Conference Coverage

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Young people who commit suicide using a gun are often introduced to guns through family traditions and use the family gun to commit suicide, according to results of a novel “psychological autopsy study” of loved ones of youth who died by gun-related suicide.

Yet, families don’t always recognize the danger firearms pose to a young person with suicide risk factors, even when there is a young person in the house with a mental health condition, the data show.

Perhaps most importantly, many parents indicated that they would have removed firearms from the home if it had been suggested by their health care professionals.

The study was presented at the American Psychiatric Association annual meeting. 

The message is very clear: Clinicians need to ask about guns and gun safety with patients and families, said study investigator Paul Nestadt, MD, of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“It’s never illegal to ask about gun access and it’s medically relevant. Just do it,” he said during a briefing with reporters.
 

Grim statistics

Suicide rates have been climbing in the United States for the majority of the past 20 years. Suicide is the second most common cause of death among youth.

Dr. Nestadt noted that overall about 8% of suicide attempts result in death, but when an attempt involves a firearm the percentage jumps astronomically to 90%.

Research has shown that for every 10% increase in household firearms in a given community there is a 27% increase in youth suicide deaths.

“In the world of public health and mental health, we think about having access to firearms as an important risk factor for completed suicide. But in the United States, guns have become an important part of how many Americans see themselves,” Dr. Nestadt told reporters.

Research has shown that half of gun owners say owning a gun is central to their identity and three quarters say it’s essential to their freedom, he noted.

To explore these attitudes further, Dr. Nestadt and colleagues did 11 “psychological autopsy interviews” with the loved ones of nine young people aged 17-21 who died by gun-related suicide. They interviewed six mothers, three fathers, one sibling, and one close friend.

Most of the families had some level of “familial engagement” with firearms, Dr. Nestadt reported.

In more than two-thirds of the families, the youth used a family-owned firearm to commit suicide.

Notably, more than three-quarters of the youth had received mental health care before taking their lives, with many receiving care in the weeks prior to their suicide; 44% had made a prior suicide attempt.

In many cases, parents shared that they had not considered their family-owned firearms to be sources of danger and indicated that had their clinicians expressed concern about the gun in the home, they may have acted to reduce the risk by removing it.

Several also shared that they would have considered using Maryland’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Law if it had existed at the time and they had been made aware of it.

Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws, or “red flag laws,” prohibit individuals at risk for harming themselves or others from purchasing or owning a firearm.

Dr. Nestadt said youth suicide interventions “must acknowledge culturally embedded roots of identity formation while rescripting firearms from expressions of family cohesion to instruments that may undermine that cohesion.”
 

‘Courageous study’

Dr. Nestadt noted that while this study was challenging on many fronts, it took no convincing to get these grieving families to participate.

“They wanted to talk to us, especially because they were hopeful that our work could help prevent future suicides, but also they wanted to talk about their loved ones,” he said. 

“When you lose someone to cancer, people give you hugs and flowers. When you lose someone to suicide, people don’t discuss it. Suicide has a stigma to it.”

Briefing moderator Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the department of psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, praised the study team for a “courageous study that really required a tremendous amount of vulnerability from the research team and clearly from the survivors as well.”

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Although less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric diagnosis, Black patients were more likely to be physically restrained at three North Carolina emergency departments – especially when they were brought in by police, a new study finds.

In contrast, Hispanic/Latino patients were less likely to be restrained than both Black and White patients, researchers reported in a poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. The study authors also found that clinicians rarely turned to restraints, using them in just 2,712 of 882,390 ED visits (0.3%) over a 7-year period.

The study doesn’t examine why the disparities exist. But lead author Erika Chang-Sing, a medical student at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., said in an interview that it’s clear that racial bias is the cause of the differences in restraint rates among White, Black, and Hispanics/Latino patients. “We think that there are multiple contributing factors to the higher rates of restraint for Black patients brought to the hospital by police, and all of them are rooted in systemic racism,” she said, adding that “the lower odds of restraint in the Hispanic or Latino group are also rooted in systemic racism and inequity.”

According to Ms. Chang-Sing, researchers launched the study to gain insight into the use of the restraints in the Southeast and to see what’s happening in light of the recent publicizing of killings of Black people by police. Being taken to the hospital by police “might contribute both to the individual patient’s behavior and the health care provider’s assessment of risk in determining whether or not to apply restraints,” she said.

Other research has linked ethnicity to higher rates of restraint use. For example, a 2021 study of 32,054 cases of patients under mandatory psychiatric hold in 11 Massachusetts emergency rooms found that Black (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22) and Hispanic (aOR, 1.45) patients were more likely to be restrained than White patients.

For the new study, researchers retrospectively tracked 885,102 emergency room visits at three North Carolina emergency departments from 2015 to 2022, including 9,130 who were brought in by police and 2,712 who were physically restrained because of the perceived risk of violence. “Providers use restraints, or straps, to secure the patient’s wrists and ankles to the bed,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Among all patients, 52.5% were Black, but 66% of those who were restrained were Black. The numbers for White patients were 35.7% and 23.9%, respectively, and 5.7% and 3.2% for Hispanics/Latino patients. Black patients were less likely than White patients to get a psychiatric primary emergency department diagnosis (aOR, 0.67), but those in that category were more likely than their White counterparts to be restrained (aOR, 1.36).

The higher risk of restraint use in Black patients overall disappeared when researchers adjusted their statistics to account for the effects of sex, age, and type of insurance (aOR, 0.86). Ms. Chang-Sing said the study team is reanalyzing the data since they think insurance may not be a confounder.

Why might Hispanic/Latino ethnicity be protective against restraint use? “This may be due to language barriers, fear of law enforcement, and avoidance of the hospital in the first place,” Ms. Chang-Sing said.

Emergency physician Wendy Macias-Konstantopoulos, MD, MPH, MBA, of Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, both in Boston, coauthored the 2021 study on police restraints. In an interview, she said the new findings add to previous research by providing data about the role played by the police who bring patients to the ED. She added that there is no evidence that certain populations simply need more restraints.

What can be done to reduce disparities in restraint use? Mental health teams can make a difference by responding to mental health emergencies, Ms. Chang-Sing said. “These providers can be instrumental in communicating to patients that the intention is to care for them, not to punish them.”

Another strategy is to increase the number of clinics and crisis response centers, she said. Hospital-based crisis response teams can also be helpful, she said. “Because these teams are focused only on behavioral emergencies, they can be more thoughtful in avoiding the use of restraints.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors and Dr. Macias-Konstantopoulos have no disclosures.

