I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

I began practicing medicine on July 1, 1981. In the 43-plus years since then, I have not missed a single day in the office because of illness. Does that mean I have never been sick? Of course not. I have simply never felt that I was sick enough to warrant staying home.

There are several reasons, both good and bad, why this is so: (1) like most physicians, I am a terrible patient; (2) as a solo practitioner, there was (until recently — I’ll get to that in a minute) no one else to see an office full of patients who had waited significant amounts of time for their appointments and in many cases had taken off work themselves to keep them; and (3) there is an unspoken rule against it. Taking sick days is highly frowned upon in the medical world. As a medical student, intern, and resident I was told in so many words not to call in sick, no matter how serious the illness might be.

Apparently, I was not the only doctor-in-training to receive that message. In a survey reported in JAMA Pediatrics several years ago, 95% of the physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) surveyed believed that working while sick put patients at risk — yet 83% reported working sick at least one time over the prior year. They understood the risks, but did it anyway.

There is no question that this practice does put patients’ health at risk. The JAMA study linked numerous reports of outbreaks traceable to symptomatic healthcare workers. Some outbreaks of flu, staph infections, norovirus, and pertussis were shown to originate from a sick physician or supporting staff member. These associations have led to increased morbidity and mortality, as well as excess costs. Those of us who treat immunocompromised patients on a regular basis risk inducing a life-threatening illness by unnecessarily exposing them to pathogens.

The JAMA survey results also confirmed my own observation that many physicians feel boxed in by their institutions or practice situations. “The study illustrates the complex social and logistic factors that cause this behavior,” the authors wrote. “These results may inform efforts to design systems at our hospital to provide support for attending physicians and APCs and help them make the right choice to keep their patients and colleagues safe while caring for themselves.” 

What might those efforts look like? For one thing, we can take the obvious and necessary steps to avoid getting sick in the first place, such as staying fit and hydrated, and eating well. We can keep up with routine health visits and measures such as colorectal screening, pap smears, and mammograms, and stay up to date with flu shots and all other essential immunizations.

Next, we can minimize the risk of spreading any illnesses we encounter in the course of our work by practicing the basic infectious disease prevention measures driven home so forcefully by the recent COVID-19 pandemic — washing our hands, using hand sanitizers, and, when appropriate, wearing gloves and masks.

Finally, we can work to overcome this institutional taboo against staying home when we do get sick. Work out a system of mutual coverage for such situations. Two years ago, I merged my solo practice with a local, larger group. I did it for a variety of reasons, but a principal one was to assure that a partner could cover for me if I became ill. Practitioners who choose to remain solo or in small groups should contact colleagues and work out a coverage agreement.

Now, during flu season, it is especially important to resist the temptation to work while sick. The CDC has guidelines for employees specific for the flu, which notes that “persons with the flu are most contagious during the first 3 days of their illness,” and should remain at home until at least 24 hours after their fever subsides (without the use of fever-reducing medications) or after symptoms have improved (at least 4-5 days after they started) — or, if they do not have a fever, after symptoms improve “for at least 4-5 days after the onset of symptoms.”

Of course, we need to remember that COVID-19 is still with us. With the constant evolution of new strains, it is especially important to avoid exposing patients and colleagues to the disease should you become infected. The most recent advice from the CDC includes the recommendation that those who are mildly ill and not moderately or severely immunocompromised should isolate after SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 5 days after symptom onset (day 0 is the day symptoms appeared, and day 1 is the next full day thereafter) if fever has resolved for at least 24 hours (without taking fever-reducing medications) and other symptoms are improving. In addition, “a high-quality mask should be worn around others at home and in public through day 10.”

We should also extend these rules to our support staff, starting with providing them with adequate sick leave and encouraging them to use it when necessary. Research has found a direct correlation between preventative health care and the number of paid sick leave days a worker gets. In a study of over 3000 US workers, those with 10 paid sick days or more annually accessed preventative care more frequently than those without paid sick days.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Key clinical point: The serum levels of vitamin D are significantly lower in patients with newly diagnosed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) than in control individuals without EoE; however, vitamin D levels are not strongly linked with the clinical, endoscopic, or histologic features of EoE.

