. Several authors disclosed ties with Theranica, the manufacturer of the REN device used in the study. Dr. Rapoport is editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and a consultant for Theranica, but was not involved in studies associated with the REN device.

Correction, 2/10/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the reduction in number of migraine days.

Isotretinoin was not associated with a 1-year risk of incident inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a large population-based cohort study that also found no significant association of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics with IBD – and a small but statistically significant association of acne itself with the inflammatory disorders that make up IBD.

For the study, senior author John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues used data from the TriNetX global research platform, which mines patient-level electronic medical record data from dozens of health care organizations, mainly in the United States. The network includes over 106 million patients. They looked at four cohorts: Patients without acne; those with acne but no current or prior use of systemic medications; those with acne managed with isotretinoin (and no prior use of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics); and those with acne managed with oral tetracycline-class antibiotics (and no exposure to isotretinoin).

Ocskay Bence/Fotolia.com

For the acne cohorts, the investigators captured first encounters with a diagnosis of acne and first prescriptions of interest. And studywide, they used propensity score matching to balance cohorts for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and combined oral contraceptive use.

“These data should provide more reassurance to patients and prescribers that isotretinoin does not appear to result in a meaningfully increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease,” they wrote in the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“These are important findings as isotretinoin is a valuable treatment for acne that can result in a durable remission of disease activity, prevent acne scarring, and reduce our overreliance on oral antibiotics for acne,” they added.

Indeed, dermatologist Jonathan S. Weiss, MD, who was not involved in the research and was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “are reassuring given the large numbers of patients evaluated and treated.” The smallest cohort – the isotretinoin group – had over 11,000 patients, and the other cohorts had over 100,000 patients each, he said in an interview.

“At this point, I’m not sure we need any other immediate information to feel comfortable using isotretinoin with respect to a potential to cause IBD, but it would be nice to see some longitudinal follow-up data for longer-term reassurance,” added Dr. Weiss, who practices in Snellville, Georgia, and is on the board of the directors of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

 

The findings: Risk with acne

To assess the potential association between acne and IBD, the researchers identified more than 350,000 patients with acne managed without systemic medications, and propensity score matched them with patients who did not have acne. Altogether, their mean age was 22; 32.1% were male, and 59.6% were White.

Compared with the controls who did not have acne, they found a statistically significant association between acne and risk of incident IBD (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.65) and an absolute risk difference of .04%. Separated into Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), ORs were 1.56 and 1.62, respectively.
 

Tetracyclines

To assess the association of oral tetracycline use and IBD, they compared more than 144,000 patients whose acne was managed with antibiotics with patients whose acne was managed without systemic medications. The patients had a mean age of 24.4; 34.7% were male, and 68.2% were White.

Compared with the patients who were not on systemic medications, there were no significant associations among those on oral tetracyclines, with an OR for incident IBD of 1 (95% CI, 0.82-1.22), an OR for incident CD of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.86-1.38), and an OR for UC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61-1.00).
 

Isotretinoin

To evaluate the association of isotretinoin and IBD, the researchers compared more than 11,000 patients treated with isotretinoin with two matched groups: patients with acne managed without systemic medications, and patients with acne managed with oral tetracyclines. The latter comparison was made to minimize potential confounding by acne severity. These patients had a mean age of 21.1; 49.5% were male, and 75.3% were White.

In the first comparison, compared with patients not treated with systemic medications, the OR for 1-year incidence of IBD among patients treated with isotretinoin was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.64-2.59), with an absolute risk difference of .036%. The ORs for CD and UC were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.45-2.23) and 1.27 (95% CI, .58-2.80), respectively.

And compared with the antibiotic-managed group, the OR for incident IBD among those on isotretinoin was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.57-2.21), with an absolute risk difference of .018%. The OR for CD was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.45-2.23). The OR for UC could not be accurately estimated because of an insufficient number of events in the tetracycline-treated group.
 

‘Challenging’ area of research

Researching acne treatments and the potential risk of IBD has been a methodologically “challenging topic to study” because of possible confounding and surveillance bias depending on study designs, Dr. Barbieri, director of the Brigham and Women’s Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic, said in an interview.

