Randy Dotinga

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – What can set off an allergic skin reaction? Some unusual suspects are wrinkle-free clothing, spinach salads, plywood, tires, and Italian food, according to dermatologist Jennifer H. Perryman, MD.

Here’s a closer look at the allergens highlighted by Dr. Perryman in a presentation at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar:

Formaldehyde: It’s everywhere

“In general, formaldehyde is found on everyone in this room in two different places: preservatives in skin care products and in a lot of our clothing,” said Dr. Perryman, who practices in Greeley and Fort Collins, Colo.

The preservative is used in an even wider variety of products, including fluids used in industry (such as metalworking) and topical medications. But people are especially likely to encounter it in clothing – via formaldehyde textile resins – as well as in cosmetics, soaps, and lotions.

On the clothing front, Dr. Perryman said, formaldehyde textile resins have been used since the 1930s. They’re used to treat blends of synthetic and cotton fibers and bed sheets. Beware of “wrinkle resistant” and “permanent press” clothing (although not all have been treated with this resin). “Newer formaldehyde textile resins have less formaldehyde release, but they may be more expensive, and some industries may not use them,” she said.


Avoiding formaldehyde textile resins isn’t a simple matter.” You have to go out of your way to stay away from a polyester-cotton blend,” she said. “And don’t forget bedsheets,” she added, noting that the packaging on some sheets include information about cotton count, “but when you flip over the label it says it’s ‘50% cotton and 50% polyester or other.’ ”

Some patients will bring their own bedsheets to hotels so they don’t experience flares from hotel bedsheets, she added.

Other products can trigger this skin allergy. Beware, Dr. Perryman said, of formaldehyde exposure from paper, cardboard, cigarette smoke, processed wood products like plywood, foam housing and industrial insulation, embalming fluid and tissue fixatives, and some paints and adhesives.

What are the signs that someone may have a case of formaldehyde allergy? It may cause patchy generalized dermatitis, erythroderma, and nummular dermatitis. It may spare the hands, feet, and face because those parts of the body have less exposure to clothing, and it’s likely to especially affect body areas where clothing is tight. And for unknown reasons, this allergy is more common in the elderly, Dr. Perryman said.

Textile dye: Beware polyester

This allergy is mainly triggered by synthetic fabrics like polyester, rayon, and acetate, she noted. Darker colors are more allergenic. Clothes made of natural fibers such as cotton, silk, linen, and wool are alternatives. These are not dyed with these dyes, she said, adding that a reaction to wool will be from irritation, not from the dye.

Paraphenylenediamine: Keep an eye out for this dye ingredient

Paraphenylenediamine, which can trigger allergic reactions, is found in leather dye, fur dye, and some (but not all) hair dyes. Be aware that it can cross-react with other allergens like sulfonamide medications.

If a patch test turns up a reaction to “Black-Rubber Mix,” which includes paraphenylenediamine, consider whether the patient has exposure to the rubber in tires. Car mechanics may be affected by this allergy, Dr. Perryman said.

Neomycin: A drop of trouble

Allergy to the antibiotic neomycin can be triggered by exposure to gentamicin and tobramycin eye drops. Patients may believe they have an infection, Dr. Perryman said, so consider getting a culture. In some cases, an allergic reaction to neomycin may be incorrectly diagnosed as cellulitis.

Nickel: Not just a jewelry hazard

Jewelry and coins can trigger nickel allergies, but be aware that systemic nickel allergy can also trigger skin problems from a patient’s diet. It may be necessary to put patients on a low-nickel diet that avoids foods such as healthy grains, greens (especially spinach), nuts, legumes, and chocolate. “I always feel bad” putting patients on a restrictive diet, Dr. Perryman said, but it can be helpful to take 500 mg of vitamin C three times a day since it binds to nickel.

Cobalt: Watch the chocolate and coffee

Jewelry with cobalt can cause an allergic reaction. Dr. Perryman tells patients to buy an inexpensive “spot test” product online that detects whether jewelry has nickel or cobalt. Cobalt allergy can also trigger symptoms in patients exposed to “hard metal” industrial tools, cement, and masonry. Workers in the plastics and dye industries may be exposed too.

Like nickel, Dr. Perryman said, systemic cobalt allergy related to diet is also possible. The list of foods that contain higher levels of cobalt is long, and includes apricots, beans, beer, chocolate, coffee, nuts, tea, and whole-grain flour.

Dr. Perryman also mentioned several other allergens to keep in mind:

• Chromate can trigger reactions in people who wear leather shoes (the metal can be used in tanning). It can also cause problems in workers exposed to it via cement, bricks, drywall, and metal plating.
• Chromium picolinate, an over-the-counter supplement, can cause systemic dermatitis.
• Gold in jewelry can trigger an allergic reaction. Talk to patients about replating their jewelry, Dr. Perryman said.
• Rubber can trigger reactions due to exposure to rubber bands, makeup sponges, and rubber gloves (even nitrile ones). Be aware that both rubber and latex allergies may coexist and consider a blood test for latex allergy.
• Systemic balsam allergy related to an individual’s diet is possible. Tomato is an especially big villain on this front, along with citrus fruits, spices, cola, chili, and chocolate.

Dr. Perryman disclosed consulting work for IntraDerm. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – What can set off an allergic skin reaction? Some unusual suspects are wrinkle-free clothing, spinach salads, plywood, tires, and Italian food, according to dermatologist Jennifer H. Perryman, MD.

Here’s a closer look at the allergens highlighted by Dr. Perryman in a presentation at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar:

Formaldehyde: It’s everywhere

“In general, formaldehyde is found on everyone in this room in two different places: preservatives in skin care products and in a lot of our clothing,” said Dr. Perryman, who practices in Greeley and Fort Collins, Colo.

The preservative is used in an even wider variety of products, including fluids used in industry (such as metalworking) and topical medications. But people are especially likely to encounter it in clothing – via formaldehyde textile resins – as well as in cosmetics, soaps, and lotions.

On the clothing front, Dr. Perryman said, formaldehyde textile resins have been used since the 1930s. They’re used to treat blends of synthetic and cotton fibers and bed sheets. Beware of “wrinkle resistant” and “permanent press” clothing (although not all have been treated with this resin). “Newer formaldehyde textile resins have less formaldehyde release, but they may be more expensive, and some industries may not use them,” she said.


Avoiding formaldehyde textile resins isn’t a simple matter.” You have to go out of your way to stay away from a polyester-cotton blend,” she said. “And don’t forget bedsheets,” she added, noting that the packaging on some sheets include information about cotton count, “but when you flip over the label it says it’s ‘50% cotton and 50% polyester or other.’ ”

Some patients will bring their own bedsheets to hotels so they don’t experience flares from hotel bedsheets, she added.

Other products can trigger this skin allergy. Beware, Dr. Perryman said, of formaldehyde exposure from paper, cardboard, cigarette smoke, processed wood products like plywood, foam housing and industrial insulation, embalming fluid and tissue fixatives, and some paints and adhesives.

What are the signs that someone may have a case of formaldehyde allergy? It may cause patchy generalized dermatitis, erythroderma, and nummular dermatitis. It may spare the hands, feet, and face because those parts of the body have less exposure to clothing, and it’s likely to especially affect body areas where clothing is tight. And for unknown reasons, this allergy is more common in the elderly, Dr. Perryman said.

Textile dye: Beware polyester

This allergy is mainly triggered by synthetic fabrics like polyester, rayon, and acetate, she noted. Darker colors are more allergenic. Clothes made of natural fibers such as cotton, silk, linen, and wool are alternatives. These are not dyed with these dyes, she said, adding that a reaction to wool will be from irritation, not from the dye.

Paraphenylenediamine: Keep an eye out for this dye ingredient

Paraphenylenediamine, which can trigger allergic reactions, is found in leather dye, fur dye, and some (but not all) hair dyes. Be aware that it can cross-react with other allergens like sulfonamide medications.

If a patch test turns up a reaction to “Black-Rubber Mix,” which includes paraphenylenediamine, consider whether the patient has exposure to the rubber in tires. Car mechanics may be affected by this allergy, Dr. Perryman said.

Neomycin: A drop of trouble

Allergy to the antibiotic neomycin can be triggered by exposure to gentamicin and tobramycin eye drops. Patients may believe they have an infection, Dr. Perryman said, so consider getting a culture. In some cases, an allergic reaction to neomycin may be incorrectly diagnosed as cellulitis.

Nickel: Not just a jewelry hazard

Jewelry and coins can trigger nickel allergies, but be aware that systemic nickel allergy can also trigger skin problems from a patient’s diet. It may be necessary to put patients on a low-nickel diet that avoids foods such as healthy grains, greens (especially spinach), nuts, legumes, and chocolate. “I always feel bad” putting patients on a restrictive diet, Dr. Perryman said, but it can be helpful to take 500 mg of vitamin C three times a day since it binds to nickel.

Cobalt: Watch the chocolate and coffee

Jewelry with cobalt can cause an allergic reaction. Dr. Perryman tells patients to buy an inexpensive “spot test” product online that detects whether jewelry has nickel or cobalt. Cobalt allergy can also trigger symptoms in patients exposed to “hard metal” industrial tools, cement, and masonry. Workers in the plastics and dye industries may be exposed too.

Like nickel, Dr. Perryman said, systemic cobalt allergy related to diet is also possible. The list of foods that contain higher levels of cobalt is long, and includes apricots, beans, beer, chocolate, coffee, nuts, tea, and whole-grain flour.