BALTIMORE – Using norethindrone acetate to induce scheduled bleeds in women of reproductive age using etonogestrel implants for contraception may reduce the amount of bothersome bleeding associated with the devices. The bleeding causes some women to have the device removed, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 51 patients desiring the implants – which suppress ovulation by releasing progestin over a 3-year period – taking norethindrone acetate for 1 week every 4 weeks led to 80% of participants in the treatment group reporting satisfactory bleeding patterns with the etonogestrel implants in place.

Jordan Gray

Rates of early discontinuation have been variable, according to published literature, ranging from 13% to 21.1%, said Jordan Gray, MD, a fourth-year resident in ob.gyn. at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Tex., who helped conduct the new study. Reasons included bothersome bleeding. Dr. Gray and colleagues found that 24% of women in the placebo group requested removal of the implant, compared with 9% of those in the treatment group. Among these women, none requested removal for bothersome bleeding but rather for reasons such as wanting to get pregnant. One person requested removal because she did not like amenorrhea.

While the results of the study did not achieve statistical significance, owing to its size and noncompliance among some participants, it does indicate that norethindrone acetate may be helpful, Dr. Gray said.

During the study, participants in the treatment group (n = 22) received a monthly treatment regimen of 5 mg of oral norethindrone acetate daily for 7 days each month for the first 6 months after placement of an etonogestrel implant. The placebo group (n = 29) was given inert tablets prescribed in the same regimen. Both groups received products from a mail-order pharmacy.

Participants were women aged 18-48 years who desired an implant or those aged 14 years who had permission from a parent or guardian to receive the contraceptive. The study excluded people with known or suspected pregnancy, those less than 8 weeks’ post partum, those who experienced menarche less than 2 years ago, those with body mass index greater than 40, and those who received depot medroxyprogesterone acetate within the previous 12 weeks. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding or spotting on more than 7 consecutive days or a fifth episode of bleeding in 90 days.

Overall, 11 patients (38%) in the placebo group and 10 (45%) in the treatment arm withdrew from the study. Reasons included wanting to get pregnant, mood changes, or noncompliance with study parameters, which included not responding or returning bleeding diaries, Dr. Gray said.

A limitation of the study was that compliance was less than expected. In addition, there were challenges with rates of responses, Dr. Gray said. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when all in-person visits were transitioned to telehealth. Although the investigators offered payment to participants, not all returned text-message surveys. The researchers had intended to enroll 124 participants but curtailed the study early, owing to the limited number of participants.

Given that there is no standard approach to treating prolonged or excessive bleeding with etonogestrel implants, Dr. Gray said, “Our data suggests that this regimen is a simple and acceptable method to treat bothersome bleeding and that predictable bleeding may be more satisfactory than unpredictable bleeding.”

Veronica Maria Pimentel, MD, moderator of the session and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of research for the ob.gyn. residency program at St. Francis Hospital, part of Trinity Health of New England in Hartford, Conn., praised the researchers for a well-designed study.

“However, unfortunately, they were not able to recruit the number of patients that they needed in order to achieve the power to show the difference [between treatment arms], so another study would have to be done to show if there is a difference,” Dr. Pimentel said.

Dr. Pimentel complimented Dr. Gray following her presentation, congratulating her for conducting a randomized, controlled trial: “That’s not easy, as you have shown, but it’s also a good try, so you can actually see how hard it is to obtain quality data from research.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon. Dr. Gray is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Pimentel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BALTIMORE – Using norethindrone acetate to induce scheduled bleeds in women of reproductive age using etonogestrel implants for contraception may reduce the amount of bothersome bleeding associated with the devices. The bleeding causes some women to have the device removed, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 51 patients desiring the implants – which suppress ovulation by releasing progestin over a 3-year period – taking norethindrone acetate for 1 week every 4 weeks led to 80% of participants in the treatment group reporting satisfactory bleeding patterns with the etonogestrel implants in place.

Jordan Gray

Rates of early discontinuation have been variable, according to published literature, ranging from 13% to 21.1%, said Jordan Gray, MD, a fourth-year resident in ob.gyn. at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Tex., who helped conduct the new study. Reasons included bothersome bleeding. Dr. Gray and colleagues found that 24% of women in the placebo group requested removal of the implant, compared with 9% of those in the treatment group. Among these women, none requested removal for bothersome bleeding but rather for reasons such as wanting to get pregnant. One person requested removal because she did not like amenorrhea.

While the results of the study did not achieve statistical significance, owing to its size and noncompliance among some participants, it does indicate that norethindrone acetate may be helpful, Dr. Gray said.

During the study, participants in the treatment group (n = 22) received a monthly treatment regimen of 5 mg of oral norethindrone acetate daily for 7 days each month for the first 6 months after placement of an etonogestrel implant. The placebo group (n = 29) was given inert tablets prescribed in the same regimen. Both groups received products from a mail-order pharmacy.

Participants were women aged 18-48 years who desired an implant or those aged 14 years who had permission from a parent or guardian to receive the contraceptive. The study excluded people with known or suspected pregnancy, those less than 8 weeks’ post partum, those who experienced menarche less than 2 years ago, those with body mass index greater than 40, and those who received depot medroxyprogesterone acetate within the previous 12 weeks. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding or spotting on more than 7 consecutive days or a fifth episode of bleeding in 90 days.

Overall, 11 patients (38%) in the placebo group and 10 (45%) in the treatment arm withdrew from the study. Reasons included wanting to get pregnant, mood changes, or noncompliance with study parameters, which included not responding or returning bleeding diaries, Dr. Gray said.

A limitation of the study was that compliance was less than expected. In addition, there were challenges with rates of responses, Dr. Gray said. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when all in-person visits were transitioned to telehealth. Although the investigators offered payment to participants, not all returned text-message surveys. The researchers had intended to enroll 124 participants but curtailed the study early, owing to the limited number of participants.

Given that there is no standard approach to treating prolonged or excessive bleeding with etonogestrel implants, Dr. Gray said, “Our data suggests that this regimen is a simple and acceptable method to treat bothersome bleeding and that predictable bleeding may be more satisfactory than unpredictable bleeding.”

Veronica Maria Pimentel, MD, moderator of the session and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of research for the ob.gyn. residency program at St. Francis Hospital, part of Trinity Health of New England in Hartford, Conn., praised the researchers for a well-designed study.

“However, unfortunately, they were not able to recruit the number of patients that they needed in order to achieve the power to show the difference [between treatment arms], so another study would have to be done to show if there is a difference,” Dr. Pimentel said.