Studies that have identified a potential association between isotretinoin and IBD often have not adequately controlled for prior antibiotic exposure, for instance. And other studies, including a retrospective cohort study also published recently in JAAD using the same TriNetX database, have found 6-month isotretinoin-related risks of IBD but no increased risk at 1 year or more of follow-up – a finding that suggests a role of surveillance bias, Dr. Barbieri said.

The follow-up period of 1 year in their new study was chosen to minimize the risk of such bias. “Since patients on isotretinoin are seen more often, and since there are historical concerns about isotretinoin and IBD, patients on isotretinoin may be more likely to be screened earlier and thus could be diagnosed sooner than those not on [the medication],” he said.

He and his coauthors considered similar potential bias in designing the no-acne cohort, choosing patients who had routine primary care visits without abnormal findings in order to “reduce potential for bias due to frequency of interaction with the health care system,” they noted in their paper. (Patients had no prior encounters for acne and no history of acne treatments.)
 

Antibiotics, acne itself

Research on antibiotic use for acne and risk of IBD is scant, and the few studies that have been published show conflicting findings, Dr. Barbieri noted. In the meantime, studies and meta-analyses in the general medical literature – not involving acne – have identified an association between lifetime oral antibiotic exposure and IBD, he said.

While the results of the new study “are reassuring that oral tetracycline-class exposure for acne may not be associated with a significant absolute risk of inflammatory bowel disease, given the potential for antibiotic resistance and other antibiotic-associated complications, it remains important to be judicious” with their use in acne management, he and his coauthors wrote in the study.

The potential association between antibiotics for acne and IBD needs further study, preferably with longer follow-up duration, Dr. Barbieri said in the interview, but researchers are challenged by the lack of datasets with high-quality longitudinal data “beyond a few years of follow-up.”

The extent to which acne itself is associated with IBD is another area ripe for more research. Thus far, it seems that IBD and acne – and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis – involve similar pathogenic pathways. “We know that in IBD Th17 and TNF immunologic pathways are important, so it’s not surprising that there may be associations,” he said.

In their paper, Dr. Barbieri and his coauthors emphasize, however, that the absolute risk difference between acne and IBD is small. It’s “unlikely that population level screening is warranted among patients with acne,” they wrote.

A second new study

The other study, also published recently in JAAD, used the same TriNetX research platform to identify approximately 77,000 patients with acne starting isotretinoin and matched them with patients starting oral antibiotics.

The investigators, Khalaf Kridin MD, PhD, and Ralf J. Ludwig, MD, of the Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, University of Lübeck (Germany), found that the lifetime risks (greater than 6 months) for patients on isotretinoin were not significantly elevated, compared with those on oral antibiotics for either CD (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24, P = .583) or UC (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.95-1.34; P = .162) They also looked at the risk of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and found a lower lifetime risk in the isotretinoin group.

In the short term, during the first 6 months after drug initiation, there was a significant, but slight increase in UC in the isotretinoin group. But this risk decreased to the level of the antibiotic group with longer follow up. “The absolute incidence rates [of IBD] and the risk difference of UC within the first 6 months are of limited clinical significance,” they wrote.

It may be, Dr. Weiss said in commenting on this study, “that isotretinoin unmasks an already-existing genetic tendency to UC early on in the course of treatment, but that it does not truly cause an increased incidence of any type of IBD.”

Both studies, said Dr. Barbieri, “add to an extensive body of literature that supports that isotretinoin is not associated with IBD.”

Dr. Barbieri had no disclosures for the study, for which Matthew T. Taylor served as first author. Coauthor Shawn Kwatra, MD, disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and has served as an investigator for several. Both are supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Kridin and Dr. Ludwig had no disclosures for their study. Dr. Weiss had no disclosures.

Isotretinoin was not associated with a 1-year risk of incident inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a large population-based cohort study that also found no significant association of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics with IBD – and a small but statistically significant association of acne itself with the inflammatory disorders that make up IBD.

For the study, senior author John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues used data from the TriNetX global research platform, which mines patient-level electronic medical record data from dozens of health care organizations, mainly in the United States. The network includes over 106 million patients. They looked at four cohorts: Patients without acne; those with acne but no current or prior use of systemic medications; those with acne managed with isotretinoin (and no prior use of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics); and those with acne managed with oral tetracycline-class antibiotics (and no exposure to isotretinoin).