Dr. Perryman also mentioned several other allergens to keep in mind:

• Chromate can trigger reactions in people who wear leather shoes (the metal can be used in tanning). It can also cause problems in workers exposed to it via cement, bricks, drywall, and metal plating.
• Chromium picolinate, an over-the-counter supplement, can cause systemic dermatitis.
• Gold in jewelry can trigger an allergic reaction. Talk to patients about replating their jewelry, Dr. Perryman said.
• Rubber can trigger reactions due to exposure to rubber bands, makeup sponges, and rubber gloves (even nitrile ones). Be aware that both rubber and latex allergies may coexist and consider a blood test for latex allergy.
• Systemic balsam allergy related to an individual’s diet is possible. Tomato is an especially big villain on this front, along with citrus fruits, spices, cola, chili, and chocolate.

Dr. Perryman disclosed consulting work for IntraDerm. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – What can set off an allergic skin reaction? Some unusual suspects are wrinkle-free clothing, spinach salads, plywood, tires, and Italian food, according to dermatologist Jennifer H. Perryman, MD.

Here’s a closer look at the allergens highlighted by Dr. Perryman in a presentation at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar:

Formaldehyde: It’s everywhere

“In general, formaldehyde is found on everyone in this room in two different places: preservatives in skin care products and in a lot of our clothing,” said Dr. Perryman, who practices in Greeley and Fort Collins, Colo.

The preservative is used in an even wider variety of products, including fluids used in industry (such as metalworking) and topical medications. But people are especially likely to encounter it in clothing – via formaldehyde textile resins – as well as in cosmetics, soaps, and lotions.

On the clothing front, Dr. Perryman said, formaldehyde textile resins have been used since the 1930s. They’re used to treat blends of synthetic and cotton fibers and bed sheets. Beware of “wrinkle resistant” and “permanent press” clothing (although not all have been treated with this resin). “Newer formaldehyde textile resins have less formaldehyde release, but they may be more expensive, and some industries may not use them,” she said.


Avoiding formaldehyde textile resins isn’t a simple matter.” You have to go out of your way to stay away from a polyester-cotton blend,” she said. “And don’t forget bedsheets,” she added, noting that the packaging on some sheets include information about cotton count, “but when you flip over the label it says it’s ‘50% cotton and 50% polyester or other.’ ”

Some patients will bring their own bedsheets to hotels so they don’t experience flares from hotel bedsheets, she added.

Other products can trigger this skin allergy. Beware, Dr. Perryman said, of formaldehyde exposure from paper, cardboard, cigarette smoke, processed wood products like plywood, foam housing and industrial insulation, embalming fluid and tissue fixatives, and some paints and adhesives.

What are the signs that someone may have a case of formaldehyde allergy? It may cause patchy generalized dermatitis, erythroderma, and nummular dermatitis. It may spare the hands, feet, and face because those parts of the body have less exposure to clothing, and it’s likely to especially affect body areas where clothing is tight. And for unknown reasons, this allergy is more common in the elderly, Dr. Perryman said.

Textile dye: Beware polyester

This allergy is mainly triggered by synthetic fabrics like polyester, rayon, and acetate, she noted. Darker colors are more allergenic. Clothes made of natural fibers such as cotton, silk, linen, and wool are alternatives. These are not dyed with these dyes, she said, adding that a reaction to wool will be from irritation, not from the dye.

Paraphenylenediamine: Keep an eye out for this dye ingredient

Paraphenylenediamine, which can trigger allergic reactions, is found in leather dye, fur dye, and some (but not all) hair dyes. Be aware that it can cross-react with other allergens like sulfonamide medications.

If a patch test turns up a reaction to “Black-Rubber Mix,” which includes paraphenylenediamine, consider whether the patient has exposure to the rubber in tires. Car mechanics may be affected by this allergy, Dr. Perryman said.

Neomycin: A drop of trouble

Allergy to the antibiotic neomycin can be triggered by exposure to gentamicin and tobramycin eye drops. Patients may believe they have an infection, Dr. Perryman said, so consider getting a culture. In some cases, an allergic reaction to neomycin may be incorrectly diagnosed as cellulitis.

Nickel: Not just a jewelry hazard

Jewelry and coins can trigger nickel allergies, but be aware that systemic nickel allergy can also trigger skin problems from a patient’s diet. It may be necessary to put patients on a low-nickel diet that avoids foods such as healthy grains, greens (especially spinach), nuts, legumes, and chocolate. “I always feel bad” putting patients on a restrictive diet, Dr. Perryman said, but it can be helpful to take 500 mg of vitamin C three times a day since it binds to nickel.

Cobalt: Watch the chocolate and coffee

Jewelry with cobalt can cause an allergic reaction. Dr. Perryman tells patients to buy an inexpensive “spot test” product online that detects whether jewelry has nickel or cobalt. Cobalt allergy can also trigger symptoms in patients exposed to “hard metal” industrial tools, cement, and masonry. Workers in the plastics and dye industries may be exposed too.

Like nickel, Dr. Perryman said, systemic cobalt allergy related to diet is also possible. The list of foods that contain higher levels of cobalt is long, and includes apricots, beans, beer, chocolate, coffee, nuts, tea, and whole-grain flour.

Dr. Perryman also mentioned several other allergens to keep in mind:

• Chromate can trigger reactions in people who wear leather shoes (the metal can be used in tanning). It can also cause problems in workers exposed to it via cement, bricks, drywall, and metal plating.
• Chromium picolinate, an over-the-counter supplement, can cause systemic dermatitis.
• Gold in jewelry can trigger an allergic reaction. Talk to patients about replating their jewelry, Dr. Perryman said.
• Rubber can trigger reactions due to exposure to rubber bands, makeup sponges, and rubber gloves (even nitrile ones). Be aware that both rubber and latex allergies may coexist and consider a blood test for latex allergy.
• Systemic balsam allergy related to an individual’s diet is possible. Tomato is an especially big villain on this front, along with citrus fruits, spices, cola, chili, and chocolate.

Dr. Perryman disclosed consulting work for IntraDerm. SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – When it comes to acne in adult women, look past the jawline, beyond traditional medications, and toward greater control. That’s the message of a dermatologist who spoke at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“We should be aiming to get our patients to clear or almost clear, and we have the tools necessary to help that happen,” said Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology research at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

Research suggests that acne is more common in adult women than in men, a gap that widens after age 29 years, she noted. Acne appears to affect 51% of women aged 20-29 years, she said, and prevalence dips to 15% in women older than 50 years.

About 80% of cases continue from adolescence, compared with about 20% that are new-onset during adulthood, she said. According to studies, she added, “most adult women have acne on multiple different areas of their face, not just the jawline. It’s similar to what we see in the adolescent population.”

Dr. Stein Gold offered these tips about treatment in this group of patients:
 

Inflammation

Researchers now consider that “all acne is inflammatory acne.” Be aggressive with anti-inflammatory treatment, and “continue even after the lesion is resolved” if needed to prevent scarring.

Oral contraceptives (OCs)

OCs can be helpful, but “we have to proceed with caution,” she said. A 2012 Cochrane Library review of 31 trials found that six combination OCs (COCs) “evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and noninflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne,” the review concluded (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;[7]:CD004425).

Results take time, however, and it “can take 3 months to see an effect, and 6 months for full effect,” Dr. Stein Gold noted.

There are multiple contraindications to the use of OCs, and they’ve been linked – controversially – to an increased risk of blood clots and breast cancer. However, risk of thrombosis also spikes – to significantly higher levels than with OC use – during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she said.
 

Spironolactone

This antihypertensive drug can be helpful, Dr. Stein Gold noted, although the one study in a 2009 Cochrane review that had acne as an outcome failed to find evidence of efficacy versus placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;[2]:CD000194). Be aware of the boxed warning about links to cancer in rat studies, and consider the risk of potassium elevation in certain populations, she added. Watch the dose: fewer side effects are seen at 50-100 mg daily, although they’re still common, and it can take 3 months or more for improvements to appear, she said.

Truncal acne

Patients may be hesitant to mention they have acne on their chest and back. “They may not tell you about it, and you may not ask about it but [some patients] expect you to know about it and treat it,” Dr. Stein Gold said. She referred to trifarotene, a topical retinoid cream that, although not yet approved, appears to be safe and effective in treating acne on the face and trunk in phase 3 studies.

“Some people will say the trunk will get too irritated if you put a retinoid on it. But it absolutely can be used on the chest and back. The first thing I say to my patients is to expect to have redness and scaling for first 2 weeks. People pay money for that. It’s a chemical peel! It’s okay to have some sloughing; use an oil-free moisturizer.”

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed relationships with Galderma, Foamix, and Sol Gel (investigator, consultant); Valeant (consultant, speaker); and Dermira (investigator, speaker).

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – When it comes to acne in adult women, look past the jawline, beyond traditional medications, and toward greater control. That’s the message of a dermatologist who spoke at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“We should be aiming to get our patients to clear or almost clear, and we have the tools necessary to help that happen,” said Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology research at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

Research suggests that acne is more common in adult women than in men, a gap that widens after age 29 years, she noted. Acne appears to affect 51% of women aged 20-29 years, she said, and prevalence dips to 15% in women older than 50 years.

About 80% of cases continue from adolescence, compared with about 20% that are new-onset during adulthood, she said. According to studies, she added, “most adult women have acne on multiple different areas of their face, not just the jawline. It’s similar to what we see in the adolescent population.”

Dr. Stein Gold offered these tips about treatment in this group of patients:
 

Inflammation

Researchers now consider that “all acne is inflammatory acne.” Be aggressive with anti-inflammatory treatment, and “continue even after the lesion is resolved” if needed to prevent scarring.

Oral contraceptives (OCs)

OCs can be helpful, but “we have to proceed with caution,” she said. A 2012 Cochrane Library review of 31 trials found that six combination OCs (COCs) “evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and noninflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne,” the review concluded (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;[7]:CD004425).

Results take time, however, and it “can take 3 months to see an effect, and 6 months for full effect,” Dr. Stein Gold noted.

