User login
Strict Glycemic Control for Renal Benefit May Come With Risk
TOPLINE:
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.
METHODOLOGY:
- Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
- The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
- The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
- The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.
TAKEAWAY:
- Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
- Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
- Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.
IN PRACTICE:
“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
LIMITATIONS:
The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.
METHODOLOGY:
- Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
- The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
- The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
- The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.
TAKEAWAY:
- Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
- Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
- Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.
IN PRACTICE:
“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
LIMITATIONS:
The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at an elevated risk for kidney failure may stand to gain the most renal benefit with intensive glycemic control, but they also face the highest overall risk for death and hypoglycemic events.
METHODOLOGY:
- Studies show the primary benefit of intensive glycemic control in T2D is microvascular outcomes, mostly in the kidney, but no clear criteria exist to identify patients who may benefit most.
- Researchers conducted a post hoc analysis of the ACCORD trial, including 9777 patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease or two or more cardiovascular risk factors.
- The 5-year kidney failure risk was estimated using the validated kidney failure risk equation (KFRE).
- The patients were randomly assigned to receive intensive glycemic control (A1c, < 6.0%) or standard glycemic control (A1c, 7.0%-7.9%).
- The primary outcomes were kidney microvascular events and all-cause mortality.
TAKEAWAY:
- Over a 7-year period, intensive vs standard glycemic control delayed the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes by 48.4 days (corresponding hazard ratio [HR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86) but reduced the time to death by 23.6 days (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.40).
- Patients in the highest quartile of 5-year kidney failure risk according to KFRE benefited the most with intensive vs standard glycemic control and reported the longest delay in the onset of kidney microvascular outcomes (114.8 days; 95% CI, 58.1-176.4).
- Although renal outcomes improved, the time to death was shortened by 56.7 days in patients with elevated risk for kidney failure receiving intensive glycemic control.
IN PRACTICE:
“The observed effect of intensive glycemic control on kidney microvascular outcomes in ACCORD is almost entirely driven by a subset of patients representing one quarter of the trial eligible population at elevated risk for kidney failure at baseline,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
Vivek Charu of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, led this study, which was published online on December 11, 2023, in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
LIMITATIONS:
The ACCORD study enrolled participants with a low risk for kidney disease. Therefore, this study lacks relevant data that might be needed to analyze the risks and benefits of intensive glycemic control in a population at high risk for kidney disease. Treatment options and monitoring approaches to glycemic control have evolved in the nearly 20 years since the ACCORD trial, which used insulin and sulfonylurea agents for glycemic control.
DISCLOSURES:
This work was supported by several grants secured by the authors. Some authors declared serving in advisory or leadership roles, receiving honoraria and research funding, and other ties with several sources.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
BC axillary dissection may be unnecessary for isolated tumor cells after NAC
SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.
The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.
The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.
Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.
“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.
However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.
Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.
So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.
Study details
The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.
Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.
Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.
Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.
Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.
The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.
The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.
The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).
Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.
“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.
The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.
SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.
The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.
The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.
Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.
“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.
However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.
Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.
So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.
Study details
The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.
Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.
Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.
Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.
Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.
The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.
The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.
The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).
Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.
“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.
The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.
SAN ANTONIO — Axillary lymph node dissection is the current standard of care in breast cancer when metastases are found in sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
However, what to do when isolated tumor cells instead of outright metastases are found in sentinel nodes is an open question. Some surgeons opt for a full axillary dissection while others do not, and there is no standard of care, explained Giacomo Montagna, MD, a breast cancer surgeon at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York City.
The study led and presented by Dr. Montagna at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium brings some much-needed clarity to the issue.
The findings argue strongly against “routine axillary lymph node dissection” — with its considerable morbidities — “in patients with residual isolated tumor cells after neoadjuvant chemotherapy,” Dr. Montagna said.
Study discussant Elizabeth Mittendorf, MD, PhD, a breast cancer surgeon at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, agreed.
“It appears that the presence of isolated tumor cells in the sentinel nodes does not negatively impact oncologic outcomes. These additional data allow us to debunk some of the surgical dogma we grew up with, specifically that lymph node dissection is required for either survival or local control,” Dr. Mittendorf said.