Ocskay Bence/Fotolia.com

For the acne cohorts, the investigators captured first encounters with a diagnosis of acne and first prescriptions of interest. And studywide, they used propensity score matching to balance cohorts for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and combined oral contraceptive use.

“These data should provide more reassurance to patients and prescribers that isotretinoin does not appear to result in a meaningfully increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease,” they wrote in the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“These are important findings as isotretinoin is a valuable treatment for acne that can result in a durable remission of disease activity, prevent acne scarring, and reduce our overreliance on oral antibiotics for acne,” they added.

Indeed, dermatologist Jonathan S. Weiss, MD, who was not involved in the research and was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “are reassuring given the large numbers of patients evaluated and treated.” The smallest cohort – the isotretinoin group – had over 11,000 patients, and the other cohorts had over 100,000 patients each, he said in an interview.

“At this point, I’m not sure we need any other immediate information to feel comfortable using isotretinoin with respect to a potential to cause IBD, but it would be nice to see some longitudinal follow-up data for longer-term reassurance,” added Dr. Weiss, who practices in Snellville, Georgia, and is on the board of the directors of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

 

The findings: Risk with acne

To assess the potential association between acne and IBD, the researchers identified more than 350,000 patients with acne managed without systemic medications, and propensity score matched them with patients who did not have acne. Altogether, their mean age was 22; 32.1% were male, and 59.6% were White.

Compared with the controls who did not have acne, they found a statistically significant association between acne and risk of incident IBD (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.65) and an absolute risk difference of .04%. Separated into Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), ORs were 1.56 and 1.62, respectively.
 

Tetracyclines

To assess the association of oral tetracycline use and IBD, they compared more than 144,000 patients whose acne was managed with antibiotics with patients whose acne was managed without systemic medications. The patients had a mean age of 24.4; 34.7% were male, and 68.2% were White.

Compared with the patients who were not on systemic medications, there were no significant associations among those on oral tetracyclines, with an OR for incident IBD of 1 (95% CI, 0.82-1.22), an OR for incident CD of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.86-1.38), and an OR for UC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61-1.00).
 

Isotretinoin

To evaluate the association of isotretinoin and IBD, the researchers compared more than 11,000 patients treated with isotretinoin with two matched groups: patients with acne managed without systemic medications, and patients with acne managed with oral tetracyclines. The latter comparison was made to minimize potential confounding by acne severity. These patients had a mean age of 21.1; 49.5% were male, and 75.3% were White.

In the first comparison, compared with patients not treated with systemic medications, the OR for 1-year incidence of IBD among patients treated with isotretinoin was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.64-2.59), with an absolute risk difference of .036%. The ORs for CD and UC were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.45-2.23) and 1.27 (95% CI, .58-2.80), respectively.

And compared with the antibiotic-managed group, the OR for incident IBD among those on isotretinoin was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.57-2.21), with an absolute risk difference of .018%. The OR for CD was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.45-2.23). The OR for UC could not be accurately estimated because of an insufficient number of events in the tetracycline-treated group.
 

‘Challenging’ area of research

Researching acne treatments and the potential risk of IBD has been a methodologically “challenging topic to study” because of possible confounding and surveillance bias depending on study designs, Dr. Barbieri, director of the Brigham and Women’s Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic, said in an interview.

Studies that have identified a potential association between isotretinoin and IBD often have not adequately controlled for prior antibiotic exposure, for instance. And other studies, including a retrospective cohort study also published recently in JAAD using the same TriNetX database, have found 6-month isotretinoin-related risks of IBD but no increased risk at 1 year or more of follow-up – a finding that suggests a role of surveillance bias, Dr. Barbieri said.

The follow-up period of 1 year in their new study was chosen to minimize the risk of such bias. “Since patients on isotretinoin are seen more often, and since there are historical concerns about isotretinoin and IBD, patients on isotretinoin may be more likely to be screened earlier and thus could be diagnosed sooner than those not on [the medication],” he said.