There are multiple contraindications to the use of OCs, and they’ve been linked – controversially – to an increased risk of blood clots and breast cancer. However, risk of thrombosis also spikes – to significantly higher levels than with OC use – during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she said.
 

Spironolactone

This antihypertensive drug can be helpful, Dr. Stein Gold noted, although the one study in a 2009 Cochrane review that had acne as an outcome failed to find evidence of efficacy versus placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;[2]:CD000194). Be aware of the boxed warning about links to cancer in rat studies, and consider the risk of potassium elevation in certain populations, she added. Watch the dose: fewer side effects are seen at 50-100 mg daily, although they’re still common, and it can take 3 months or more for improvements to appear, she said.

Truncal acne

Patients may be hesitant to mention they have acne on their chest and back. “They may not tell you about it, and you may not ask about it but [some patients] expect you to know about it and treat it,” Dr. Stein Gold said. She referred to trifarotene, a topical retinoid cream that, although not yet approved, appears to be safe and effective in treating acne on the face and trunk in phase 3 studies.

“Some people will say the trunk will get too irritated if you put a retinoid on it. But it absolutely can be used on the chest and back. The first thing I say to my patients is to expect to have redness and scaling for first 2 weeks. People pay money for that. It’s a chemical peel! It’s okay to have some sloughing; use an oil-free moisturizer.”

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed relationships with Galderma, Foamix, and Sol Gel (investigator, consultant); Valeant (consultant, speaker); and Dermira (investigator, speaker).

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

NEWPORT BEACH, CALIF. – When it comes to acne in adult women, look past the jawline, beyond traditional medications, and toward greater control. That’s the message of a dermatologist who spoke at Skin Disease Education Foundation’s Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.

“We should be aiming to get our patients to clear or almost clear, and we have the tools necessary to help that happen,” said Linda Stein Gold, MD, director of dermatology research at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.

Research suggests that acne is more common in adult women than in men, a gap that widens after age 29 years, she noted. Acne appears to affect 51% of women aged 20-29 years, she said, and prevalence dips to 15% in women older than 50 years.

About 80% of cases continue from adolescence, compared with about 20% that are new-onset during adulthood, she said. According to studies, she added, “most adult women have acne on multiple different areas of their face, not just the jawline. It’s similar to what we see in the adolescent population.”

Dr. Stein Gold offered these tips about treatment in this group of patients:
 

Inflammation

Researchers now consider that “all acne is inflammatory acne.” Be aggressive with anti-inflammatory treatment, and “continue even after the lesion is resolved” if needed to prevent scarring.

Oral contraceptives (OCs)

OCs can be helpful, but “we have to proceed with caution,” she said. A 2012 Cochrane Library review of 31 trials found that six combination OCs (COCs) “evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and noninflammatory facial acne lesions. Few important and consistent differences were found between COC types in their effectiveness for treating acne,” the review concluded (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jul 11;[7]:CD004425).

Results take time, however, and it “can take 3 months to see an effect, and 6 months for full effect,” Dr. Stein Gold noted.

There are multiple contraindications to the use of OCs, and they’ve been linked – controversially – to an increased risk of blood clots and breast cancer. However, risk of thrombosis also spikes – to significantly higher levels than with OC use – during pregnancy and the postpartum period, she said.
 

Spironolactone

This antihypertensive drug can be helpful, Dr. Stein Gold noted, although the one study in a 2009 Cochrane review that had acne as an outcome failed to find evidence of efficacy versus placebo (Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Apr 15;[2]:CD000194). Be aware of the boxed warning about links to cancer in rat studies, and consider the risk of potassium elevation in certain populations, she added. Watch the dose: fewer side effects are seen at 50-100 mg daily, although they’re still common, and it can take 3 months or more for improvements to appear, she said.

Truncal acne

Patients may be hesitant to mention they have acne on their chest and back. “They may not tell you about it, and you may not ask about it but [some patients] expect you to know about it and treat it,” Dr. Stein Gold said. She referred to trifarotene, a topical retinoid cream that, although not yet approved, appears to be safe and effective in treating acne on the face and trunk in phase 3 studies.

“Some people will say the trunk will get too irritated if you put a retinoid on it. But it absolutely can be used on the chest and back. The first thing I say to my patients is to expect to have redness and scaling for first 2 weeks. People pay money for that. It’s a chemical peel! It’s okay to have some sloughing; use an oil-free moisturizer.”

Dr. Stein Gold disclosed relationships with Galderma, Foamix, and Sol Gel (investigator, consultant); Valeant (consultant, speaker); and Dermira (investigator, speaker).

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Black individuals who develop type 2 diabetes are more likely than their white counterparts to develop dementia. Now, findings from a new study point to a possible preventive strategy: Putting older patients on metformin when they are diagnosed could reduce their risk for dementia by as much as 40%, whereas sulfonylureas do not seem to have such an effect.

The researchers did not examine cause and effect, so their findings are not conclusive, and very few women were included in the study. Still, the authors said that their data showing a 29% lower risk of dementia associated with metformin use in black patients aged 65-74 years, and a 40% lower risk in those aged 50-64 years, suggested that “this inexpensive, widely available treatment could be broadly prescribed to substantially reduce the risk of dementia in younger [black] patients with [type 2 diabetes]” (Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:352-62).

Previous findings have suggested that black patients with type 2 diabetes face a 10%-18% higher risk of dementia, compared with white patients (Diabetes Care. 2014; 37[4]:1009-15). Another study linked type 2 diabetes in middle-aged black patients to a 41% decrease in cognition per test results over 14 years. There was no such decrease in white patients (Neuroepidemiology. 2014;43[3-4]: 220-7).

For the new study, researchers led by Jeffrey F. Scherrer, PhD, of Saint Louis University tracked 73,761 patients aged 50 years or older from 2000-2001 (when they were free of dementia and not taking diabetes) to 2015. Among the patients, 86% were white and 14% were black. In the white and black groups, 97% and 95% were men, respectively, and 61% and 55% were obese, respectively.

All participants began metformin (76%) or sulfonylurea (24%) monotherapy after the baseline period. Guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, whereas sulfonylureas are considered second-line drugs that should be added to metformin.

After adjustment for confounders such as socioeconomic status and other medical conditions, the researchers found a significantly lower risk of dementia in black patients who took metformin, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.89). There was no difference between the drugs among white patients (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.9-1.03, both P = .008)

The results were not statistically significant among age groups, but there were trends. In black patients, the dementia-lowering benefit was largest among those aged 50-64 years (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.81), followed by those aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94), and there was no benefit among those aged at least 75 (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.73-1.85) all P = .055. There was a slight benefit among white patients in one of the age groups – 65-74 years (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .315).

The authors suggested that the findings could have been the result of an effect of metformin to reduce vascular disease and chronic inflammation in black patients.

They also noted that further research is needed to identify the demographic and clinical subgroups in which metformin is most strongly associated with a reduction in the risk of dementia. In addition, they emphasized that clinical trials are needed to confirm the study findings.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Scherrer JF et al. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:352-62.

Black individuals who develop type 2 diabetes are more likely than their white counterparts to develop dementia. Now, findings from a new study point to a possible preventive strategy: Putting older patients on metformin when they are diagnosed could reduce their risk for dementia by as much as 40%, whereas sulfonylureas do not seem to have such an effect.

The researchers did not examine cause and effect, so their findings are not conclusive, and very few women were included in the study. Still, the authors said that their data showing a 29% lower risk of dementia associated with metformin use in black patients aged 65-74 years, and a 40% lower risk in those aged 50-64 years, suggested that “this inexpensive, widely available treatment could be broadly prescribed to substantially reduce the risk of dementia in younger [black] patients with [type 2 diabetes]” (Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:352-62).

Previous findings have suggested that black patients with type 2 diabetes face a 10%-18% higher risk of dementia, compared with white patients (Diabetes Care. 2014; 37[4]:1009-15). Another study linked type 2 diabetes in middle-aged black patients to a 41% decrease in cognition per test results over 14 years. There was no such decrease in white patients (Neuroepidemiology. 2014;43[3-4]: 220-7).

For the new study, researchers led by Jeffrey F. Scherrer, PhD, of Saint Louis University tracked 73,761 patients aged 50 years or older from 2000-2001 (when they were free of dementia and not taking diabetes) to 2015. Among the patients, 86% were white and 14% were black. In the white and black groups, 97% and 95% were men, respectively, and 61% and 55% were obese, respectively.

All participants began metformin (76%) or sulfonylurea (24%) monotherapy after the baseline period. Guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, whereas sulfonylureas are considered second-line drugs that should be added to metformin.

After adjustment for confounders such as socioeconomic status and other medical conditions, the researchers found a significantly lower risk of dementia in black patients who took metformin, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.89). There was no difference between the drugs among white patients (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.9-1.03, both P = .008)

The results were not statistically significant among age groups, but there were trends. In black patients, the dementia-lowering benefit was largest among those aged 50-64 years (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.81), followed by those aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94), and there was no benefit among those aged at least 75 (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.73-1.85) all P = .055. There was a slight benefit among white patients in one of the age groups – 65-74 years (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .315).

The authors suggested that the findings could have been the result of an effect of metformin to reduce vascular disease and chronic inflammation in black patients.

They also noted that further research is needed to identify the demographic and clinical subgroups in which metformin is most strongly associated with a reduction in the risk of dementia. In addition, they emphasized that clinical trials are needed to confirm the study findings.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Scherrer JF et al. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:352-62.

Black individuals who develop type 2 diabetes are more likely than their white counterparts to develop dementia. Now, findings from a new study point to a possible preventive strategy: Putting older patients on metformin when they are diagnosed could reduce their risk for dementia by as much as 40%, whereas sulfonylureas do not seem to have such an effect.