Dr. Pimentel complimented Dr. Gray following her presentation, congratulating her for conducting a randomized, controlled trial: “That’s not easy, as you have shown, but it’s also a good try, so you can actually see how hard it is to obtain quality data from research.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon. Dr. Gray is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Pimentel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

BALTIMORE – Using norethindrone acetate to induce scheduled bleeds in women of reproductive age using etonogestrel implants for contraception may reduce the amount of bothersome bleeding associated with the devices. The bleeding causes some women to have the device removed, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

In a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of 51 patients desiring the implants – which suppress ovulation by releasing progestin over a 3-year period – taking norethindrone acetate for 1 week every 4 weeks led to 80% of participants in the treatment group reporting satisfactory bleeding patterns with the etonogestrel implants in place.

Jordan Gray

Rates of early discontinuation have been variable, according to published literature, ranging from 13% to 21.1%, said Jordan Gray, MD, a fourth-year resident in ob.gyn. at Baylor Scott and White Medical Center, Temple, Tex., who helped conduct the new study. Reasons included bothersome bleeding. Dr. Gray and colleagues found that 24% of women in the placebo group requested removal of the implant, compared with 9% of those in the treatment group. Among these women, none requested removal for bothersome bleeding but rather for reasons such as wanting to get pregnant. One person requested removal because she did not like amenorrhea.

While the results of the study did not achieve statistical significance, owing to its size and noncompliance among some participants, it does indicate that norethindrone acetate may be helpful, Dr. Gray said.

During the study, participants in the treatment group (n = 22) received a monthly treatment regimen of 5 mg of oral norethindrone acetate daily for 7 days each month for the first 6 months after placement of an etonogestrel implant. The placebo group (n = 29) was given inert tablets prescribed in the same regimen. Both groups received products from a mail-order pharmacy.

Participants were women aged 18-48 years who desired an implant or those aged 14 years who had permission from a parent or guardian to receive the contraceptive. The study excluded people with known or suspected pregnancy, those less than 8 weeks’ post partum, those who experienced menarche less than 2 years ago, those with body mass index greater than 40, and those who received depot medroxyprogesterone acetate within the previous 12 weeks. Excessive bleeding was defined as bleeding or spotting on more than 7 consecutive days or a fifth episode of bleeding in 90 days.

Overall, 11 patients (38%) in the placebo group and 10 (45%) in the treatment arm withdrew from the study. Reasons included wanting to get pregnant, mood changes, or noncompliance with study parameters, which included not responding or returning bleeding diaries, Dr. Gray said.

A limitation of the study was that compliance was less than expected. In addition, there were challenges with rates of responses, Dr. Gray said. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, when all in-person visits were transitioned to telehealth. Although the investigators offered payment to participants, not all returned text-message surveys. The researchers had intended to enroll 124 participants but curtailed the study early, owing to the limited number of participants.

Given that there is no standard approach to treating prolonged or excessive bleeding with etonogestrel implants, Dr. Gray said, “Our data suggests that this regimen is a simple and acceptable method to treat bothersome bleeding and that predictable bleeding may be more satisfactory than unpredictable bleeding.”

Veronica Maria Pimentel, MD, moderator of the session and a maternal-fetal medicine specialist and director of research for the ob.gyn. residency program at St. Francis Hospital, part of Trinity Health of New England in Hartford, Conn., praised the researchers for a well-designed study.

“However, unfortunately, they were not able to recruit the number of patients that they needed in order to achieve the power to show the difference [between treatment arms], so another study would have to be done to show if there is a difference,” Dr. Pimentel said.

Dr. Pimentel complimented Dr. Gray following her presentation, congratulating her for conducting a randomized, controlled trial: “That’s not easy, as you have shown, but it’s also a good try, so you can actually see how hard it is to obtain quality data from research.”

The study was supported in part by a research grant from the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program of Organon. Dr. Gray is a consultant for Johnson & Johnson. Dr. Pimentel has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA – Nearly 8% of people with lupus nephritis who achieve complete remission of disease within 1 year of starting treatment will still go on to develop advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), according to a presentation at an international congress on systemic lupus erythematosus.

Rheumatologist Dafna Gladman, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and codirector of the Lupus Clinic at Toronto Western Hospital, showed data from the Lupus Clinic’s prospective longitudinal cohort study in 273 patients with confirmed lupus nephritis who achieved complete remission within 12 months of baseline.

Bianca Nogrady/MDedge News

Remission was defined as less than 0.5 g proteinuria over 24 hours, inactive urinary sediment, and serum creatinine less than 120% of baseline.

Of this group, 21 (7.7%) progressed to advanced CKD during follow-up, which ranged from 0.7 to 31.7 years with a median of 5.8 years, after enrollment.

Patients who had experienced at least one flare during their first 5 years were around 4.5 times more likely to progress to advanced CKD than were those who did not experience a flare.

While the study excluded patients who already had advanced CKD, the analysis found those with evidence of impaired kidney function at baseline also had more than a fourfold higher risk of developing advanced CKD.

Other significant risk factors for progression were having low complement C3 levels at baseline and having had a longer duration of disease before enrollment.

“Those patients already have abnormal renal function, so the message is that patients who are already in trouble, you’ve got to watch them very carefully,” Dr. Gladman said in an interview.

The study also looked at whether there was a difference between patients who developed advanced CKD earlier – before the median of 5.8 years – or later. While the numbers were small, Dr. Gladman said patients who progressed earlier tended to be older and were more likely to be on antihypertensive treatment and have lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and a lower Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index–2K, compared with those who progressed later. Some patients also were noncompliant and/or experienced concomitant infections; four had moderate to severe interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy.

“We conclude that such patients should be monitored closely despite early remission, and we also highlight the importance of maintenance therapy, which should be communicated to the patients to prevent noncompliance and subsequent flare,” Dr. Gladman told the conference.

Dr. Gladman said her clinic told patients from the very beginning of their treatment that they would need to be seen at 2- to 6-month intervals, regardless of how well their disease was doing.

Commenting on the presentation, rheumatologist Mandana Nikpour MD, PhD, of St. Vincent’s Hospital in Melbourne, said the findings showed the importance of keeping a close eye on patients with lupus nephritis, even if their disease appears to be in remission.

“If you’ve had nephritis, and you go into remission, you may already have a degree of damage in your kidneys,” said Dr. Nikpour, also from the University of Melbourne. “If there’s a degree of uncontrolled hypertension, or if a patient is noncompliant with their treatment, and there’s a degree of grumbling disease activity, that can all conspire and add up to result in long-term kidney damage and loss of renal function.”