He and his coauthors considered similar potential bias in designing the no-acne cohort, choosing patients who had routine primary care visits without abnormal findings in order to “reduce potential for bias due to frequency of interaction with the health care system,” they noted in their paper. (Patients had no prior encounters for acne and no history of acne treatments.)
 

Antibiotics, acne itself

Research on antibiotic use for acne and risk of IBD is scant, and the few studies that have been published show conflicting findings, Dr. Barbieri noted. In the meantime, studies and meta-analyses in the general medical literature – not involving acne – have identified an association between lifetime oral antibiotic exposure and IBD, he said.

While the results of the new study “are reassuring that oral tetracycline-class exposure for acne may not be associated with a significant absolute risk of inflammatory bowel disease, given the potential for antibiotic resistance and other antibiotic-associated complications, it remains important to be judicious” with their use in acne management, he and his coauthors wrote in the study.

The potential association between antibiotics for acne and IBD needs further study, preferably with longer follow-up duration, Dr. Barbieri said in the interview, but researchers are challenged by the lack of datasets with high-quality longitudinal data “beyond a few years of follow-up.”

The extent to which acne itself is associated with IBD is another area ripe for more research. Thus far, it seems that IBD and acne – and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis – involve similar pathogenic pathways. “We know that in IBD Th17 and TNF immunologic pathways are important, so it’s not surprising that there may be associations,” he said.

In their paper, Dr. Barbieri and his coauthors emphasize, however, that the absolute risk difference between acne and IBD is small. It’s “unlikely that population level screening is warranted among patients with acne,” they wrote.

A second new study

The other study, also published recently in JAAD, used the same TriNetX research platform to identify approximately 77,000 patients with acne starting isotretinoin and matched them with patients starting oral antibiotics.

The investigators, Khalaf Kridin MD, PhD, and Ralf J. Ludwig, MD, of the Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, University of Lübeck (Germany), found that the lifetime risks (greater than 6 months) for patients on isotretinoin were not significantly elevated, compared with those on oral antibiotics for either CD (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24, P = .583) or UC (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.95-1.34; P = .162) They also looked at the risk of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and found a lower lifetime risk in the isotretinoin group.

In the short term, during the first 6 months after drug initiation, there was a significant, but slight increase in UC in the isotretinoin group. But this risk decreased to the level of the antibiotic group with longer follow up. “The absolute incidence rates [of IBD] and the risk difference of UC within the first 6 months are of limited clinical significance,” they wrote.

It may be, Dr. Weiss said in commenting on this study, “that isotretinoin unmasks an already-existing genetic tendency to UC early on in the course of treatment, but that it does not truly cause an increased incidence of any type of IBD.”

Both studies, said Dr. Barbieri, “add to an extensive body of literature that supports that isotretinoin is not associated with IBD.”

Dr. Barbieri had no disclosures for the study, for which Matthew T. Taylor served as first author. Coauthor Shawn Kwatra, MD, disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and has served as an investigator for several. Both are supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Kridin and Dr. Ludwig had no disclosures for their study. Dr. Weiss had no disclosures.

Isotretinoin was not associated with a 1-year risk of incident inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in a large population-based cohort study that also found no significant association of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics with IBD – and a small but statistically significant association of acne itself with the inflammatory disorders that make up IBD.

For the study, senior author John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, of the department of dermatology, at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues used data from the TriNetX global research platform, which mines patient-level electronic medical record data from dozens of health care organizations, mainly in the United States. The network includes over 106 million patients. They looked at four cohorts: Patients without acne; those with acne but no current or prior use of systemic medications; those with acne managed with isotretinoin (and no prior use of oral tetracycline-class antibiotics); and those with acne managed with oral tetracycline-class antibiotics (and no exposure to isotretinoin).

Ocskay Bence/Fotolia.com

For the acne cohorts, the investigators captured first encounters with a diagnosis of acne and first prescriptions of interest. And studywide, they used propensity score matching to balance cohorts for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and combined oral contraceptive use.

“These data should provide more reassurance to patients and prescribers that isotretinoin does not appear to result in a meaningfully increased risk of inflammatory bowel disease,” they wrote in the study, published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“These are important findings as isotretinoin is a valuable treatment for acne that can result in a durable remission of disease activity, prevent acne scarring, and reduce our overreliance on oral antibiotics for acne,” they added.