The researchers did not examine cause and effect, so their findings are not conclusive, and very few women were included in the study. Still, the authors said that their data showing a 29% lower risk of dementia associated with metformin use in black patients aged 65-74 years, and a 40% lower risk in those aged 50-64 years, suggested that “this inexpensive, widely available treatment could be broadly prescribed to substantially reduce the risk of dementia in younger [black] patients with [type 2 diabetes]” (Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:352-62).

Previous findings have suggested that black patients with type 2 diabetes face a 10%-18% higher risk of dementia, compared with white patients (Diabetes Care. 2014; 37[4]:1009-15). Another study linked type 2 diabetes in middle-aged black patients to a 41% decrease in cognition per test results over 14 years. There was no such decrease in white patients (Neuroepidemiology. 2014;43[3-4]: 220-7).

For the new study, researchers led by Jeffrey F. Scherrer, PhD, of Saint Louis University tracked 73,761 patients aged 50 years or older from 2000-2001 (when they were free of dementia and not taking diabetes) to 2015. Among the patients, 86% were white and 14% were black. In the white and black groups, 97% and 95% were men, respectively, and 61% and 55% were obese, respectively.

All participants began metformin (76%) or sulfonylurea (24%) monotherapy after the baseline period. Guidelines recommend metformin as a first-line treatment for type 2 diabetes, whereas sulfonylureas are considered second-line drugs that should be added to metformin.

After adjustment for confounders such as socioeconomic status and other medical conditions, the researchers found a significantly lower risk of dementia in black patients who took metformin, compared with those taking a sulfonylurea (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-0.89). There was no difference between the drugs among white patients (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.9-1.03, both P = .008)

The results were not statistically significant among age groups, but there were trends. In black patients, the dementia-lowering benefit was largest among those aged 50-64 years (HR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.45-0.81), followed by those aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.94), and there was no benefit among those aged at least 75 (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.73-1.85) all P = .055. There was a slight benefit among white patients in one of the age groups – 65-74 years (HR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99; P = .315).

The authors suggested that the findings could have been the result of an effect of metformin to reduce vascular disease and chronic inflammation in black patients.

They also noted that further research is needed to identify the demographic and clinical subgroups in which metformin is most strongly associated with a reduction in the risk of dementia. In addition, they emphasized that clinical trials are needed to confirm the study findings.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. The authors report no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Scherrer JF et al. Ann Fam Med. 2019;17:352-62.

SAN FRANCISCO – At first, the diabetes professionals in the audience at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association overwhelmingly raised their hands to say they would support using SGLT2 inhibitors as adjunctive therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. Then two physicians debated whether the drugs were too risky – predictably, one said yes, the other said no. In the end, most of the audience was unconvinced by one of the doctors. Which one? Well, we’ll get to that.

First, let’s look at the issue that divided the two physicians: Should the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – now commonly used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes – also be prescribed for patients with type 1 diabetes?

The drugs are not cleared in the United States for use in patients with type 1 diabetes, although drug makers are seeking approval. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration turned down a request for the approval of sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, for adults with type 1 diabetes. However, the drug has been approved in the European Union for certain overweight patients with type 1 diabetes.

In addition, the drugs are very costly, compared with some of the other diabetes medications, and physicians say that puts them out of reach for some patients.
 

The case for ...

In arguing that SGLT2 inhibitors would be appropriate as a therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes, Bruce A. Perkins, MD, MPH, professor and clinician-scientist at Leadership Sinai Center for Diabetes at the University of Toronto, emphasized the need for new treatments in type 1 diabetes.

“Even today, people with type 1 tell us they feel isolated, they fear hypoglycemia, they fear complications. And they have this undue burden of self-management,” he said. “We can do much better. Insulin therapy still needs us desperately needing more.”

Dr. Perkins highlighted the drugs’ widely lauded effects on cardiac and renal health and noted that a 2019 meta-analysis of 10 trials found that, compared with placebo, the drugs were associated with mean reductions in hemoglobin A_1c (–0.39%; 95% confidence interval, –0.43 to –0.36) and body weight (–3.47%; 95% CI, –3.78 to –3.16).

That analysis also showed a higher risk of genital infection (3.57; 95% CI, 2.97-4.29) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 3.11; 95% CI, 2.11-4.58) with SGLT inhibitors, but the authors concluded that, despite the adverse events, the available data suggested that adding the inhibitors to basal insulin could be beneficial in patients with type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3169).

In reference to the findings on DKA, Dr. Perkins said recent research has suggested that the DKA risk could be lowered by decreasing the dose of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “[DKA] is a problem, there’s no question, but there’s a background population risk. Whether we introduce an SGLT2 or not, we have to deal with this issue. We can deal with and overcome the excess DKA risk.”

In the big picture, he said, “it would be a crime not to make this treatment available to some patients. Meaningful benefits far outweigh the risks.”
 

The case against ...

On the other side of the debate was David M. Nathan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Clinical Research Center and Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who acknowledged the benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

However, he pointed to findings from a 2015 trial of canagliflozin as an add-on in type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[12]:2258-65). In that 18-week, randomized phase 2 trial, the investigators found that patients who took the drug had significantly higher rates of serious adverse events (7.7% or 6.8%, depending on dose, vs. 0% for placebo), urinary tract infections (4.3% and 5.1% vs. 1.7%), and DKA (4.3% and 6.0% vs. 0%).

“It would have cost $400 a month for the ‘pleasure’ of those side effects,” Dr. Nathan said.

He also noted a 2015 report on a 29-day, randomized, placebo-controlled study of sotagliflozin, the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor drug, as an add-on treatment for type 1 diabetes, in which investigators reported two episodes of DKA (13%) in the SGLT2 group, compared with none in placebo (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[7]:1181-8).

Dr. Nathan also pointed to a recent FDA warning about cases of Fournier gangrene, a rare type of serious genital infection, in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors.

“To me, the risk [of using SGLT2 inhibitors in type 1 diabetes] outweighs the benefit by a lot,” he said, echoing comments he made in an editorial he wrote in 2017, that “any added benefits of adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes must be carefully balanced against their added risk and cost. Physicians and patients should beware” (N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:2390-1).
 

The outcome...

The audience was not sufficiently convinced by Dr. Nathan to swing the final vote fully in his favor, but he did manage to dent the initial support for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 1 disease. Before the debate, the show of hands suggested that roughly 80% of the audience thought SGLT2 inhibitors would be an appropriate therapy option for patients with type 1 diabetes. When the moderator asked the same question again after the arguments had been presented, that initial support had been eroded to about 70%. Dr. Nathan had clearly raised some doubts among the attendees, but Dr. Perkins’ perspective prevailed.

Dr. Perkins reported speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi and Lilly; advisory panel service for Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Insulet; and research support to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bank of Montreal. Dr. Nathan reports no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – At first, the diabetes professionals in the audience at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association overwhelmingly raised their hands to say they would support using SGLT2 inhibitors as adjunctive therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. Then two physicians debated whether the drugs were too risky – predictably, one said yes, the other said no. In the end, most of the audience was unconvinced by one of the doctors. Which one? Well, we’ll get to that.

First, let’s look at the issue that divided the two physicians: Should the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – now commonly used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes – also be prescribed for patients with type 1 diabetes?

The drugs are not cleared in the United States for use in patients with type 1 diabetes, although drug makers are seeking approval. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration turned down a request for the approval of sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, for adults with type 1 diabetes. However, the drug has been approved in the European Union for certain overweight patients with type 1 diabetes.

In addition, the drugs are very costly, compared with some of the other diabetes medications, and physicians say that puts them out of reach for some patients.
 

The case for ...

In arguing that SGLT2 inhibitors would be appropriate as a therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes, Bruce A. Perkins, MD, MPH, professor and clinician-scientist at Leadership Sinai Center for Diabetes at the University of Toronto, emphasized the need for new treatments in type 1 diabetes.

“Even today, people with type 1 tell us they feel isolated, they fear hypoglycemia, they fear complications. And they have this undue burden of self-management,” he said. “We can do much better. Insulin therapy still needs us desperately needing more.”

Dr. Perkins highlighted the drugs’ widely lauded effects on cardiac and renal health and noted that a 2019 meta-analysis of 10 trials found that, compared with placebo, the drugs were associated with mean reductions in hemoglobin A_1c (–0.39%; 95% confidence interval, –0.43 to –0.36) and body weight (–3.47%; 95% CI, –3.78 to –3.16).

That analysis also showed a higher risk of genital infection (3.57; 95% CI, 2.97-4.29) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 3.11; 95% CI, 2.11-4.58) with SGLT inhibitors, but the authors concluded that, despite the adverse events, the available data suggested that adding the inhibitors to basal insulin could be beneficial in patients with type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3169).

In reference to the findings on DKA, Dr. Perkins said recent research has suggested that the DKA risk could be lowered by decreasing the dose of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “[DKA] is a problem, there’s no question, but there’s a background population risk. Whether we introduce an SGLT2 or not, we have to deal with this issue. We can deal with and overcome the excess DKA risk.”

In the big picture, he said, “it would be a crime not to make this treatment available to some patients. Meaningful benefits far outweigh the risks.”
 

The case against ...

On the other side of the debate was David M. Nathan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Clinical Research Center and Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who acknowledged the benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

However, he pointed to findings from a 2015 trial of canagliflozin as an add-on in type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[12]:2258-65). In that 18-week, randomized phase 2 trial, the investigators found that patients who took the drug had significantly higher rates of serious adverse events (7.7% or 6.8%, depending on dose, vs. 0% for placebo), urinary tract infections (4.3% and 5.1% vs. 1.7%), and DKA (4.3% and 6.0% vs. 0%).

“It would have cost $400 a month for the ‘pleasure’ of those side effects,” Dr. Nathan said.