Dr. Gladman has received grants or research support from, or has consulted for, Amgen, AbbVie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, and Gilead.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

Moving in a very different direction from past coronary stent designs, a new device that is being characterized as bioadaptable, as opposed to bioabsorbable, was noninferior to a widely used drug-eluting stent, and associated with several unique vessel functional improvements at 12 months in a randomized controlled trial.

“The device restored vessel motion, which we think is the reason that we saw plaque stabilization and regression,” reported Shigero Saito, MD, director of the catheterization laboratory at Shonan Kamakura (Japan) General Hospital.

The principal features of the bioadaptable design are cobalt-chromium metal helical strands to provide indefinite scaffolding support coupled with a biodegradable sirolimus-containing poly(D,L-lacti-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) topcoat and a biodegradable poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) bottom coat to “uncage” the vessel once these materials are resorbed, said Dr. Saito.

Twelve-month data from the randomized BIOADAPTOR trial, presented as a late breaker at the annual meeting of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, provide the first evidence that this uncaging of the vessel is an advantage.

Compared head-to-head in a contemporary drug-eluting stent (DES) in a randomized trial, the bioadaptable stent, as predicted in prior studies, “improved hemodynamics and supported plaque stabilization and positive remodeling,” said Dr. Saito.

In BIOADAPTOR, 445 patients in Japan, Germany, Belgium, and New Zealand were randomized to the novel stent, called DynamX, or to the Resolute Onyx. The trial has a planned follow-up of 5 years.

While the primary endpoint at 12 months was noninferiority for target lesion failure (TLF), it was a series of secondary imaging endpoints that suggest an important impact of uncaging the vessel. This includes better vessel function potentially relevant to resistance to restenosis.

As a result of numerically lower TLF in the DynamX group (1.8% vs. 2.8%), the new device easily demonstrated noninferiority at a high level of significance (P < .001). A numerical advantage for most events, including cardiovascular death (0% vs. 0.9%) and target-vessel myocardial infarction (1.4% vs. 1.9%), favored the novel device, but event rates were low in both arms and none of these differences were statistically significant.

However, the secondary imaging analyses at 12 months suggested major differences between the two devices from “uncaging” the vessel.

These differences included a highly significant improvement at 12 months in vessel pulsatility (P < .001) within the DynamX stent relative to the Onyx stent in all measured segments (proximal, mid, and distal).

In addition, compliance remained suppressed relative to both the proximal (P < .001) and distal (P < .001) vessels of patients fitted with Onyx device. Conversely, there was no significant relative difference in this measure among those fitted with the DynamX device.

At 12 months, the plaque volume change behind the stent of noncalcified lesions increased 9% in the Onyx group but was reduced 4% in the DynamX group (P = .028).

While there was a 13% gain overall in percent diameter stenosis within the stent of patients receiving the DynamX device, it was consistently lower than that observed in the Onyx group. This difference was only a trend overall (12.7% vs. 17.3%; P = .051), but the advantage reached significance, favoring DynamX, for the left anterior descending (LAD) artery (12.1% vs. 19.0%; P = .006), small vessels (13.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .045), and long lesions (13.0% vs. 22.9%; P = .008).

The same relative advantage for DynamX was seen on late lumen loss at 6 months. In this case, the overall advantage of DynamX (0.09 vs. 0.25; P = .038) did reach significance, and there was an advantage for the LAD (–0.02 vs. 0.24; P = .007) and long lesions (–0.06 vs. 0.38; P = .016). The difference did not reach significance for small vessels (0.08 vs. 0.26; P = .121).

All of these advantages on the secondary endpoints can be directly attributed to the effect of uncaging the vessel, according to Dr. Saito, who said this new design “addresses the shortcomings” of both previous drug-eluting and biodegradable stents.

Pointing out that the nonplateauing of late events has persisted regardless of stent design after “more than 20 years of innovation in design and materials,” Dr. Saito said all current stents have weaknesses. While biodegradable stents have not improved long-term outcomes relative to DES “as a result of loss of long-term vessel dynamic support,” DES are flawed due to “permanent caging of the vessel and loss of vessel motion and function.”

This novel hybrid design, employing both metal and biodegradable components, “is a completely different concept,” said Ron Waksman, MD, associate director, division of cardiology, Medstar Hospital Center, Washington. He was particularly impressed by the improvements in pulsatility and compliance in target vessels along with the favorable effects on plaque volume.

“The reduction in plaque volume is something we have not seen before. Usually we see the opposite,” Dr. Waksman said.

“Clearly, the Bioadaptor device is not a me-too stent,” he said. He was not surprised that there was no difference in hard outcomes given both the small sample size and the fact that the advantages of uncaging the vessel are likely to accrue over time.

“We need to look at what happens after 1 year. We still have not seen the potential of this device,” he said, adding he was “impressed” by the features of this novel concept. However, he suggested the advantages remain theoretical from the clinical standpoint, advising Dr. Saito that “you still need to demonstrate the clinical benefits.”

Dr. Saito reports a financial relationship with Elixir Medical, which funded the BIOADAPTOR trial. Dr. Waksman reports financial relationships with 19 pharmaceutical companies including those that manufacture cardiovascular stents.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

CLEVELAND – With early diagnosis an ongoing complex target for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), new research may help to answer where the biggest delays lie.

Gregory McDermott, MD, a research fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, led a pilot study with data from Mass General Brigham electronic health records. He shared top results at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN) , where addressing delay in diagnosis was a major theme.

Included in the cohort were 554 patients who had three ICD-9 or ICD-10 codes and an imaging report of sacroiliitis, ankylosis, or syndesmophytes, and were screened via manual chart review for modified New York and Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society criteria.

The average diagnostic delay for axSpA was 6.8 years in this study (median, 3.8 years), relatively consistent with findings in previous studies globally, and the average age of onset was 29.5.

The researchers also factored in history of specialty care for back pain (orthopedics, physical medicine and rehabilitation, pain medicine) or extra-articular manifestations (ophthalmology, dermatology, gastroenterology) before axSpA diagnosis. Other factors included smoking and insurance status, along with age, sex, race, and other demographic data.

The results showed shorter delays in diagnosing axSpA were associated with older age at symptom onset and peripheral arthritis, whereas longer delays (more than 4 years) were associated with a history of uveitis, ankylosing spondylitis at diagnosis, and being among those in the 80-99th percentile on the social vulnerability index (SVI). The SVI includes U.S. census data on factors including housing type, household composition and disability status, employment status, minority status, non-English speaking, educational attainment, transportation, and mean income level.
 