Indeed, dermatologist Jonathan S. Weiss, MD, who was not involved in the research and was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “are reassuring given the large numbers of patients evaluated and treated.” The smallest cohort – the isotretinoin group – had over 11,000 patients, and the other cohorts had over 100,000 patients each, he said in an interview.

“At this point, I’m not sure we need any other immediate information to feel comfortable using isotretinoin with respect to a potential to cause IBD, but it would be nice to see some longitudinal follow-up data for longer-term reassurance,” added Dr. Weiss, who practices in Snellville, Georgia, and is on the board of the directors of the American Acne and Rosacea Society.

 

The findings: Risk with acne

To assess the potential association between acne and IBD, the researchers identified more than 350,000 patients with acne managed without systemic medications, and propensity score matched them with patients who did not have acne. Altogether, their mean age was 22; 32.1% were male, and 59.6% were White.

Compared with the controls who did not have acne, they found a statistically significant association between acne and risk of incident IBD (odds ratio, 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.65) and an absolute risk difference of .04%. Separated into Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), ORs were 1.56 and 1.62, respectively.
 

Tetracyclines

To assess the association of oral tetracycline use and IBD, they compared more than 144,000 patients whose acne was managed with antibiotics with patients whose acne was managed without systemic medications. The patients had a mean age of 24.4; 34.7% were male, and 68.2% were White.

Compared with the patients who were not on systemic medications, there were no significant associations among those on oral tetracyclines, with an OR for incident IBD of 1 (95% CI, 0.82-1.22), an OR for incident CD of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.86-1.38), and an OR for UC of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.61-1.00).
 

Isotretinoin

To evaluate the association of isotretinoin and IBD, the researchers compared more than 11,000 patients treated with isotretinoin with two matched groups: patients with acne managed without systemic medications, and patients with acne managed with oral tetracyclines. The latter comparison was made to minimize potential confounding by acne severity. These patients had a mean age of 21.1; 49.5% were male, and 75.3% were White.

In the first comparison, compared with patients not treated with systemic medications, the OR for 1-year incidence of IBD among patients treated with isotretinoin was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.64-2.59), with an absolute risk difference of .036%. The ORs for CD and UC were 1.00 (95% CI, 0.45-2.23) and 1.27 (95% CI, .58-2.80), respectively.

And compared with the antibiotic-managed group, the OR for incident IBD among those on isotretinoin was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.57-2.21), with an absolute risk difference of .018%. The OR for CD was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.45-2.23). The OR for UC could not be accurately estimated because of an insufficient number of events in the tetracycline-treated group.
 

‘Challenging’ area of research

Researching acne treatments and the potential risk of IBD has been a methodologically “challenging topic to study” because of possible confounding and surveillance bias depending on study designs, Dr. Barbieri, director of the Brigham and Women’s Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic, said in an interview.

Studies that have identified a potential association between isotretinoin and IBD often have not adequately controlled for prior antibiotic exposure, for instance. And other studies, including a retrospective cohort study also published recently in JAAD using the same TriNetX database, have found 6-month isotretinoin-related risks of IBD but no increased risk at 1 year or more of follow-up – a finding that suggests a role of surveillance bias, Dr. Barbieri said.

The follow-up period of 1 year in their new study was chosen to minimize the risk of such bias. “Since patients on isotretinoin are seen more often, and since there are historical concerns about isotretinoin and IBD, patients on isotretinoin may be more likely to be screened earlier and thus could be diagnosed sooner than those not on [the medication],” he said.

He and his coauthors considered similar potential bias in designing the no-acne cohort, choosing patients who had routine primary care visits without abnormal findings in order to “reduce potential for bias due to frequency of interaction with the health care system,” they noted in their paper. (Patients had no prior encounters for acne and no history of acne treatments.)
 

Antibiotics, acne itself

Research on antibiotic use for acne and risk of IBD is scant, and the few studies that have been published show conflicting findings, Dr. Barbieri noted. In the meantime, studies and meta-analyses in the general medical literature – not involving acne – have identified an association between lifetime oral antibiotic exposure and IBD, he said.