He also noted a 2015 report on a 29-day, randomized, placebo-controlled study of sotagliflozin, the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor drug, as an add-on treatment for type 1 diabetes, in which investigators reported two episodes of DKA (13%) in the SGLT2 group, compared with none in placebo (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[7]:1181-8).

Dr. Nathan also pointed to a recent FDA warning about cases of Fournier gangrene, a rare type of serious genital infection, in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors.

“To me, the risk [of using SGLT2 inhibitors in type 1 diabetes] outweighs the benefit by a lot,” he said, echoing comments he made in an editorial he wrote in 2017, that “any added benefits of adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes must be carefully balanced against their added risk and cost. Physicians and patients should beware” (N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:2390-1).
 

The outcome...

The audience was not sufficiently convinced by Dr. Nathan to swing the final vote fully in his favor, but he did manage to dent the initial support for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 1 disease. Before the debate, the show of hands suggested that roughly 80% of the audience thought SGLT2 inhibitors would be an appropriate therapy option for patients with type 1 diabetes. When the moderator asked the same question again after the arguments had been presented, that initial support had been eroded to about 70%. Dr. Nathan had clearly raised some doubts among the attendees, but Dr. Perkins’ perspective prevailed.

Dr. Perkins reported speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi and Lilly; advisory panel service for Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Insulet; and research support to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bank of Montreal. Dr. Nathan reports no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – At first, the diabetes professionals in the audience at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association overwhelmingly raised their hands to say they would support using SGLT2 inhibitors as adjunctive therapy in patients with type 1 diabetes. Then two physicians debated whether the drugs were too risky – predictably, one said yes, the other said no. In the end, most of the audience was unconvinced by one of the doctors. Which one? Well, we’ll get to that.

First, let’s look at the issue that divided the two physicians: Should the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors canagliflozin (Invokana), dapagliflozin (Farxiga), and empagliflozin (Jardiance) – now commonly used to treat patients with type 2 diabetes – also be prescribed for patients with type 1 diabetes?

The drugs are not cleared in the United States for use in patients with type 1 diabetes, although drug makers are seeking approval. Earlier in 2019, the Food and Drug Administration turned down a request for the approval of sotagliflozin (Zynquista), a dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor, for adults with type 1 diabetes. However, the drug has been approved in the European Union for certain overweight patients with type 1 diabetes.

In addition, the drugs are very costly, compared with some of the other diabetes medications, and physicians say that puts them out of reach for some patients.
 

The case for ...

In arguing that SGLT2 inhibitors would be appropriate as a therapy for patients with type 1 diabetes, Bruce A. Perkins, MD, MPH, professor and clinician-scientist at Leadership Sinai Center for Diabetes at the University of Toronto, emphasized the need for new treatments in type 1 diabetes.

“Even today, people with type 1 tell us they feel isolated, they fear hypoglycemia, they fear complications. And they have this undue burden of self-management,” he said. “We can do much better. Insulin therapy still needs us desperately needing more.”

Dr. Perkins highlighted the drugs’ widely lauded effects on cardiac and renal health and noted that a 2019 meta-analysis of 10 trials found that, compared with placebo, the drugs were associated with mean reductions in hemoglobin A_1c (–0.39%; 95% confidence interval, –0.43 to –0.36) and body weight (–3.47%; 95% CI, –3.78 to –3.16).

That analysis also showed a higher risk of genital infection (3.57; 95% CI, 2.97-4.29) and diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA; 3.11; 95% CI, 2.11-4.58) with SGLT inhibitors, but the authors concluded that, despite the adverse events, the available data suggested that adding the inhibitors to basal insulin could be beneficial in patients with type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1002/dmrr.3169).

In reference to the findings on DKA, Dr. Perkins said recent research has suggested that the DKA risk could be lowered by decreasing the dose of the SGLT2 inhibitors. “[DKA] is a problem, there’s no question, but there’s a background population risk. Whether we introduce an SGLT2 or not, we have to deal with this issue. We can deal with and overcome the excess DKA risk.”

In the big picture, he said, “it would be a crime not to make this treatment available to some patients. Meaningful benefits far outweigh the risks.”
 

The case against ...

On the other side of the debate was David M. Nathan, MD, of Harvard Medical School and the Clinical Research Center and Diabetes Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, who acknowledged the benefits of the SGLT2 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes.

However, he pointed to findings from a 2015 trial of canagliflozin as an add-on in type 1 diabetes (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[12]:2258-65). In that 18-week, randomized phase 2 trial, the investigators found that patients who took the drug had significantly higher rates of serious adverse events (7.7% or 6.8%, depending on dose, vs. 0% for placebo), urinary tract infections (4.3% and 5.1% vs. 1.7%), and DKA (4.3% and 6.0% vs. 0%).

“It would have cost $400 a month for the ‘pleasure’ of those side effects,” Dr. Nathan said.

He also noted a 2015 report on a 29-day, randomized, placebo-controlled study of sotagliflozin, the dual SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor drug, as an add-on treatment for type 1 diabetes, in which investigators reported two episodes of DKA (13%) in the SGLT2 group, compared with none in placebo (Diabetes Care. 2015;38[7]:1181-8).

Dr. Nathan also pointed to a recent FDA warning about cases of Fournier gangrene, a rare type of serious genital infection, in patients taking SGLT2 inhibitors.

“To me, the risk [of using SGLT2 inhibitors in type 1 diabetes] outweighs the benefit by a lot,” he said, echoing comments he made in an editorial he wrote in 2017, that “any added benefits of adjunctive therapies for type 1 diabetes must be carefully balanced against their added risk and cost. Physicians and patients should beware” (N Engl J Med. 2017; 377:2390-1).
 

The outcome...

The audience was not sufficiently convinced by Dr. Nathan to swing the final vote fully in his favor, but he did manage to dent the initial support for using SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with type 1 disease. Before the debate, the show of hands suggested that roughly 80% of the audience thought SGLT2 inhibitors would be an appropriate therapy option for patients with type 1 diabetes. When the moderator asked the same question again after the arguments had been presented, that initial support had been eroded to about 70%. Dr. Nathan had clearly raised some doubts among the attendees, but Dr. Perkins’ perspective prevailed.

Dr. Perkins reported speaker fees from Medtronic, Abbott, Sanofi and Lilly; advisory panel service for Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Insulet; and research support to his institution from Boehringer Ingelheim and Bank of Montreal. Dr. Nathan reports no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Can you be “fat but fit” if you’re obese but don’t suffer from metabolic syndrome? Some advocates have claimed you can, but new findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association provide more evidence that those extra pounds translate to extra cardiac risk.

Fat-but-fit is a misnomer, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, said in an interview. “The metabolically healthy obese are not so healthy. [We found] they had a higher risk of heart disease than people who were metabolically healthy and nonobese.”

Studies began supporting the fat-but-fit “paradox” in the late 1990s. They showed “that all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular] mortality risk in obese individuals, as defined by body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, or waist circumference, who are fit (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness level above the age-specific and sex-specific 20th percentile) is not significantly different from their normal-weight and fit counterparts” (Br J Sports Med. 2018;52[3]:151-3).

However, a 2017 study had found that “metabolically healthy obese individuals had a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure [compared with] normal weight, metabolically healthy individuals” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70[12]:1429-37). And a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 studies had produced similar results but also found that metabolically healthy obese individuals were better off, cardiac-health–wise, than those of normal weight who were metabolically unhealthy (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23[9]:956-66).

Dr. Commodore-Mensah and colleagues sought to establish through their study whether there was evidence of subclinical heart disease in people who are considered obese but metabolically healthy (Abstract 272-OR).

They tracked 11,884 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) from 1990-1992 to 2016-2018. The study, which continues today, includes participants in suburban Minneapolis; Jackson, Miss.; Forsyth County, N.C.; and Washington County, Md.

None of the participants had previous cardiovascular disease at baseline (1990-1992). The researchers divided the participants into four groups at baseline: Nonobese (with metabolic syndrome, 20% of the total number of participants; or without metabolic syndrome, 51%) and obese (with metabolic syndrome, 20%; or without metabolic syndrome, 9%).

The average age range in the groups was 56-57 years. The percentage of women in the groups ranged from 53% to 58%, except for the obese and metabolically healthy group (73%). The percentage of black participants in the groups ranged from 17% (nonobese, metabolically unhealthy) to 45% (obese, metabolically healthy).

“People who were younger, women, and black were more likely to be classified as metabolically healthy obese,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to one adjusted model with a median follow-up of 16 years and a total of 3,560 events, obese participants had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease, compared with their nonobese counterparts, regardless of whether they had metabolic syndrome.

When compared with the nonobese, metabolically healthy group, the risk grew in the nonobese, metabolically unhealthy group (hazard ratio, .24; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.36), as well as in the obese, metabolically healthy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53) and the obese, metabolically unhealthy (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.90-2.35) groups.

The researchers also focused on the cardiac biomarker known as high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which indicates chronic myocardial damage. “This biomarker provides us with a window to the heart,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to previous findings reported in 2014, ARIC participants who had hs-cTnT levels of 14 ng/L or higher were much more likely than were those with undetectable levels to suffer from heart failure, death from any cause, and coronary heart disease (JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2[6]:600-7).

Based on an analysis of the hs-cTnT levels in the present study, the researchers believe obese, metabolically healthy participants fell in the intermediate range of excess subclinical myocardial damage, between the nonobese and the obese participants who are also metabolically unhealthy.

“This group is not protected from heart disease,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said. “They should be targeted, and they would benefit from behavioral changes, such as modifying their diet and increasing physical activity levels.”

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Commodore-Mensah and six coauthors reported no relevant disclosures. Two coauthors reported various disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Can you be “fat but fit” if you’re obese but don’t suffer from metabolic syndrome? Some advocates have claimed you can, but new findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association provide more evidence that those extra pounds translate to extra cardiac risk.