Notable uveitis finding

Dr. McDermott said the team was surprised by the association between having had uveitis and delayed axSpA diagnosis.

Among patients with uveitis, 12% had a short delay from symptom onset to axSpA diagnosis of 0-1 years, but more than twice that percentage (27%) had a delay of more than 4 years (P < .001).

“We thought the finding related to uveitis was interesting and potentially clinically meaningful as 27% of axSpA patients in our cohort with more than 4 years of diagnostic delay sought ophthalmology care prior to their diagnosis, [compared with 13% of patients with a diagnosis within 1 year],” Dr. McDermott said. “This practice setting in particular may be a place where we can intervene with simple screening or increased education in order to get people appropriately referred to rheumatology care.”

Longer delays can lead to more functional impairment, radiographic progression, and work disability, as well as poorer quality of life, increased depression, and higher unemployment and health care costs, Dr. McDermott said.
 

Patients may miss key treatment window

Maureen Dubreuil, MD, MSc, assistant professor at Boston University and a rheumatologist with the VA Boston Healthcare System, who was not part of the study, said: “This study addressed a critically important problem in the field – that diagnosis of axSpA is delayed by 7 years, which is much longer than the average time to diagnosis for other forms of arthritis, such as rheumatoid arthritis, which is under 6 months.

“It is critical that diagnostic delay is reduced in axSpA because undiagnosed individuals may miss an important window of opportunity to receive treatment that prevents permanent structural damage and functional declines. This work, if confirmed in other data, would allow development of interventions to improve timely evaluation of individuals with chronic back pain who may have axSpA, particularly among those with within lower socioeconomic strata, and those who are older or have uveitis.”
 

Study tests screening tool

Among the ideas proposed for reducing the delay was a referral strategy with a screening tool.

Swetha Alexander, MD, a rheumatology fellow at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, who presented her team’s poster, noted that, in the United States, patients with chronic back pain often come first to a primary care doctor or another specialty and not to a rheumatologist.

As an internal medicine resident at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., Dr. Alexander and colleagues there conducted the Finding Axial Spondyloarthritis (FaxSpA) study to test whether patient self-referral or referral by other physicians, guided by answers to a screening tool, could help to speed the process of getting patients more likely to have axSpA to a rheumatologist.

Dr. Alexander said they found that using the screening tool was better than having no referral strategy, explaining that screening helped diagnose about 34% of the study population with axSpA, whereas if a patient came in with chronic back pain to a primary care physician without any screening and ultimately to a rheumatologist, “you’re only capturing about 20%,” she said, citing estimates in the literature.
 

Questions may need rewording

However, the researchers found that patient interpretation of the screening questions was different depending on whether they were answering online or directly from a rheumatologist’s in-person questions. For more success, Dr. Alexander said, the questions may need to be reworded or more education may be needed for both patients and physicians to get more valid information.

For instance, she said, when the screening tool asks about inflammation, the patient may assume the physician is asking about pain and answer one way, but when a rheumatologist asks the question a slightly different way in the clinic, the patient may give a different answer.
 

First questions in portal, on social media

In the screening intervention (called A-tool) patients first answered three questions via the MyChart portal or Facebook. If they answered all three questions positively, they would move on to another round of questions and the answers would decide whether they would be eligible to come into the rheumatologist to get evaluated for axSpA.

At the study visit, rheumatologists asked the same questions as the online A-tool, which focus on SpA features with reasonable sensitivity and specificity for axSpA (no labs or imaging included). Clinicians’ judgment was considered the gold standard for diagnosis of axSpA.

The authors reported that 1,274 patients answered questions with the screening tool via Facebook (50%) and MyChart (50%) from April 2019 to February 2022. Among the responders, 507 (40%) were eligible for a rheumatologist visit.

As of May 2022, 100 patients were enrolled. Of the enrolled patients, 86 patients completed all the study procedures, including study visit, labs, and imaging (x-ray and MRI of the pelvis). Of the 86 patients, 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA.

The tool appears to help narrow the chronic back pain patients who need to be seen by a rheumatologist for potential axSpA, Dr. Alexander said, which may help to speed diagnosis and also save time and resources.

Dr. McDermott, Dr. Dubreuil, and Dr. Alexander reported no relevant financial relationships. The FaxSpA study was supported with funding from Novartis and the Spondylitis Association of America.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

In what may be the first randomized trial to compare coronary intervention access using the distal or proximal radial arteries, researchers have found no significant differences between the two in hand function a year after the procedure.

The distal radial artery (DRA) access point is just below the thumb on the inside of the wrist. The proximal radial artery (PRA) entry is in the inside lower forearm above the wrist.

“There has been growing interest in the use of distal radial access given its ease of hemostasis, lower incidence of radial artery occlusions, as well as the more ergonomic favorable setup for a left radial access, which is typically utilized in patients with prior CABG who undergo a cardiac catheterization when used as alternative to femoral artery access,” Karim Al-Azizi, MD, of Texas A&M University, an interventional cardiologist and associate program director of the cardiology fellowship at  Baylor Scott & White Health, in Plano, Tex., said in an interview.

Baylor Scott &amp; White

Dr Al-Azizi presented the late-breaking 1-year results of the DIPRA–for Distal vs. Proximal Radial Artery–study at the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions annual scientific sessions. The 30-day results of the DIPRA trial were presented in 2022 at this meeting.

Dr. Al-Azizi said DIPRA is the first randomized, controlled trial comparing hand function outcomes with the two approaches. “I think the biggest question for most investigators and most practitioners is that, is this safe on the hand? Are we doing the right thing by going into the radial artery in the anatomical snuff box in proximity to the radial nerve and would that affect motor function?” he said. “And it does not seem like it from a head-to-head comparison of proximal versus distal access.”

The DIPRA study randomized 300 patients 1:1 to cardiac catheterization through either the distal or proximal access. Of those, 216 completed 1-year follow-up, 112 randomized to DRA and 104 to PRA.

The study used three metrics to evaluate hand function: hand-grip strength; pinch test, which measured the strength of a pinch between the thumb and index finger; and QuickDASH, an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire, in which participants self-evaluate their hand function. Study protocol mandated that operators use ultrasound guidance for DRA access.

The 1-year results of all three measures showed no significant difference in change of hand function from baseline between the two groups. The composite average score change was –0.07 (–0.41, 0.44) for the DRA patients and –0.03. (–0.36, 0.44) for the PRA group (P = .59).

One-year change for the specific hand function measures for DRA and PRA, respectively, were: hand grip, 0.7 (–3, 4.5) vs. 1.3 (–2, 4.3) kg (P = .57); pinch grip, –0.1 (–1.1, 1) vs. –0.3 (–1, 0.7) kg (P = .66); and none for change in the QuickDASH score (–6.6, 2.3 vs. –4.6, 2.9) points (P = .58).