Major finding: Mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D₃ levels were lower by 10.8 ng/mL in patients with EoE vs control individuals (95% CI −19.0 to −2.51). However, these levels were neither associated with differences in clinical or endoscopic features of EoE nor did they significantly correlate with EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores and eosinophil counts (Pearson’s R −0.28, P = .08; and −0.01, P = .93, respectively).

Study details: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study used the data of adults who underwent endoscopy and biopsy for upper gastrointestinal symptoms, of whom 40 were diagnosed with EoE and 40 were control individuals without EoE.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cameron BA et al. Vitamin D levels as a potential modifier of eosinophilic esophagitis severity in adults. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 (Jan 6). doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08264-x

Key clinical point: The serum levels of vitamin D are significantly lower in patients with newly diagnosed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) than in control individuals without EoE; however, vitamin D levels are not strongly linked with the clinical, endoscopic, or histologic features of EoE.

Major finding: Mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D₃ levels were lower by 10.8 ng/mL in patients with EoE vs control individuals (95% CI −19.0 to −2.51). However, these levels were neither associated with differences in clinical or endoscopic features of EoE nor did they significantly correlate with EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores and eosinophil counts (Pearson’s R −0.28, P = .08; and −0.01, P = .93, respectively).

Study details: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study used the data of adults who underwent endoscopy and biopsy for upper gastrointestinal symptoms, of whom 40 were diagnosed with EoE and 40 were control individuals without EoE.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cameron BA et al. Vitamin D levels as a potential modifier of eosinophilic esophagitis severity in adults. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 (Jan 6). doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08264-x

Key clinical point: The serum levels of vitamin D are significantly lower in patients with newly diagnosed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) than in control individuals without EoE; however, vitamin D levels are not strongly linked with the clinical, endoscopic, or histologic features of EoE.

Major finding: Mean serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D₃ levels were lower by 10.8 ng/mL in patients with EoE vs control individuals (95% CI −19.0 to −2.51). However, these levels were neither associated with differences in clinical or endoscopic features of EoE nor did they significantly correlate with EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores and eosinophil counts (Pearson’s R −0.28, P = .08; and −0.01, P = .93, respectively).

Study details: This secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study used the data of adults who underwent endoscopy and biopsy for upper gastrointestinal symptoms, of whom 40 were diagnosed with EoE and 40 were control individuals without EoE.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cameron BA et al. Vitamin D levels as a potential modifier of eosinophilic esophagitis severity in adults. Dig Dis Sci. 2024 (Jan 6). doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08264-x

Key clinical point: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) who test positive for food and environmental allergens may report a lower response to proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment, a first-line treatment for EoE.

Major finding: Positive food allergen testing predicted lower odds of histologic response (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.15; P = .0006) and symptom response (aOR 0.22; P = .03) to PPI therapy. Patients with a higher number of positive environmental allergens detected on skin-prick testing (≥10 vs <10) were less likely to respond to PPI (21.0% vs 53.9%; P = .03).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 61 adults with newly diagnosed EoE who underwent formal allergy testing for food and environmental allergens and received PPI therapy twice daily after EoE diagnosis.

Disclosures: The corresponding author WW Chan declared serving on the scientific advisory board for a several pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Muftah M et al. Allergic phenotype identified on allergen testing is associated with proton pump inhibitor nonresponse in eosinophilic esophagitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 (Jan 7). doi: 10.1111/jgh.16469

Key clinical point: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) who test positive for food and environmental allergens may report a lower response to proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment, a first-line treatment for EoE.