Fat-but-fit is a misnomer, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, said in an interview. “The metabolically healthy obese are not so healthy. [We found] they had a higher risk of heart disease than people who were metabolically healthy and nonobese.”

Studies began supporting the fat-but-fit “paradox” in the late 1990s. They showed “that all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular] mortality risk in obese individuals, as defined by body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, or waist circumference, who are fit (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness level above the age-specific and sex-specific 20th percentile) is not significantly different from their normal-weight and fit counterparts” (Br J Sports Med. 2018;52[3]:151-3).

However, a 2017 study had found that “metabolically healthy obese individuals had a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure [compared with] normal weight, metabolically healthy individuals” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70[12]:1429-37). And a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 studies had produced similar results but also found that metabolically healthy obese individuals were better off, cardiac-health–wise, than those of normal weight who were metabolically unhealthy (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23[9]:956-66).

Dr. Commodore-Mensah and colleagues sought to establish through their study whether there was evidence of subclinical heart disease in people who are considered obese but metabolically healthy (Abstract 272-OR).

They tracked 11,884 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) from 1990-1992 to 2016-2018. The study, which continues today, includes participants in suburban Minneapolis; Jackson, Miss.; Forsyth County, N.C.; and Washington County, Md.

None of the participants had previous cardiovascular disease at baseline (1990-1992). The researchers divided the participants into four groups at baseline: Nonobese (with metabolic syndrome, 20% of the total number of participants; or without metabolic syndrome, 51%) and obese (with metabolic syndrome, 20%; or without metabolic syndrome, 9%).

The average age range in the groups was 56-57 years. The percentage of women in the groups ranged from 53% to 58%, except for the obese and metabolically healthy group (73%). The percentage of black participants in the groups ranged from 17% (nonobese, metabolically unhealthy) to 45% (obese, metabolically healthy).

“People who were younger, women, and black were more likely to be classified as metabolically healthy obese,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to one adjusted model with a median follow-up of 16 years and a total of 3,560 events, obese participants had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease, compared with their nonobese counterparts, regardless of whether they had metabolic syndrome.

When compared with the nonobese, metabolically healthy group, the risk grew in the nonobese, metabolically unhealthy group (hazard ratio, .24; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.36), as well as in the obese, metabolically healthy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53) and the obese, metabolically unhealthy (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.90-2.35) groups.

The researchers also focused on the cardiac biomarker known as high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which indicates chronic myocardial damage. “This biomarker provides us with a window to the heart,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to previous findings reported in 2014, ARIC participants who had hs-cTnT levels of 14 ng/L or higher were much more likely than were those with undetectable levels to suffer from heart failure, death from any cause, and coronary heart disease (JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2[6]:600-7).

Based on an analysis of the hs-cTnT levels in the present study, the researchers believe obese, metabolically healthy participants fell in the intermediate range of excess subclinical myocardial damage, between the nonobese and the obese participants who are also metabolically unhealthy.

“This group is not protected from heart disease,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said. “They should be targeted, and they would benefit from behavioral changes, such as modifying their diet and increasing physical activity levels.”

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Commodore-Mensah and six coauthors reported no relevant disclosures. Two coauthors reported various disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Can you be “fat but fit” if you’re obese but don’t suffer from metabolic syndrome? Some advocates have claimed you can, but new findings presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association provide more evidence that those extra pounds translate to extra cardiac risk.

Fat-but-fit is a misnomer, Yvonne Commodore-Mensah, PhD, RN, assistant professor at Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, said in an interview. “The metabolically healthy obese are not so healthy. [We found] they had a higher risk of heart disease than people who were metabolically healthy and nonobese.”

Studies began supporting the fat-but-fit “paradox” in the late 1990s. They showed “that all-cause and CVD [cardiovascular] mortality risk in obese individuals, as defined by body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, or waist circumference, who are fit (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness level above the age-specific and sex-specific 20th percentile) is not significantly different from their normal-weight and fit counterparts” (Br J Sports Med. 2018;52[3]:151-3).

However, a 2017 study had found that “metabolically healthy obese individuals had a higher risk of coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure [compared with] normal weight, metabolically healthy individuals” (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70[12]:1429-37). And a 2016 meta-analysis of 22 studies had produced similar results but also found that metabolically healthy obese individuals were better off, cardiac-health–wise, than those of normal weight who were metabolically unhealthy (Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23[9]:956-66).

Dr. Commodore-Mensah and colleagues sought to establish through their study whether there was evidence of subclinical heart disease in people who are considered obese but metabolically healthy (Abstract 272-OR).

They tracked 11,884 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC) from 1990-1992 to 2016-2018. The study, which continues today, includes participants in suburban Minneapolis; Jackson, Miss.; Forsyth County, N.C.; and Washington County, Md.

None of the participants had previous cardiovascular disease at baseline (1990-1992). The researchers divided the participants into four groups at baseline: Nonobese (with metabolic syndrome, 20% of the total number of participants; or without metabolic syndrome, 51%) and obese (with metabolic syndrome, 20%; or without metabolic syndrome, 9%).

The average age range in the groups was 56-57 years. The percentage of women in the groups ranged from 53% to 58%, except for the obese and metabolically healthy group (73%). The percentage of black participants in the groups ranged from 17% (nonobese, metabolically unhealthy) to 45% (obese, metabolically healthy).

“People who were younger, women, and black were more likely to be classified as metabolically healthy obese,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to one adjusted model with a median follow-up of 16 years and a total of 3,560 events, obese participants had a higher risk of incident cardiovascular disease, compared with their nonobese counterparts, regardless of whether they had metabolic syndrome.

When compared with the nonobese, metabolically healthy group, the risk grew in the nonobese, metabolically unhealthy group (hazard ratio, .24; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.36), as well as in the obese, metabolically healthy (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.15-1.53) and the obese, metabolically unhealthy (HR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.90-2.35) groups.

The researchers also focused on the cardiac biomarker known as high-sensitive cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), which indicates chronic myocardial damage. “This biomarker provides us with a window to the heart,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said.

According to previous findings reported in 2014, ARIC participants who had hs-cTnT levels of 14 ng/L or higher were much more likely than were those with undetectable levels to suffer from heart failure, death from any cause, and coronary heart disease (JACC Heart Fail. 2014;2[6]:600-7).

Based on an analysis of the hs-cTnT levels in the present study, the researchers believe obese, metabolically healthy participants fell in the intermediate range of excess subclinical myocardial damage, between the nonobese and the obese participants who are also metabolically unhealthy.

“This group is not protected from heart disease,” Dr. Commodore-Mensah said. “They should be targeted, and they would benefit from behavioral changes, such as modifying their diet and increasing physical activity levels.”

The study is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Commodore-Mensah and six coauthors reported no relevant disclosures. Two coauthors reported various disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Are you having trouble helping patients take their diabetes medications as directed? Try installing 32-inch screens in the examination rooms for a lab result show-and-tell. Keep pharmaceutical marketers out of your hair (and office). Talk about smartphone alarms, promote auto-fill services, and understand why patients don’t adhere to their regimens.

Those are among the suggestions offered by two physicians during a symposium on drug adherence at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Nonadherence is not a case of patients being bad,” said internist and researcher Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “When half of your patients are nonadherent, I can guarantee you [they] aren’t trying to hurt themselves.”

According to Dr. Choudhry’s own research published in 2011 and based on 2008 data, about 25% of patients do not fill prescriptions after leaving their doctors’ offices. That level for diabetes medications – 42% of patients – is especially high (Am J Med. 2011;124[11]:1081.e9-22).

Other findings, he said, have suggested that half of patients fail to adhere to evidence-based prescribed regimens over the long term. And three groups have especially low levels of adherence: people of color, women, and patients who are caregivers (possibly because they are too busy caring for others to care for themselves).

Various factors affect adherence, including forgetfulness, drug interactions or side effects, and the different colors and shapes of pills. The latter can confuse patients because colors and shapes may be different from prescription to prescription even for the same medication, he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that there’s another factor: multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians that require multiple pharmacy visits. His findings suggest that adherence improves when prescriptions are consolidated to limit the need to visit the drugstore. “The chaos of our health care system leads to nonadherence,” he said (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171[9]:814-22).

Internist Lawrence Garber, MD, of Reliant Medical Group in Worcester, Mass., offered these tips about boosting drug adherence:

• Develop trust with patients. “They need to trust that I’m their advocate, and that they’re my No. 1 reason for prescribing the medication, and not making myself more money,” he said.
• Provide educational resources. “We give them resources online. If their EHR [electronic health record] identifies that they’re diabetic, then they get information about diabetes printed out.”
• Use technology to promote messages about diabetes. Dr. Garber said his clinic has installed screens in the examination rooms so that he can show patients their data. “It [makes it] very clear for them to see why what they’re doing now is not working,’’ and why there is a need to change to a different regimen. In addition, screens in the waiting room can display educational slides about diabetes.
• Set up clinic-wide medication protocols. “We’ve set up protocols and pathways for diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol to make it easy to prescribe medications that are lower cost and to make sure we’re following the same path,” Dr. Garber said.
• Stay independent. “I haven’t seen a drug rep in decades. It’s an organizational policy that we don’t see them, so we’re less likely to be biased.”
• Make it easier for patients to take medications. Dr. Garber urged colleagues to talk to their patients about using strategies such as printed pill schedules, weekly pill organizers, auto refills, and smartphone alarm reminders to facilitate adherence.

And, he said, you may wish to make it clear that you will check on whether prescriptions are filled. That way, “the patients know that you’re looking,” and it can actually lead to improved adherence.

Dr. Choudhry reported that his research has been funded by unrestricted grants to his institution from insurers, government funders, nonprofit foundations, pharmaceutical companies (including Merck, Sanofi, and Astra Zeneca), and device makers (including Medisafe). Dr. Garber reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Are you having trouble helping patients take their diabetes medications as directed? Try installing 32-inch screens in the examination rooms for a lab result show-and-tell. Keep pharmaceutical marketers out of your hair (and office). Talk about smartphone alarms, promote auto-fill services, and understand why patients don’t adhere to their regimens.