Outcomes at intervention were also similar. Bleeding incidence was 0% and 1.4% (P = .25) in the respective groups. Successful RA access was achieved in 96.7% and 98% (P = .72).

Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two groups: 75% were male; mean age was 66.6 ± 9.6 years; 32% had diabetes; 77% had hypertension; and 19% had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention.

One key strength of the DIPRA study Dr. Al-Azizi noted is that it included some investigators who were at the early stage of the learning curve with the procedure. A limitation is that it didn’t evaluate hand numbness or tingling, but hand sensory testing is “very subjective,” he said. “To avoid confusion, we decided to go with the more repeatable questionnaire rather than a sensation or sensory test,” he added.

The next step for his research team is to conduct a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated DRA and PRA, Dr. Al-Azizi said.
 

‘Slow to the party’

U.S. interventional cardiologists have been “slow to the party” in adopting radial artery access for PCI, said David A. Cox, MD, of Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute in Charlotte, N.C., and SCAI communications committee chair. Even now uptake is low, compared with the rest of the world, he said.

“I can tell you what patients care about: Did you have to stick my groin?” he said at a SCAI press conference. “What they just want to know is that there are no issues with hand function.”

Some patients who need fine motor hand function would still opt for femoral access, he said.

“Are we looking at the right metric?” he asked Dr. Al-Azizi. “It took a long time to get American doctors to stick the radial, so why would I want to learn distal radial artery if I’m really pretty good at proximal and if it’s not inferior?”

Dr. Al-Azizi noted that previous studies showed a trend toward a lower incidence of radial artery occlusion (RAO) with DRA access. It also better preserves the renal arteries for dialysis and CABG, he said.

“The metric that would move the needle,” Dr. Cox noted, “is if you had radial artery occlusion rates vs. snuff box occlusion rates, and we don’t have that rate.”

Dr. Al-Azizi has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Cox disclosed financial relationships with Medtronic.

BALTIMORE – A single 60-mg daily dose of nifedipine appeared similarly effective as taking a 30-mg dose twice daily for treating hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*

Isabelle Band

The findings suggest that starting patients on a once-daily 60-mg dose is therefore reasonable, Isabelle Band, BA, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told attendees. Ms. Band said in an interview that there does not appear to be a consensus on the standard of care for nifedipine dosing regimen in this population but that previous in vitro studies have shown increased metabolism of nifedipine in a physiologic state that mimics pregnancy.

“I’ve spoken to some colleagues here who say that they frequently have this debate of which dosing regimen to go with,” Ms. Band said. “I was pleasantly surprised that there was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens because once-daily dosing is less burdensome for patients and will likely improve compliance and convenience for patients.” An additional benefit of once-daily dosing relates to payers because anecdotal reports suggest insurance companies do not tend to approve twice-daily dosing as readily as once-daily dosing, Ms. Band added.

Ms. Band and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, and were prescribed nifedipine in a once-daily (60-mg) or twice-daily (two 30-mg) dose. They excluded patients with renal disease and those already taking hypertensives prior to admission.

Among 237 patients who met the criteria, 59% received 60 mg in a twice-daily 30-mg dose, and 41% received 60 mg in a once-daily dose. Among patients requiring an up titration, two-thirds (67%) needed an increase in the nifedipine dose – the most common adjustment – and 20.7% needed both an increase in nifedipine and an additional medication.

The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who required a dose increase or an additional antihypertensive in the group taking the twice-daily dose (33.8%) or those receiving the once-daily dose (35.7%). This finding remained statistically insignificant after controlling for gestational diabetes, delivery mode, administration of Lasix, and receipt of emergency antihypertensive treatment (P = .71). The time that passed before patients needed a dose increase was also statistically similar between the groups: 24.3 hours in the twice-daily group and 24 hours in the once-daily group (P = .49).

There were no statistically significant differences in the need for a dose increase or an additional hypertensive agent based on race, ethnicity, body mass index, or history of preeclampsia as well. However, 24.5% of those taking the once-daily dosage had a history of preeclampsia, compared with 7.2% of those taking the twice-daily dosage (P < .001). Further, the median number of prior pregnancies was two in the twice-daily group versus three in the once-daily group (P = .002).

The authors found no significant difference between the two dosing groups in the need for emergency hypertensive treatment after reaching the study dose or in readmission for blood pressure control. In the twice-daily group, 21.6% of patients needed emergency antihypertensive treatment, compared with 14.3% in the once-daily group (P = .19). Readmission was necessary for 7.2% of the twice-daily group and 6.1% of the once-daily group (P > .99).

A subgroup analysis compared those who started nifedipine antepartum and those who started it post partum, but again, no significant difference in the dosing regimens existed.

Michael Ruma, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Perinatal Associates of New Mexico in Albuquerque, was not involved in the study and said he welcomed the results.

“We have too many choices in medicine, so we need to just simplify the plan of attack,” reducing the number of things that clinicians need to think about, Dr. Ruma said in an interview. “A singular dose is always easiest for the patient, always easier for nursing staff, and usually, if you can optimize the dosing, that’s the best approach.”

Annabeth Brewton, MD, a resident at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, agreed, adding that new parents already have a lot going on immediately post partum.

“They’re going to be breastfeeding, they’re not sleeping, they’re going to forget to take that [second] dose,” Dr. Brewton said.

Ms. Band and Dr. Brewton had no disclosures. Dr. Ruma reported consulting and speaking for Hologic and consulting for Philips Ultrasound.

Correction, 5/24/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the daily doses of nifedipine. The study compared a single 60-mg daily dose with a 30-mg dose taken twice daily.  

BALTIMORE – A single 60-mg daily dose of nifedipine appeared similarly effective as taking a 30-mg dose twice daily for treating hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*

Isabelle Band

The findings suggest that starting patients on a once-daily 60-mg dose is therefore reasonable, Isabelle Band, BA, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told attendees. Ms. Band said in an interview that there does not appear to be a consensus on the standard of care for nifedipine dosing regimen in this population but that previous in vitro studies have shown increased metabolism of nifedipine in a physiologic state that mimics pregnancy.

“I’ve spoken to some colleagues here who say that they frequently have this debate of which dosing regimen to go with,” Ms. Band said. “I was pleasantly surprised that there was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens because once-daily dosing is less burdensome for patients and will likely improve compliance and convenience for patients.” An additional benefit of once-daily dosing relates to payers because anecdotal reports suggest insurance companies do not tend to approve twice-daily dosing as readily as once-daily dosing, Ms. Band added.