Major finding: Positive food allergen testing predicted lower odds of histologic response (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.15; P = .0006) and symptom response (aOR 0.22; P = .03) to PPI therapy. Patients with a higher number of positive environmental allergens detected on skin-prick testing (≥10 vs <10) were less likely to respond to PPI (21.0% vs 53.9%; P = .03).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 61 adults with newly diagnosed EoE who underwent formal allergy testing for food and environmental allergens and received PPI therapy twice daily after EoE diagnosis.

Disclosures: The corresponding author WW Chan declared serving on the scientific advisory board for a several pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Muftah M et al. Allergic phenotype identified on allergen testing is associated with proton pump inhibitor nonresponse in eosinophilic esophagitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 (Jan 7). doi: 10.1111/jgh.16469

Key clinical point: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) who test positive for food and environmental allergens may report a lower response to proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment, a first-line treatment for EoE.

Major finding: Positive food allergen testing predicted lower odds of histologic response (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.15; P = .0006) and symptom response (aOR 0.22; P = .03) to PPI therapy. Patients with a higher number of positive environmental allergens detected on skin-prick testing (≥10 vs <10) were less likely to respond to PPI (21.0% vs 53.9%; P = .03).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study including 61 adults with newly diagnosed EoE who underwent formal allergy testing for food and environmental allergens and received PPI therapy twice daily after EoE diagnosis.

Disclosures: The corresponding author WW Chan declared serving on the scientific advisory board for a several pharmaceutical companies.

Source: Muftah M et al. Allergic phenotype identified on allergen testing is associated with proton pump inhibitor nonresponse in eosinophilic esophagitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2024 (Jan 7). doi: 10.1111/jgh.16469

Key clinical point: Budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) induces clinicohistological remission irrespective of the distribution of esophageal eosinophilia. Histological categories are not predictors of treatment response in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Major finding: Histological categories were not found to be significantly associated with treatment outcome (mid: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.75; 95% CI 0.588-5.25; distal: aOR 1.42; 95% CI 0.535-3.60; diffuse: aOR 0.910; 95% CI 0.358-2.19).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EOS-1 and EOS-2 trials included 263 patients with EoE having either proximal, mid, or distal esophagus predominant disease or diffuse disease who received a 6-week induction treatment with BOT.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others. Some authors declared serving as consultants for or receiving speaker or consulting fees or travel grants from various sources.

Source: Godat A et al on behalf of the EoE eosinophil distribution research group. Eosinophil distribution in eosinophilic esophagitis and its impact on disease activity and response to treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 (Dec 15). doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.003

Key clinical point: Budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) induces clinicohistological remission irrespective of the distribution of esophageal eosinophilia. Histological categories are not predictors of treatment response in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Major finding: Histological categories were not found to be significantly associated with treatment outcome (mid: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.75; 95% CI 0.588-5.25; distal: aOR 1.42; 95% CI 0.535-3.60; diffuse: aOR 0.910; 95% CI 0.358-2.19).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EOS-1 and EOS-2 trials included 263 patients with EoE having either proximal, mid, or distal esophagus predominant disease or diffuse disease who received a 6-week induction treatment with BOT.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others. Some authors declared serving as consultants for or receiving speaker or consulting fees or travel grants from various sources.

Source: Godat A et al on behalf of the EoE eosinophil distribution research group. Eosinophil distribution in eosinophilic esophagitis and its impact on disease activity and response to treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 (Dec 15). doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.003

Key clinical point: Budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) induces clinicohistological remission irrespective of the distribution of esophageal eosinophilia. Histological categories are not predictors of treatment response in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE).

Major finding: Histological categories were not found to be significantly associated with treatment outcome (mid: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.75; 95% CI 0.588-5.25; distal: aOR 1.42; 95% CI 0.535-3.60; diffuse: aOR 0.910; 95% CI 0.358-2.19).

Study details: This post hoc analysis of the phase 3 EOS-1 and EOS-2 trials included 263 patients with EoE having either proximal, mid, or distal esophagus predominant disease or diffuse disease who received a 6-week induction treatment with BOT.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and others. Some authors declared serving as consultants for or receiving speaker or consulting fees or travel grants from various sources.