However, there was concern among audience members that the information gleaned from a full dissection might still be needed to guide follow-on adjuvant therapy decisions.
Dr. Mittendorf didn’t think so. Although additional positive lymph nodes were found in almost a third of women who had axillary dissections in the review, the majority of involved nodes simply had more isolated tumor cells; macrometastases were found in just 5% of cases.
So, for most patients, additional information from axillary dissections is “unlikely needed to inform adjuvant therapy, and in fact,” based on the 5% figure, “we are thinking we would have to do well over a hundred lymph node dissections in such patients to inform treatment recommendations for fewer than five. This comes at the cost of fair morbidity,” she said.
Study details
The retrospective study, dubbed OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO, included 583 women with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer treated at 62 centers in 18 countries. The majority of subjects were from the United States and Europe.
Every patient was found to have isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in their sentinel lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), which generally included anthracycline and taxane-based regimens. The majority of patients did not have a pathologic complete response to NAC.
Overall, 182 patients (31%) had a subsequent axillary lymph node dissection; the rest did not.
Dissections were more common in the presence of lymphovascular invasion and N2/N3 disease as well as when fewer lymph nodes were removed and when ITCs were found during surgery on frozen section, which was the case in a quarter of patients.
Additional positive nodes were found in 30% of patients in the dissection group and consisted of more nodes with ITCs in 18%, micrometastases in 7%, and macrometastases in 5%. Receptor status and nodal status at presentation did not have an impact on the likelihood of finding macrometastases.
The main finding of the study was that there were no statistically significant differences in recurrence outcomes between the two groups.
The 5-year rate of isolated axillary recurrence was 1.7% with axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) versus 1.1% without it. The 5-year rate of any invasive recurrence was 16% in the ALND arm and 19% in the no-dissection group.
The median age in the study was 48 years. The majority of patients (57%) had clinical T2 tumors. Most were HR positive and either HER2 negative (41%) or HER2 positive (28%).
Regional nodal radiation was more common in the ALND group, 82% versus 75%. The dissection arm had a mean of 2.8 sentinel lymph nodes removed versus 3.5 in the no-dissection group.
“The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases. In the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population,” the investigators concluded in their abstract.
The work was funded by EUBREAST. Dr. Montagna doesn’t have any disclosures. Dr. Mittendorf has several industry ties, including being an advisor for Roche, AstraZeneca, and Moderna and a speaker for Merck.
AT SABCS 2023
Genetic Testing Is Recommended for Adult Patients With Epilepsy
ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.
Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.
“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
Guidelines Differ
The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.
However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.
Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
Personal Experience
Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.
“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”
Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.
Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.
“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
Variants of Uncertain Significance
The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.
In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.
Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.
For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.
In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.
“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”
ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.
Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.
“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
Guidelines Differ
The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.
However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.
Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
Personal Experience
Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.
“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”
Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.
Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.
“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
Variants of Uncertain Significance
The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.
In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.
Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.
For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.
In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.
“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”
ORLANDO — The epilepsy community has yet to come to a consensus on genetic testing. During a session at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society (AES), researchers and clinicians convened to share their insights on genetic testing of adult patients with epilepsy.
Colin Ellis, MD, assistant professor of neurology at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, shared his clinical experience to explain the importance of genetic testing in adults patients despite access challenges, limited information on certain variants, and physician reticence.
“There’s a false misconception that genetic testing should only apply to children,” Dr. Ellis told the audience. “The earlier the onset of seizures, the more likely you are to find a genetic cause.”
Guidelines Differ
The International League Against Epilepsy Task Force for Clinical Genetic Testing, Development and Epileptic Encephalopathies (DEE) recommends conducting genetic testing in patients who have focal or generalized epilepsies to whom the following circumstances apply: autism or dysmorphism, familial history, or drug-resistant epilepsy.
However, the National Society of Genetic Counselors’ guidelines recommends genetic testing for patients who have any unexplained or idiopathic epilepsies.
Guidelines identify the patients who should get tested regardless of their age.