Ms. Band and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, and were prescribed nifedipine in a once-daily (60-mg) or twice-daily (two 30-mg) dose. They excluded patients with renal disease and those already taking hypertensives prior to admission.

Among 237 patients who met the criteria, 59% received 60 mg in a twice-daily 30-mg dose, and 41% received 60 mg in a once-daily dose. Among patients requiring an up titration, two-thirds (67%) needed an increase in the nifedipine dose – the most common adjustment – and 20.7% needed both an increase in nifedipine and an additional medication.

The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who required a dose increase or an additional antihypertensive in the group taking the twice-daily dose (33.8%) or those receiving the once-daily dose (35.7%). This finding remained statistically insignificant after controlling for gestational diabetes, delivery mode, administration of Lasix, and receipt of emergency antihypertensive treatment (P = .71). The time that passed before patients needed a dose increase was also statistically similar between the groups: 24.3 hours in the twice-daily group and 24 hours in the once-daily group (P = .49).

There were no statistically significant differences in the need for a dose increase or an additional hypertensive agent based on race, ethnicity, body mass index, or history of preeclampsia as well. However, 24.5% of those taking the once-daily dosage had a history of preeclampsia, compared with 7.2% of those taking the twice-daily dosage (P < .001). Further, the median number of prior pregnancies was two in the twice-daily group versus three in the once-daily group (P = .002).

The authors found no significant difference between the two dosing groups in the need for emergency hypertensive treatment after reaching the study dose or in readmission for blood pressure control. In the twice-daily group, 21.6% of patients needed emergency antihypertensive treatment, compared with 14.3% in the once-daily group (P = .19). Readmission was necessary for 7.2% of the twice-daily group and 6.1% of the once-daily group (P > .99).

A subgroup analysis compared those who started nifedipine antepartum and those who started it post partum, but again, no significant difference in the dosing regimens existed.

Michael Ruma, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Perinatal Associates of New Mexico in Albuquerque, was not involved in the study and said he welcomed the results.

“We have too many choices in medicine, so we need to just simplify the plan of attack,” reducing the number of things that clinicians need to think about, Dr. Ruma said in an interview. “A singular dose is always easiest for the patient, always easier for nursing staff, and usually, if you can optimize the dosing, that’s the best approach.”

Annabeth Brewton, MD, a resident at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, agreed, adding that new parents already have a lot going on immediately post partum.

“They’re going to be breastfeeding, they’re not sleeping, they’re going to forget to take that [second] dose,” Dr. Brewton said.

Ms. Band and Dr. Brewton had no disclosures. Dr. Ruma reported consulting and speaking for Hologic and consulting for Philips Ultrasound.

Correction, 5/24/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the daily doses of nifedipine. The study compared a single 60-mg daily dose with a 30-mg dose taken twice daily.  

BALTIMORE – A single 60-mg daily dose of nifedipine appeared similarly effective as taking a 30-mg dose twice daily for treating hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, according to research presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.*

Isabelle Band

The findings suggest that starting patients on a once-daily 60-mg dose is therefore reasonable, Isabelle Band, BA, a medical student at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, told attendees. Ms. Band said in an interview that there does not appear to be a consensus on the standard of care for nifedipine dosing regimen in this population but that previous in vitro studies have shown increased metabolism of nifedipine in a physiologic state that mimics pregnancy.

“I’ve spoken to some colleagues here who say that they frequently have this debate of which dosing regimen to go with,” Ms. Band said. “I was pleasantly surprised that there was no significant difference between the two dosing regimens because once-daily dosing is less burdensome for patients and will likely improve compliance and convenience for patients.” An additional benefit of once-daily dosing relates to payers because anecdotal reports suggest insurance companies do not tend to approve twice-daily dosing as readily as once-daily dosing, Ms. Band added.

Ms. Band and her colleagues conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy who were admitted to the Mount Sinai Health System between Jan. 1, 2015, and April 30, 2021, and were prescribed nifedipine in a once-daily (60-mg) or twice-daily (two 30-mg) dose. They excluded patients with renal disease and those already taking hypertensives prior to admission.

Among 237 patients who met the criteria, 59% received 60 mg in a twice-daily 30-mg dose, and 41% received 60 mg in a once-daily dose. Among patients requiring an up titration, two-thirds (67%) needed an increase in the nifedipine dose – the most common adjustment – and 20.7% needed both an increase in nifedipine and an additional medication.

The researchers observed no statistically significant differences in the proportion of patients who required a dose increase or an additional antihypertensive in the group taking the twice-daily dose (33.8%) or those receiving the once-daily dose (35.7%). This finding remained statistically insignificant after controlling for gestational diabetes, delivery mode, administration of Lasix, and receipt of emergency antihypertensive treatment (P = .71). The time that passed before patients needed a dose increase was also statistically similar between the groups: 24.3 hours in the twice-daily group and 24 hours in the once-daily group (P = .49).

There were no statistically significant differences in the need for a dose increase or an additional hypertensive agent based on race, ethnicity, body mass index, or history of preeclampsia as well. However, 24.5% of those taking the once-daily dosage had a history of preeclampsia, compared with 7.2% of those taking the twice-daily dosage (P < .001). Further, the median number of prior pregnancies was two in the twice-daily group versus three in the once-daily group (P = .002).

The authors found no significant difference between the two dosing groups in the need for emergency hypertensive treatment after reaching the study dose or in readmission for blood pressure control. In the twice-daily group, 21.6% of patients needed emergency antihypertensive treatment, compared with 14.3% in the once-daily group (P = .19). Readmission was necessary for 7.2% of the twice-daily group and 6.1% of the once-daily group (P > .99).

A subgroup analysis compared those who started nifedipine antepartum and those who started it post partum, but again, no significant difference in the dosing regimens existed.

Michael Ruma, MD, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Perinatal Associates of New Mexico in Albuquerque, was not involved in the study and said he welcomed the results.

“We have too many choices in medicine, so we need to just simplify the plan of attack,” reducing the number of things that clinicians need to think about, Dr. Ruma said in an interview. “A singular dose is always easiest for the patient, always easier for nursing staff, and usually, if you can optimize the dosing, that’s the best approach.”

Annabeth Brewton, MD, a resident at University of Tennessee, Knoxville, agreed, adding that new parents already have a lot going on immediately post partum.

“They’re going to be breastfeeding, they’re not sleeping, they’re going to forget to take that [second] dose,” Dr. Brewton said.