Source: Godat A et al on behalf of the EoE eosinophil distribution research group. Eosinophil distribution in eosinophilic esophagitis and its impact on disease activity and response to treatment. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 (Dec 15). doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.003

Key clinical point: The levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) may be used to track disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients and may aid the diagnosis of EoE in patients with challenging conditions, such as distal eosinophilia.

Major finding: The average endoscopic reference score (EREFS; 3.4 vs 0.4; P < .001) and EDN concentrations (135.8 µg/mL vs 3.2 µg/mL; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients with active EoE vs control individuals. In patients with exclusive distant eosinophilia, positive (≥10 µg/mL) vs negative EDN concentrations correlated with significantly higher EREFS (3.33 vs 1.35, P < .001), which indicated a diagnosis of EoE.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study that included children and young adults who underwent routine endoscopy with biopsy and EDN esophageal epithelial brushings, of whom 140 had EoE and 91 were control individuals without EoE.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Thomas J et al. Addressing diagnostic dilemmas in eosinophilic esophagitis using esophageal epithelial eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1002/jpn3.12054

Key clinical point: The levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) may be used to track disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients and may aid the diagnosis of EoE in patients with challenging conditions, such as distal eosinophilia.

Major finding: The average endoscopic reference score (EREFS; 3.4 vs 0.4; P < .001) and EDN concentrations (135.8 µg/mL vs 3.2 µg/mL; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients with active EoE vs control individuals. In patients with exclusive distant eosinophilia, positive (≥10 µg/mL) vs negative EDN concentrations correlated with significantly higher EREFS (3.33 vs 1.35, P < .001), which indicated a diagnosis of EoE.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study that included children and young adults who underwent routine endoscopy with biopsy and EDN esophageal epithelial brushings, of whom 140 had EoE and 91 were control individuals without EoE.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Thomas J et al. Addressing diagnostic dilemmas in eosinophilic esophagitis using esophageal epithelial eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1002/jpn3.12054

Key clinical point: The levels of eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) may be used to track disease activity in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients and may aid the diagnosis of EoE in patients with challenging conditions, such as distal eosinophilia.

Major finding: The average endoscopic reference score (EREFS; 3.4 vs 0.4; P < .001) and EDN concentrations (135.8 µg/mL vs 3.2 µg/mL; P < .001) were significantly higher in patients with active EoE vs control individuals. In patients with exclusive distant eosinophilia, positive (≥10 µg/mL) vs negative EDN concentrations correlated with significantly higher EREFS (3.33 vs 1.35, P < .001), which indicated a diagnosis of EoE.

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective study that included children and young adults who underwent routine endoscopy with biopsy and EDN esophageal epithelial brushings, of whom 140 had EoE and 91 were control individuals without EoE.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Thomas J et al. Addressing diagnostic dilemmas in eosinophilic esophagitis using esophageal epithelial eosinophil-derived neurotoxin. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2023 (Dec 27). doi: 10.1002/jpn3.12054

Key clinical point: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may also present with non-EoE eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID) with esophageal involvement (EI; EGID + EI) if they have high levels of peripheral blood eosinophils.

Major finding: Patients with EGID + EI vs EoE were more likely to have eczema (P = .003), food allergy (P < .001), abdominal pain (60.9% vs 45.0%; P = .002), and higher peripheral blood eosinophil levels (0.44 × 10³/µL vs 0.38 × 10³/µL; P = .027).

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 592 patients with isolated EoE and 190 patients with EGID + EI.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health. ME Rothenberg and corresponding author T Shoda declared serving as a consultant or being inventors or co-inventors of patents.

Source: Sato H et al. Eosinophil involvement outside the esophagus in eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 (Dec 14). doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.004

Key clinical point: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may also present with non-EoE eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID) with esophageal involvement (EI; EGID + EI) if they have high levels of peripheral blood eosinophils.