While the results of the new study “are reassuring that oral tetracycline-class exposure for acne may not be associated with a significant absolute risk of inflammatory bowel disease, given the potential for antibiotic resistance and other antibiotic-associated complications, it remains important to be judicious” with their use in acne management, he and his coauthors wrote in the study.

The potential association between antibiotics for acne and IBD needs further study, preferably with longer follow-up duration, Dr. Barbieri said in the interview, but researchers are challenged by the lack of datasets with high-quality longitudinal data “beyond a few years of follow-up.”

The extent to which acne itself is associated with IBD is another area ripe for more research. Thus far, it seems that IBD and acne – and other chronic inflammatory skin diseases such as psoriasis – involve similar pathogenic pathways. “We know that in IBD Th17 and TNF immunologic pathways are important, so it’s not surprising that there may be associations,” he said.

In their paper, Dr. Barbieri and his coauthors emphasize, however, that the absolute risk difference between acne and IBD is small. It’s “unlikely that population level screening is warranted among patients with acne,” they wrote.

A second new study

The other study, also published recently in JAAD, used the same TriNetX research platform to identify approximately 77,000 patients with acne starting isotretinoin and matched them with patients starting oral antibiotics.

The investigators, Khalaf Kridin MD, PhD, and Ralf J. Ludwig, MD, of the Lübeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, University of Lübeck (Germany), found that the lifetime risks (greater than 6 months) for patients on isotretinoin were not significantly elevated, compared with those on oral antibiotics for either CD (hazard ratio 1.05; 95% CI, 0.89-1.24, P = .583) or UC (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.95-1.34; P = .162) They also looked at the risk of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and found a lower lifetime risk in the isotretinoin group.

In the short term, during the first 6 months after drug initiation, there was a significant, but slight increase in UC in the isotretinoin group. But this risk decreased to the level of the antibiotic group with longer follow up. “The absolute incidence rates [of IBD] and the risk difference of UC within the first 6 months are of limited clinical significance,” they wrote.

It may be, Dr. Weiss said in commenting on this study, “that isotretinoin unmasks an already-existing genetic tendency to UC early on in the course of treatment, but that it does not truly cause an increased incidence of any type of IBD.”

Both studies, said Dr. Barbieri, “add to an extensive body of literature that supports that isotretinoin is not associated with IBD.”

Dr. Barbieri had no disclosures for the study, for which Matthew T. Taylor served as first author. Coauthor Shawn Kwatra, MD, disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for numerous pharmaceutical companies and has served as an investigator for several. Both are supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The other authors had no disclosures. Dr. Kridin and Dr. Ludwig had no disclosures for their study. Dr. Weiss had no disclosures.

Almonds might affect appetite during a weight loss diet and may assist with weight management in the long term, according to researchers at the University of South Australia’s Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity.

What to know

People who consume as few as 30-50 g of almonds, as opposed to an energy-equivalent carbohydrate snack, can lower their energy intake significantly at the subsequent meal.

People who eat almonds can experience changes in their appetite-regulating hormones that may contribute to less food intake.

Almond consumption can lower C-peptide responses, which can improve insulin sensitivity and reduce the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Eating almonds can raise levels of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide glucagon, which can send satiety signals to the brain, and pancreatic polypeptide, which slows digestion, which may reduce food intake, supporting weight loss.

Almonds are high in protein, fiber, and unsaturated fatty acids, which may contribute to their satiating properties and help explain why fewer calories are consumed.

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

This is a summary of the article “Acute Feeding With Almonds Compared to a Carbohydrate-Based Snack Improves Appetite-Regulating Hormones With No Effect on Self-reported Appetite Sensations: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” published in the European Journal of Nutrition on Oct. 11, 2022. The full article can be found on link.springer.com.

Almonds might affect appetite during a weight loss diet and may assist with weight management in the long term, according to researchers at the University of South Australia’s Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity.

What to know

People who consume as few as 30-50 g of almonds, as opposed to an energy-equivalent carbohydrate snack, can lower their energy intake significantly at the subsequent meal.

People who eat almonds can experience changes in their appetite-regulating hormones that may contribute to less food intake.