Ms. Band and Dr. Brewton had no disclosures. Dr. Ruma reported consulting and speaking for Hologic and consulting for Philips Ultrasound.

Correction, 5/24/23: An earlier version of this article misstated the daily doses of nifedipine. The study compared a single 60-mg daily dose with a 30-mg dose taken twice daily.  

WASHINGTON – Atopic dermatitis (AD) in childhood presents most commonly by age 1 and typically begins on the face, and while it can make infants “miserable,” caregiver and provider concerns about treatment on the face and at such a young age mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.

The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.

Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
 

Diagnosing AD in infants

Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.

(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)

Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.

Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.

A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.

Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.

When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.

Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.

For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”

Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
 

Treating AD in infancy

Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.

Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.

Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.

A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.

Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.

“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.

For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.

Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”

He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”

Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.

Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.

Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
 

Systemic treatment in infants

The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.

University of California, San Diego

Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.

Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”

At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.

The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
 

Food allergy in infants with AD

Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.

Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.

Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.

Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”

Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.

Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”

Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”

Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.

WASHINGTON – Atopic dermatitis (AD) in childhood presents most commonly by age 1 and typically begins on the face, and while it can make infants “miserable,” caregiver and provider concerns about treatment on the face and at such a young age mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.

The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.

Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
 

Diagnosing AD in infants

Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.

(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)

Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.

Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.

A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.

Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.

When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.

Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.

For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”

Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
 

Treating AD in infancy

Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.

Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.

Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.

A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.

Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.

“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.

For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.

Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”

He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”

Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.

Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.

Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
 

Systemic treatment in infants

The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.

University of California, San Diego

Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.

Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”

At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.

The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
 

Food allergy in infants with AD

Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.

Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.

Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.

Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”

Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.

Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”

Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”

Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.

WASHINGTON – Atopic dermatitis (AD) in childhood presents most commonly by age 1 and typically begins on the face, and while it can make infants “miserable,” caregiver and provider concerns about treatment on the face and at such a young age mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.

The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.

Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
 

Diagnosing AD in infants

Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.

(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)

Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.

Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.

A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.

Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.

When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.

Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.

For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”

Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
 

Treating AD in infancy

Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.

Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.

Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.

A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.

Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.

“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.

For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.

Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”

He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”

Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.

Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.

Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
 

Systemic treatment in infants

The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.

University of California, San Diego

Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.

Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”

At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.

The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
 

Food allergy in infants with AD

Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.

Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.

Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.

Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”

Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.

Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”

Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”

Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.

BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.

“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”

Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.

Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:

• Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
• History of head or neck radiation.
• History of a prior thyroid surgery.
• Over age 30.
• Any autoimmune disease.
• A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m².
• History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
• Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
• Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
• Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.

ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.

Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).

“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”

The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.

Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.

In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.

Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
 

BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.

“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”

Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.

Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:

• Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
• History of head or neck radiation.
• History of a prior thyroid surgery.
• Over age 30.
• Any autoimmune disease.
• A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m².
• History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
• Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
• Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
• Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.

ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.

Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).

“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”

The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.

Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.

In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.

Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.
 

BALTIMORE – Less than half of the pregnant patients who met the criteria for thyroid screening were actually screened by their clinician, according to a retrospective cohort study presented at the annual clinical and scientific meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Baltimore. Those who met criteria and did receive screening had higher live birth rates and lower miscarriage rates than those who met the criteria but did not undergo screening, the study found.

“These results suggest that improving thyroid screening adherence may lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” lead author Allan Dong, MD, of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Des Plaines, Ill., told attendees. “However, following targeted screening guidelines can be difficult for clinicians. In practice, universal screening for diabetes and pregnancy may provide more comprehensive screening coverage and potentially lead to improved outcomes.”

Instead of universal screening for thyroid disease, ACOG and the American Thyroid Association recommend targeted screening of high-risk patients, though ATA’s criteria are substantially broader than ACOG’s. But, Dr. Dong told attendees, “guidelines are only beneficial if they are followed appropriately,” and Ob.Gyns. have limited time to screen for risk factors in the midst of other clinical priorities. So he aimed to learn whether Ob.Gyns. were following the guidelines of either organization in screening people at higher risk for thyroid disease.

Dr. Dong and his coauthor, Melisa Lott, DO, reviewed the charts of all 1,025 patients who presented at their institution for new obstetrical visits in 2020 to determine which ones had risk factors that would qualify them for screening under ATA or ACOG guidelines. ACOG’s screening criteria included having a personal or family history of thyroid disease or type 1 diabetes, or there being clinical suspicion for thyroid disease. ATA’s screening criteria included the following:

• Personal or family history of thyroid disease.
• History of head or neck radiation.
• History of a prior thyroid surgery.
• Over age 30.
• Any autoimmune disease.
• A body mass index greater than 40 kg/m².
• History of pregnancy loss, preterm delivery, or infertility.
• Recently used amiodarone lithium or iodine-based contrast.
• Lived in an area of known iodine deficiency.
• Clinical suspicion of thyroid disease.

ATA screening criteria identified four times as many patients requiring screening than did ACOG criteria, Dr. Dong noted. Of the 198 patients who met ACOG’s criteria, 43.9% were screened with thyroid function testing. Meanwhile, 826 patients – including all those who met ACOG’s criteria – met ATA’s criteria for screening, but only 13.1% of them underwent thyroid function testing.

Live birth rates were significantly higher among patients who met ATA criteria and were screened (92.6%) than among patients who met ATA criteria but were not screened (83.3%, P = .006). Similarly, the miscarriage rate was 4.6% in patients who met ATA criteria and were screened, compared to 12.4% in patients who met the criteria but did not undergo thyroid function testing (P = .009).

“A similar difference, although not statistically significant, was noted when comparing patients who were screened appropriately per ACOG criteria with those who met criteria for screening but were not screened,” Dr. Dong told attendees. “However, our study was underpowered to detect this difference due to the lower number of patients who meet criteria for screening under ACOG guidelines.”

The researchers did not find any significant difference in preterm delivery rates.

Anna Whelan, MD, of Women & Infants Hospital of Brown University, Providence, R.I., was not involved in the study but viewed the poster and pointed out that many of the patients, if seen by a primary care provider prior to pregnancy, would likely have been screened by their PCP. The rate of underscreening therefore suggests that patients “are not getting good, consistent primary care because there’s a lack of primary care physicians,” Dr. Whelan said in an interview.

In addition, she added, “maybe not all obstetricians and those providing care, such as midwives and other providers, are aware of the [ATA] guidelines on who should be screened.” She added that additional education about thyroid screening guidelines might be helpful for providers.

Dr. Dong reported being a stock shareholder in 3M, AbbVie, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Pfizer, and Viking Therapeutics. Dr. Whelan had no disclosures.