Major finding: Patients with EGID + EI vs EoE were more likely to have eczema (P = .003), food allergy (P < .001), abdominal pain (60.9% vs 45.0%; P = .002), and higher peripheral blood eosinophil levels (0.44 × 10³/µL vs 0.38 × 10³/µL; P = .027).

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 592 patients with isolated EoE and 190 patients with EGID + EI.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health. ME Rothenberg and corresponding author T Shoda declared serving as a consultant or being inventors or co-inventors of patents.

Source: Sato H et al. Eosinophil involvement outside the esophagus in eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 (Dec 14). doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.004

Key clinical point: Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) may also present with non-EoE eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID) with esophageal involvement (EI; EGID + EI) if they have high levels of peripheral blood eosinophils.

Major finding: Patients with EGID + EI vs EoE were more likely to have eczema (P = .003), food allergy (P < .001), abdominal pain (60.9% vs 45.0%; P = .002), and higher peripheral blood eosinophil levels (0.44 × 10³/µL vs 0.38 × 10³/µL; P = .027).

Study details: Findings are from an observational cohort study including 592 patients with isolated EoE and 190 patients with EGID + EI.

Disclosures: This study was supported by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health. ME Rothenberg and corresponding author T Shoda declared serving as a consultant or being inventors or co-inventors of patents.

Source: Sato H et al. Eosinophil involvement outside the esophagus in eosinophilic esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 (Dec 14). doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.12.004

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody treatment with galcanezumab showed higher treatment persistence, lower treatment discontinuation, and similar adherence compared with those initiating fremanezumab or erenumab.

Major finding: Compared with fremanezumab, galcanezumab initiators showed higher rates of treatment persistence (P = .001) and lower treatment discontinuation (P = .005). Compared with erenumab, galcanezumab initiators had lower treatment discontinuation (P = .040). Patient adherence was similar among those who initiated galcanezumab vs fremanezumab or erenumab.

Study details: This retrospective real-world study included patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab treatment who were matched with those initiating fremanezumab (n = 2674) or erenumab (n = 3503) treatment using propensity score matching.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Varnado OJ et al. Comparison of treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies: A Retrospective Real-World US Study. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2024;18:69-88 (Jan 9). doi: 10.2147/PPA.S437396

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody treatment with galcanezumab showed higher treatment persistence, lower treatment discontinuation, and similar adherence compared with those initiating fremanezumab or erenumab.

Major finding: Compared with fremanezumab, galcanezumab initiators showed higher rates of treatment persistence (P = .001) and lower treatment discontinuation (P = .005). Compared with erenumab, galcanezumab initiators had lower treatment discontinuation (P = .040). Patient adherence was similar among those who initiated galcanezumab vs fremanezumab or erenumab.

Study details: This retrospective real-world study included patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab treatment who were matched with those initiating fremanezumab (n = 2674) or erenumab (n = 3503) treatment using propensity score matching.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Varnado OJ et al. Comparison of treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies: A Retrospective Real-World US Study. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2024;18:69-88 (Jan 9). doi: 10.2147/PPA.S437396

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibody treatment with galcanezumab showed higher treatment persistence, lower treatment discontinuation, and similar adherence compared with those initiating fremanezumab or erenumab.

Major finding: Compared with fremanezumab, galcanezumab initiators showed higher rates of treatment persistence (P = .001) and lower treatment discontinuation (P = .005). Compared with erenumab, galcanezumab initiators had lower treatment discontinuation (P = .040). Patient adherence was similar among those who initiated galcanezumab vs fremanezumab or erenumab.

Study details: This retrospective real-world study included patients with migraine initiating galcanezumab treatment who were matched with those initiating fremanezumab (n = 2674) or erenumab (n = 3503) treatment using propensity score matching.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Varnado OJ et al. Comparison of treatment patterns in patients with migraine initiating calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies: A Retrospective Real-World US Study. Patient Preference and Adherence. 2024;18:69-88 (Jan 9). doi: 10.2147/PPA.S437396

Key clinical point: Patients with episodic migraine without aura (EMoA) presented a higher delayed discounting rate, which was positively associated with the migraine history.