Almond consumption can lower C-peptide responses, which can improve insulin sensitivity and reduce the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Eating almonds can raise levels of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide glucagon, which can send satiety signals to the brain, and pancreatic polypeptide, which slows digestion, which may reduce food intake, supporting weight loss.

Almonds are high in protein, fiber, and unsaturated fatty acids, which may contribute to their satiating properties and help explain why fewer calories are consumed.

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

This is a summary of the article “Acute Feeding With Almonds Compared to a Carbohydrate-Based Snack Improves Appetite-Regulating Hormones With No Effect on Self-reported Appetite Sensations: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” published in the European Journal of Nutrition on Oct. 11, 2022. The full article can be found on link.springer.com.

Almonds might affect appetite during a weight loss diet and may assist with weight management in the long term, according to researchers at the University of South Australia’s Alliance for Research in Exercise, Nutrition and Activity.

What to know

People who consume as few as 30-50 g of almonds, as opposed to an energy-equivalent carbohydrate snack, can lower their energy intake significantly at the subsequent meal.

People who eat almonds can experience changes in their appetite-regulating hormones that may contribute to less food intake.

Almond consumption can lower C-peptide responses, which can improve insulin sensitivity and reduce the risk of developing diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Eating almonds can raise levels of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide glucagon, which can send satiety signals to the brain, and pancreatic polypeptide, which slows digestion, which may reduce food intake, supporting weight loss.

Almonds are high in protein, fiber, and unsaturated fatty acids, which may contribute to their satiating properties and help explain why fewer calories are consumed.

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

This is a summary of the article “Acute Feeding With Almonds Compared to a Carbohydrate-Based Snack Improves Appetite-Regulating Hormones With No Effect on Self-reported Appetite Sensations: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” published in the European Journal of Nutrition on Oct. 11, 2022. The full article can be found on link.springer.com.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

A pair of new studies suggest limitations of adjuvant chemotherapy among older adults with stage 3 colorectal cancer. A phase 2, multi-institutional feasibility study found a completion rate of 67.3%, while a prospective study found that completion was associated with improved disease-free survival.

Both studies were presented in January at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023.

In HiSCO-04, Japanese researchers found that of 64 older patients with stage 3A colorectal cancer who underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, 53% completed the treatment with an improvement in disease-free survival. Patients who completed adjuvant chemotherapy had better disease-free survival (P = .03), while the survival was lower among those who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, and lowest among those who discontinued adjuvant chemotherapy.

“The results showed that adjuvant chemotherapy is not always recommended for elderly patients, and that patients who are able to complete treatment may have a better prognosis for survival. However, the results do not indicate which patients are unable to complete chemotherapy, and it will be necessary to identify patients who are intolerant of chemotherapy,” said the study’s lead author Manabu Shimomura, MD, PhD, an assistant professor of gastroenterological and transplant surgery at the Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences in Japan.

The study, which was conducted between 2013 and 2021, enrolled 214 patients (99 men, 115 women, 80-101 years old) who were in stage 3 cancer (27 cases 3A, 158 cases 3B, and 29 cases 3C). A total of 41 patients were ineligible for chemotherapy. Of the remaining patients, 65 received adjuvant chemotherapy and 108 did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy.

The 3-year disease-free survival was 63.6%, the 3-year overall survival was 76.9%, and the 3-year relapse-free survival was 63.1%. Thirty-six patients died because of colorectal cancer, and 30 patients died of other causes. There was recurrence in 58 cases and secondary cancers were observed in 17 cases during the 42.5 months–long follow-up period.

There were few reports of serious adverse events, but some cases of treatment discontinuation were because of adverse events.

In a second study presented by Dr. Shimomura’s group, called HiSCO-03, 65 patients (33 female) underwent curative resection and received five courses of uracil-tegafur and leucovorin (UFT/LV).

The completion rate of 67.3% had a 95% lower bound of 54.9%, which were lower than the predefined thresholds of 75% completion and a lower bound of 60%. “Based on the results of a previous (ACTS-CC phase III) study, we set the expected value of UFT/LV therapy in patients over 80 years of age at 75% and the threshold at 60%. Since the target age group of previous study was 75 years or younger, we concluded from the results of the current study that UFT/LV therapy is less well tolerated in patients 80 years of age and older than in patients 75 years of age and younger,” Dr. Shimomura said.