Those are among the suggestions offered by two physicians during a symposium on drug adherence at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Nonadherence is not a case of patients being bad,” said internist and researcher Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “When half of your patients are nonadherent, I can guarantee you [they] aren’t trying to hurt themselves.”

According to Dr. Choudhry’s own research published in 2011 and based on 2008 data, about 25% of patients do not fill prescriptions after leaving their doctors’ offices. That level for diabetes medications – 42% of patients – is especially high (Am J Med. 2011;124[11]:1081.e9-22).

Other findings, he said, have suggested that half of patients fail to adhere to evidence-based prescribed regimens over the long term. And three groups have especially low levels of adherence: people of color, women, and patients who are caregivers (possibly because they are too busy caring for others to care for themselves).

Various factors affect adherence, including forgetfulness, drug interactions or side effects, and the different colors and shapes of pills. The latter can confuse patients because colors and shapes may be different from prescription to prescription even for the same medication, he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that there’s another factor: multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians that require multiple pharmacy visits. His findings suggest that adherence improves when prescriptions are consolidated to limit the need to visit the drugstore. “The chaos of our health care system leads to nonadherence,” he said (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171[9]:814-22).

Internist Lawrence Garber, MD, of Reliant Medical Group in Worcester, Mass., offered these tips about boosting drug adherence:

• Develop trust with patients. “They need to trust that I’m their advocate, and that they’re my No. 1 reason for prescribing the medication, and not making myself more money,” he said.
• Provide educational resources. “We give them resources online. If their EHR [electronic health record] identifies that they’re diabetic, then they get information about diabetes printed out.”
• Use technology to promote messages about diabetes. Dr. Garber said his clinic has installed screens in the examination rooms so that he can show patients their data. “It [makes it] very clear for them to see why what they’re doing now is not working,’’ and why there is a need to change to a different regimen. In addition, screens in the waiting room can display educational slides about diabetes.
• Set up clinic-wide medication protocols. “We’ve set up protocols and pathways for diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol to make it easy to prescribe medications that are lower cost and to make sure we’re following the same path,” Dr. Garber said.
• Stay independent. “I haven’t seen a drug rep in decades. It’s an organizational policy that we don’t see them, so we’re less likely to be biased.”
• Make it easier for patients to take medications. Dr. Garber urged colleagues to talk to their patients about using strategies such as printed pill schedules, weekly pill organizers, auto refills, and smartphone alarm reminders to facilitate adherence.

And, he said, you may wish to make it clear that you will check on whether prescriptions are filled. That way, “the patients know that you’re looking,” and it can actually lead to improved adherence.

Dr. Choudhry reported that his research has been funded by unrestricted grants to his institution from insurers, government funders, nonprofit foundations, pharmaceutical companies (including Merck, Sanofi, and Astra Zeneca), and device makers (including Medisafe). Dr. Garber reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Are you having trouble helping patients take their diabetes medications as directed? Try installing 32-inch screens in the examination rooms for a lab result show-and-tell. Keep pharmaceutical marketers out of your hair (and office). Talk about smartphone alarms, promote auto-fill services, and understand why patients don’t adhere to their regimens.

Those are among the suggestions offered by two physicians during a symposium on drug adherence at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

“Nonadherence is not a case of patients being bad,” said internist and researcher Niteesh K. Choudhry, MD, PhD, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. “When half of your patients are nonadherent, I can guarantee you [they] aren’t trying to hurt themselves.”

According to Dr. Choudhry’s own research published in 2011 and based on 2008 data, about 25% of patients do not fill prescriptions after leaving their doctors’ offices. That level for diabetes medications – 42% of patients – is especially high (Am J Med. 2011;124[11]:1081.e9-22).

Other findings, he said, have suggested that half of patients fail to adhere to evidence-based prescribed regimens over the long term. And three groups have especially low levels of adherence: people of color, women, and patients who are caregivers (possibly because they are too busy caring for others to care for themselves).

Various factors affect adherence, including forgetfulness, drug interactions or side effects, and the different colors and shapes of pills. The latter can confuse patients because colors and shapes may be different from prescription to prescription even for the same medication, he said.

Dr. Choudhry added that there’s another factor: multiple prescriptions from multiple physicians that require multiple pharmacy visits. His findings suggest that adherence improves when prescriptions are consolidated to limit the need to visit the drugstore. “The chaos of our health care system leads to nonadherence,” he said (Arch Intern Med. 2011;171[9]:814-22).

Internist Lawrence Garber, MD, of Reliant Medical Group in Worcester, Mass., offered these tips about boosting drug adherence:

• Develop trust with patients. “They need to trust that I’m their advocate, and that they’re my No. 1 reason for prescribing the medication, and not making myself more money,” he said.
• Provide educational resources. “We give them resources online. If their EHR [electronic health record] identifies that they’re diabetic, then they get information about diabetes printed out.”
• Use technology to promote messages about diabetes. Dr. Garber said his clinic has installed screens in the examination rooms so that he can show patients their data. “It [makes it] very clear for them to see why what they’re doing now is not working,’’ and why there is a need to change to a different regimen. In addition, screens in the waiting room can display educational slides about diabetes.
• Set up clinic-wide medication protocols. “We’ve set up protocols and pathways for diabetes, hypertension, and high cholesterol to make it easy to prescribe medications that are lower cost and to make sure we’re following the same path,” Dr. Garber said.
• Stay independent. “I haven’t seen a drug rep in decades. It’s an organizational policy that we don’t see them, so we’re less likely to be biased.”
• Make it easier for patients to take medications. Dr. Garber urged colleagues to talk to their patients about using strategies such as printed pill schedules, weekly pill organizers, auto refills, and smartphone alarm reminders to facilitate adherence.

And, he said, you may wish to make it clear that you will check on whether prescriptions are filled. That way, “the patients know that you’re looking,” and it can actually lead to improved adherence.

Dr. Choudhry reported that his research has been funded by unrestricted grants to his institution from insurers, government funders, nonprofit foundations, pharmaceutical companies (including Merck, Sanofi, and Astra Zeneca), and device makers (including Medisafe). Dr. Garber reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – Here’s potential bad news for everyone who dines on skim milk and non-fat yogurt: High-fat dairy products may be better for you, at least if you want to stave off metabolic syndrome (MetS), according to a new study.

Jupiterimages/Getty Images

The findings aren’t conclusive. Still, researchers found that “among whites and African- Americans, the whole milk/high-fat dairy pattern had a protective effect on the risk of metabolic syndrome,” said epidemiologist and study lead author Dale Hardy, PhD, of Morehouse School of Medicine, in an interview. She presented the study findings at the scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Hardy launched her research as part of a project that’s examining relationships between diet, genes, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases in whites and African-Americans.

According to a 2017 study, an estimated 34% of adults in the U.S. from 2007-2012 had MetS, defined as the presence of at least 3 of these factors – elevated waist circumference, elevated triglycerides, reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high blood pressure, and elevated fasting blood glucose (Prev Chronic Dis. 2017 Mar 16;14:E24).

MetS is linked to higher rates of a variety of ills, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and early death.

For the new study, Dr. Hardy and colleagues examined data from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study (1987-1998) and food questionnaires (1987 and 1993). There were 9,778 white participants and 2,922 African-American participants.

Subjects with diets higher in whole milk/high-fat dairy diets were significantly less likely to develop MetS per 5-unit increase at risk ratio (RR) =.96 (0.90-1.00), for whites and RR = .81 (0.72-0.90), for African-Americans.

But whites with skim milk/low-fat dairy diets had significantly higher risks of MetS per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.11 (1.06-1.17). There was also a higher risk for African-Americans but it was not statistically significant.

There was an even bigger bump in significant risk for those with diets higher in red and processed meat per 5-unit increase at RR = 1.17 (1.12-1.23), for whites and RR=1.16 (1.08-1.25), for African-Americans.

The researchers also found evidence that whole milk/high-fat dairy diets had an even greater protective effect in whites when genetic risk was present.

What’s going on? “Maybe the fat in the [dairy] foods is holding back glucose absorption and decreasing the risk for MetS over time,” Hardy said. “This fat is different from the animal fats from meats. Fat from dairy has a shorter molecular structure chain compared to the hard animal fats. Hard animal fats are more dangerous in terms of increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.”

The dairy fat, Hardy said, could also be lowering insulin secretion.

So should everyone embrace whole milk and high-fat yogurt and cottage cheese? Hardy isn’t ready to offer this advice. “I don’t think that high-fat diary per se should be recommended as a miracle food to manage or prevent MetS,” she said. “I believe that the macronutrient composition of the meals and the day’s intake should be a more important feature of the diet. In addition, frequent exercise should be recommended to manage MetS.”

More analysis of the data is ongoing, Hardy said, and her team has found signs that diets higher in nuts and peanut butter are protective against MetS in whites.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The study authors had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hardy, D. et al. 2019 ADA annual meeting Abstract 1458-P.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

SAN FRANCISCO – A new meta-analysis suggests – but does not prove – that black patients with type 2 diabetes may not benefit from the widely heralded cardioprotective effects of the diabetes drugs classified as sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonists.

“Both are excellent classes of medications that improve hemoglobin A_1c, reduce weight, and may have a renal-protective effect. But because there is no clear evidence of [their] cardiovascular benefit in [black] patients, it may remain appropriate to use other [drugs] when metformin fails,” said internist and lead study author Basem Mishriky, MD, of East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C. He spoke after the report was presented at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

Dr. Mishriky cautioned that the findings of the analysis were not conclusive because the trials included in their analysis had a low number of black patients and were not powered to uncover racial differences.