Major finding: Patients with EMoA vs control individuals showed a significantly higher subjective discount rate (F = 4.74; P = .032), which was positively correlated with migraine history (r = 0.742; P < .001). The resting-state functional connectivity between the left ventral striatum and middle occipital gyrus was significantly associated with migraine history (r′ = 0.294; P = .036) and subjective discount rate (r′ = 0.380; P = .006).

Study details: This study included 51 patients with EMoA and 45 control individuals who underwent task-based and multi-model magnetic resonance imaging.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Foundation for the Cultivation of Doctoral Research Talents, and the 2021 Youth Foundation Training Program of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang L et al. Patients with episodic migraine without aura have an increased rate of delayed discounting. Brain Behav. 2024;14(1):e3367 (Jan 2). doi: 10.1002/brb3.3367

Key clinical point: Patients with episodic migraine without aura (EMoA) presented a higher delayed discounting rate, which was positively associated with the migraine history.

Major finding: Patients with EMoA vs control individuals showed a significantly higher subjective discount rate (F = 4.74; P = .032), which was positively correlated with migraine history (r = 0.742; P < .001). The resting-state functional connectivity between the left ventral striatum and middle occipital gyrus was significantly associated with migraine history (r′ = 0.294; P = .036) and subjective discount rate (r′ = 0.380; P = .006).

Study details: This study included 51 patients with EMoA and 45 control individuals who underwent task-based and multi-model magnetic resonance imaging.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Foundation for the Cultivation of Doctoral Research Talents, and the 2021 Youth Foundation Training Program of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang L et al. Patients with episodic migraine without aura have an increased rate of delayed discounting. Brain Behav. 2024;14(1):e3367 (Jan 2). doi: 10.1002/brb3.3367

Key clinical point: Patients with episodic migraine without aura (EMoA) presented a higher delayed discounting rate, which was positively associated with the migraine history.

Major finding: Patients with EMoA vs control individuals showed a significantly higher subjective discount rate (F = 4.74; P = .032), which was positively correlated with migraine history (r = 0.742; P < .001). The resting-state functional connectivity between the left ventral striatum and middle occipital gyrus was significantly associated with migraine history (r′ = 0.294; P = .036) and subjective discount rate (r′ = 0.380; P = .006).

Study details: This study included 51 patients with EMoA and 45 control individuals who underwent task-based and multi-model magnetic resonance imaging.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Foundation for the Cultivation of Doctoral Research Talents, and the 2021 Youth Foundation Training Program of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wang L et al. Patients with episodic migraine without aura have an increased rate of delayed discounting. Brain Behav. 2024;14(1):e3367 (Jan 2). doi: 10.1002/brb3.3367

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine have increased risk for incident Parkinson's disease (PD), with younger age and underlying dyslipidemia aggravating the risk for PD among women and men with migraine, respectively.

Major finding: The risk of incident PD was 1.35-fold (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI 1.29-1.41) higher in patients with vs without migraine, with the risk of PD being significantly higher among younger vs older women (age < 65 years vs ≥ 65 years; P = .038) and men with vs without dyslipidemia (P = .012).

Study details: This retrospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study included 214,193 individuals with migraine and 5,879,711 individuals without migraine, of whom 1973 (0.92%) and 30,664 (0.52%) individuals with and without migraine, respectively, were diagnosed with PD.

Disclosures: This research was supported by a grant from the National Research Foundation, Technology Development Program, and Technology Innovation Program. Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ha WS et al. The association between migraine and Parkinson's disease: A nationwide cohort study. Epidemiol Health. 2023 (Dec 18). doi: 10.4178/epih.e2024010

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine have increased risk for incident Parkinson's disease (PD), with younger age and underlying dyslipidemia aggravating the risk for PD among women and men with migraine, respectively.