The treatment completion rate trended higher in males than females (77.6% versus 57.2%; P = .06) and performance status of 0 versus 1 or 2 (74.3% versus 58.9%; P = .10). The most common adverse events were anorexia (33.8%), diarrhea (30.8%), and anemia (24.6%). The median relative dose intensity was 84% for UFT and 100% for LV.

The challenges of treating older patients

If and how older patients with colorectal cancer should be treated is not clear cut. While 20% of patients in the United States who have colorectal cancer are over 80 years old, each case should be evaluated individually, experts say.

Writing in a 2015 review of colorectal cancer treatment in older adults, Monica Millan, MD, PhD, of Joan XXIII University Hospital, Tarragona, Spain, and colleagues, wrote that physiological heterogeneity and coexisting medical conditions make treating older patients with colorectal cancer challenging.

“Age in itself should not be an exclusion criterion for radical treatment, but there will be many elderly patients that will not tolerate or respond well to standard therapies. These patients need to be properly assessed before proposing treatment, and a tailored, individualized approach should be offered in a multidisciplinary setting,” wrote Dr. Millan, who is a colorectal surgeon.

The authors suggest that older patients who are fit could be treated similarly to younger patients, but there remain uncertainties about how to proceed in frail older adults with comorbidities.

“Most elderly patients with cancer will have priorities besides simply prolonging their lives. Surveys have found that their top concerns include avoiding suffering, strengthening relationships with family and friends, being mentally aware, not being a burden on others, and achieving a sense that their life is complete. The treatment plan should be comprehensive: cancer-specific treatment, symptom-specific treatment, supportive treatment modalities, and end-of-life care,” they wrote.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends colorectal cancer screening for men and women who are between 45 and 75 years old; however, screening for patients between 76 and 85 years old should be done on a case-by-case basis based on a patient’s overall health, screening history, and the patient’s preferences.

Colorectal cancer incidence rates have been declining since the mid-1980s because of an increase in screening among adults 50 years and older, according to the American Cancer Society. Likewise, mortality rates have dropped from 29.2% in 1970 to 12.6% in 2020 – mostly because of screening.

Dr. Shimomura has no relevant financial disclosures.

The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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

The Food and Drug Administration approved a new indication for sacituzumab govitecan (Trodelvy, Gilead Sciences) on Feb. 3 for patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer after endocrine-based therapy and at least two additional systemic therapies for metastatic disease.

Label expansion for the Trop-2–directed antibody-drug conjugate was based on the TROPICS-02 trial, which randomized 543 adults 1:1 to either sacituzumab govitecan 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle or single agent chemotherapy, most often eribulin but also vinorelbine, gemcitabine, or capecitabine.

Median progression free survival was 5.5 months with sacituzumab govitecan versus 4 months with single agent chemotherapy (hazard ratio, 0.66; P = .0003). Median overall survival was 14.4 months in the sacituzumab govitecan group versus 11.2 months with chemotherapy (HR, 0.79), according to an FDA press release announcing the approval.

In a Gilead press release, Hope Rugo, MD, a breast cancer specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, and principal investigator for TROPICS-02, said the approval “is significant for the breast cancer community. We have had limited options to offer patients after endocrine-based therapy and chemotherapy, and to see a clinically meaningful survival benefit of more than 3 months with a quality-of-life benefit for these women is exceptional.”

The most common adverse events associated with sacituzumab govitecan in the trial, occurring in a quarter or more of participants, were decreased leukocyte count, decreased neutrophil count, decreased hemoglobin, decreased lymphocyte count, diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, alopecia, glucose elevation, constipation, and decreased albumin.

Labeling for the agent carries a boxedwarning of severe or life-threatening neutropenia and severe diarrhea.

The recommended dose is the trial dose: 10 mg/kg IV on days 1 and 8 of 21-day cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Sacituzumab govitecan was previously approved for unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after two or more prior systemic therapies and locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer after platinum-based chemotherapy and either a PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor.

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