Recent study results have suggested that sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists have significant positive effects on cardiovascular risk. In a 2019 meta-analysis, researchers examined the results of eight trials with 60,082 participants and found that the risk of a composite measure of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular mortality fell by about 12% (SGLT2 inhibitors: hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.01 and GLP-1R agonists: HR, 0.88, 95% CI, 0.78-0.98). The study was published in Diabetic Medicine (2019;36[4]:444-52).

Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues decided to conduct their analysis after noticing the high number of white patients included in the cardiac safety trials of these medications. “We cannot assume that a drug causes benefit in [black] patients just because it improved outcomes in a population that was predominantly white,” he said. “The onset of the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, occur at an earlier age in [black] patients, and there is a high prevalence of sickle cell trait in [black] patients, which is associated with increased risk for diabetes-related complications.”

In addition, some medications, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, may result in lower reductions in blood pressure in black patients, compared with their white counterparts, he noted.

For the new study, Dr. Mishriky and his colleagues included six cardiovascular safety trials of medications in the two classes of drugs (two for SGLT2 inhibitors and four for GLP-1R agonists) that reported statistically significant decreases in cardiovascular risk. The trials included a total of 53,978 patients, of whom 2,794 (5%) were black.

The researchers found no significant evidence of a difference in the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke) between the diabetes medications (SGLT2 inhibitors or GLP-1R agonists) and placebo among black patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, Dr. Mishriky said.

When the two classes of drugs were pooled, the cardiovascular risk in patients who took the drugs, compared with those who received placebo, was statistically insignificant (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.39, P = .88). The risk was also statistically insignificant when the SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were compared separately with placebo (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.47-2.14; P = .99 and RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61-1.53; P = .87; respectively). A comparison of the results for the SGLT2 inhibitors and the GLP-1R agonists showed no difference either.

Dr Mishriky said the results suggest that alternative medications to SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists, such as pioglitazone (Actos) and dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, might be considered for black patients who fail metformin.

He noted that, given the limitations of the trials included in the analysis, additional trials with SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1R agonists were needed to evaluate cardiovascular benefit in black patients.

An expanded version of the meta-analysis will be published soon, he added.

Dr Mishriky and his colleagues reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Mishriky B et al. ADA 2019, Abstract 242-OR.

Children with Down syndrome often have sleep‐disordered breathing (SDB), and a new study suggests that long-term monitoring via sleep studies is warranted because the condition frequently persists and recurs.

©DenKuvaiev/Thinkstock

“Current screening recommendations to assess for SDB at a particular age may not be adequate in this population,” the authors of the study stated, adding that “persistence/recurrence of SDB is not easily predicted.”

The study, led by Joy Nehme, BSc, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the University of Ottawa, was published in Pediatric Pulmonology.

According to the study, research suggests that 43%-66% of children with Down syndrome have SDB, a category that encompasses sleep apnea (both obstructive and central) and hypoventilation. Those numbers are several times higher than the prevalence of SDB in children in the general population (1%-5%).

“Because SDB is associated with cardiometabolic and neurocognitive morbidity, its prompt and accurate diagnosis is important,” the researchers wrote. However, diagnosis requires a sleep study, which is not always performed although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children with Down syndrome undergo one by age 4.

Treatments include adenotonsillectomy (considered first-line), positive airway pressure, and lingual tonsillectomy.

The study aims to fill in gaps in knowledge about the condition over the long term since “there is little available literature on the trajectory of SDB in children and youth with Down syndrome over time.”

The researchers launched a retrospective study of 560 children with Down syndrome who were treated from 2004 to 2015 at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Of those, 120 showed signs of SDB and underwent sleep studies (48% male, median age 6.6 years [range 4.5-10.5], median total apnea‐hypopnea index events per hour = 3.4 [1.6-10.8]).

Of the 120 children, 67 (56%) had obstructive-mixed SDB, 9 (8%) had central sleep apnea, and 5 (4%) had hypoventilation. The others (39, 32%) had no SDB.

Fifty-four children underwent at least two sleep studies during the period of the study, with at least one undergoing seven.

Researchers found weak, nonsignificant evidence that SDB persistence/occurrence varied by age (odds ratio per year = 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.41; P = .13).

As for treatment, adenotonsillectomy was most common, although “previous studies have ... shown that moderate to severe OSA in children with Down syndrome is likely to persist after a tonsillectomy.”

In regard to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) specifically, the authors wrote, “our study ... showed that OSA‐SDB persisted or recurred in the vast majority of children. Further, persistence/recurrence could not be predicted by clinical features or SDB severity in our study. This, therefore, highlights the need for serial longitudinal screening for SDB in this population and for follow‐up PSG to ensure the success of treatment interventions.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Nehme J et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019 Jun 6. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24380.

Children with Down syndrome often have sleep‐disordered breathing (SDB), and a new study suggests that long-term monitoring via sleep studies is warranted because the condition frequently persists and recurs.

©DenKuvaiev/Thinkstock

“Current screening recommendations to assess for SDB at a particular age may not be adequate in this population,” the authors of the study stated, adding that “persistence/recurrence of SDB is not easily predicted.”

The study, led by Joy Nehme, BSc, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the University of Ottawa, was published in Pediatric Pulmonology.

According to the study, research suggests that 43%-66% of children with Down syndrome have SDB, a category that encompasses sleep apnea (both obstructive and central) and hypoventilation. Those numbers are several times higher than the prevalence of SDB in children in the general population (1%-5%).

“Because SDB is associated with cardiometabolic and neurocognitive morbidity, its prompt and accurate diagnosis is important,” the researchers wrote. However, diagnosis requires a sleep study, which is not always performed although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children with Down syndrome undergo one by age 4.

Treatments include adenotonsillectomy (considered first-line), positive airway pressure, and lingual tonsillectomy.

The study aims to fill in gaps in knowledge about the condition over the long term since “there is little available literature on the trajectory of SDB in children and youth with Down syndrome over time.”

The researchers launched a retrospective study of 560 children with Down syndrome who were treated from 2004 to 2015 at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Of those, 120 showed signs of SDB and underwent sleep studies (48% male, median age 6.6 years [range 4.5-10.5], median total apnea‐hypopnea index events per hour = 3.4 [1.6-10.8]).

Of the 120 children, 67 (56%) had obstructive-mixed SDB, 9 (8%) had central sleep apnea, and 5 (4%) had hypoventilation. The others (39, 32%) had no SDB.

Fifty-four children underwent at least two sleep studies during the period of the study, with at least one undergoing seven.

Researchers found weak, nonsignificant evidence that SDB persistence/occurrence varied by age (odds ratio per year = 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.41; P = .13).

As for treatment, adenotonsillectomy was most common, although “previous studies have ... shown that moderate to severe OSA in children with Down syndrome is likely to persist after a tonsillectomy.”

In regard to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) specifically, the authors wrote, “our study ... showed that OSA‐SDB persisted or recurred in the vast majority of children. Further, persistence/recurrence could not be predicted by clinical features or SDB severity in our study. This, therefore, highlights the need for serial longitudinal screening for SDB in this population and for follow‐up PSG to ensure the success of treatment interventions.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Nehme J et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019 Jun 6. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24380.

Children with Down syndrome often have sleep‐disordered breathing (SDB), and a new study suggests that long-term monitoring via sleep studies is warranted because the condition frequently persists and recurs.

©DenKuvaiev/Thinkstock

“Current screening recommendations to assess for SDB at a particular age may not be adequate in this population,” the authors of the study stated, adding that “persistence/recurrence of SDB is not easily predicted.”

The study, led by Joy Nehme, BSc, of Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario and the University of Ottawa, was published in Pediatric Pulmonology.

According to the study, research suggests that 43%-66% of children with Down syndrome have SDB, a category that encompasses sleep apnea (both obstructive and central) and hypoventilation. Those numbers are several times higher than the prevalence of SDB in children in the general population (1%-5%).

“Because SDB is associated with cardiometabolic and neurocognitive morbidity, its prompt and accurate diagnosis is important,” the researchers wrote. However, diagnosis requires a sleep study, which is not always performed although the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children with Down syndrome undergo one by age 4.

Treatments include adenotonsillectomy (considered first-line), positive airway pressure, and lingual tonsillectomy.

The study aims to fill in gaps in knowledge about the condition over the long term since “there is little available literature on the trajectory of SDB in children and youth with Down syndrome over time.”

The researchers launched a retrospective study of 560 children with Down syndrome who were treated from 2004 to 2015 at Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Of those, 120 showed signs of SDB and underwent sleep studies (48% male, median age 6.6 years [range 4.5-10.5], median total apnea‐hypopnea index events per hour = 3.4 [1.6-10.8]).

Of the 120 children, 67 (56%) had obstructive-mixed SDB, 9 (8%) had central sleep apnea, and 5 (4%) had hypoventilation. The others (39, 32%) had no SDB.

Fifty-four children underwent at least two sleep studies during the period of the study, with at least one undergoing seven.

Researchers found weak, nonsignificant evidence that SDB persistence/occurrence varied by age (odds ratio per year = 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-1.41; P = .13).

As for treatment, adenotonsillectomy was most common, although “previous studies have ... shown that moderate to severe OSA in children with Down syndrome is likely to persist after a tonsillectomy.”

In regard to obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) specifically, the authors wrote, “our study ... showed that OSA‐SDB persisted or recurred in the vast majority of children. Further, persistence/recurrence could not be predicted by clinical features or SDB severity in our study. This, therefore, highlights the need for serial longitudinal screening for SDB in this population and for follow‐up PSG to ensure the success of treatment interventions.”

No study funding was reported. The study authors reported no disclosures.

SOURCE: Nehme J et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2019 Jun 6. doi: 10.1002/ppul.24380.