Major finding: The risk of incident PD was 1.35-fold (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI 1.29-1.41) higher in patients with vs without migraine, with the risk of PD being significantly higher among younger vs older women (age < 65 years vs ≥ 65 years; P = .038) and men with vs without dyslipidemia (P = .012).

Study details: This retrospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study included 214,193 individuals with migraine and 5,879,711 individuals without migraine, of whom 1973 (0.92%) and 30,664 (0.52%) individuals with and without migraine, respectively, were diagnosed with PD.

Disclosures: This research was supported by a grant from the National Research Foundation, Technology Development Program, and Technology Innovation Program. Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ha WS et al. The association between migraine and Parkinson's disease: A nationwide cohort study. Epidemiol Health. 2023 (Dec 18). doi: 10.4178/epih.e2024010

Key clinical point: Patients with migraine have increased risk for incident Parkinson's disease (PD), with younger age and underlying dyslipidemia aggravating the risk for PD among women and men with migraine, respectively.

Major finding: The risk of incident PD was 1.35-fold (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI 1.29-1.41) higher in patients with vs without migraine, with the risk of PD being significantly higher among younger vs older women (age < 65 years vs ≥ 65 years; P = .038) and men with vs without dyslipidemia (P = .012).

Study details: This retrospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study included 214,193 individuals with migraine and 5,879,711 individuals without migraine, of whom 1973 (0.92%) and 30,664 (0.52%) individuals with and without migraine, respectively, were diagnosed with PD.

Disclosures: This research was supported by a grant from the National Research Foundation, Technology Development Program, and Technology Innovation Program. Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ha WS et al. The association between migraine and Parkinson's disease: A nationwide cohort study. Epidemiol Health. 2023 (Dec 18). doi: 10.4178/epih.e2024010

Key clinical point: In this meta-analysis, migraine was more frequent among patients with vs without epilepsy and epilepsy was more frequent among patients with vs without migraine, highlighting a co-morbid association between migraine and epilepsy.

Major finding: The lifetime prevalence of migraine was 80% higher in patients with epilepsy compared with those without epilepsy (odds ratio [OR]/relative risk [RR] 1.80; P < .001). Similarly, the lifetime prevalence of epilepsy was 80% higher in patients with migraine compared with those without migraine (OR/RR 1.80; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 13 studies that evaluated the association between migraine and epilepsy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wu X and Zhuang J. Association between migraine and epilepsy: A meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2024;14:1276663 (Jan 5). doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1276663

Key clinical point: In this meta-analysis, migraine was more frequent among patients with vs without epilepsy and epilepsy was more frequent among patients with vs without migraine, highlighting a co-morbid association between migraine and epilepsy.

Major finding: The lifetime prevalence of migraine was 80% higher in patients with epilepsy compared with those without epilepsy (odds ratio [OR]/relative risk [RR] 1.80; P < .001). Similarly, the lifetime prevalence of epilepsy was 80% higher in patients with migraine compared with those without migraine (OR/RR 1.80; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 13 studies that evaluated the association between migraine and epilepsy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wu X and Zhuang J. Association between migraine and epilepsy: A meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2024;14:1276663 (Jan 5). doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1276663

Key clinical point: In this meta-analysis, migraine was more frequent among patients with vs without epilepsy and epilepsy was more frequent among patients with vs without migraine, highlighting a co-morbid association between migraine and epilepsy.

Major finding: The lifetime prevalence of migraine was 80% higher in patients with epilepsy compared with those without epilepsy (odds ratio [OR]/relative risk [RR] 1.80; P < .001). Similarly, the lifetime prevalence of epilepsy was 80% higher in patients with migraine compared with those without migraine (OR/RR 1.80; P < .001).

Study details: The data come from a meta-analysis of 13 studies that evaluated the association between migraine and epilepsy.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Wu X and Zhuang J. Association between migraine and epilepsy: A meta-analysis. Front Neurol. 2024;14:1276663 (Jan 5). doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1276663