Personal Experience
Dr. Ellis, who has spent nearly 5 years running tests on patients with epilepsy, recently tested the 300th patient at his clinic. According to him, the yield is higher in focal epilepsy than in general epilepsy — an occurrence that counters what many believe.
“Focal epilepsies are more common than monogenic epilepsies but not intuitive to many people in the industry, despite being stated in the literature,” he said. “The absence of family history shouldn’t preclude you from genetic testing because it’s still possible to have a de novo variant not inherited from either parent.”
Genetic testing can be conducted by interrogating either the exome or the genome. However, cost remains a major barrier to access.
Dr. Ellis made several arguments supporting the use of genetic testing. First, genetic testing allows for a higher diagnostic yield (i.e., 24% versus 19% in panels and 9% in microarrays). Genetic testing provides a more comprehensive overview of a patient’s genetic landscape, and it can enhance the ability to identify certain epileptic conditions, such as those caused by monogenic epilepsy — a condition associated with 926 different genes.
“You’re also less likely to find variants of uncertain significance (VUS),” Dr. Ellis said. “Regardless, you should provide the lab with phenotype information because it will help them help you.”
Variants of Uncertain Significance
The National Human Genome Research Institute defines VUS as a variant found in a patient’s genome for which it remains unclear as to whether a health condition is causing the variant. Oftentimes, such variants have very little information available due to their rarity.
In order to resolve VUS, Dr. Ellis recommended family segregation. “If the VUS appears to be de novo, you should test the parent because if they carry the gene, then it’s probably not the cause,” he said.
Dr. Ellis outlined several steps in resolving VUS.
For starters, clinicians should determine the phenotypic fit and run some ancillary tests. For example, in the case of Glu 1 abnormalities, one should consider conducting a spinal tap to determine whether the patient has cerebral spinal fluid before taking additional action.
In addition, Dr. Ellis recommends defining variant characteristics, as it becomes important in determining whether it is appropriate to take action because the majority of variances are benign.
“The take-home point is that you should not act clinically on a VUS unless you know what you’re doing,” he said. “I also disagree with the belief that VUS are rare — it’s just that they cause so much anxiety because we’re uncomfortable with this kind of testing.”
FROM AES 2023
Gestational Diabetes Treatment Moves Forward With Uncertainty And Hope
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — , but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.
Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.
The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.
“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.
The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.
The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.
The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.
The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics
The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.
Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.
In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.
In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”
A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.
“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”
Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.
Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.
Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
The Challenge of Heterogeneity
In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.
Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.
A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.
Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”
Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.
There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)
“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”
Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.
The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity
Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.
She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.
A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”
Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.
“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”
The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.
In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.
Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — , but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.
Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.
The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.
“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.
The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.
The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.
The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.
The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics
The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.
Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.
In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.
In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”
A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.
“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”
Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.
Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.
Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
The Challenge of Heterogeneity
In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.
Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.
A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.
Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”
Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.
There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)
“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”
Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.
The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity
Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.
She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.
A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”
Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.
“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”
The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.
In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.
Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA — , but researchers at the biennial meeting of the Diabetes in Pregnancy Study Group of North America expressed hope for more clarity in the near future and the ability to someday individualize treatment to account for what is increasingly viewed as a heterogeneous condition.
Until studies in 2015 and 2018 cast doubt on glyburide, “we used to have 80% [of our GDM patients] on glyburide, and 20% on insulin,” Maisa Feghali, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh, said during a discussion period. “Now we have 95% on insulin and 5% on oral hypoglycemics. I rely on insulin because I don’t have a better option, and I rely on research efforts [underway to provide better options]” in the future.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends insulin as the preferred first-line pharmacologic therapy for GDM when pharmacologic therapy is needed, with metformin as an option when patients decline or cannot safely use insulin. Glyburide, ACOG said in its 2018 practice bulletin on GDM (Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131[2]:e49-64), should not be recommended as a first-line pharmacologic therapy.
The Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, on the other hand, has accepted metformin as a “reasonable and safe” first-line alternative to insulin — while recognizing that half of women will still require insulin to achieve glycemic control — and does not rule out consideration of glyburide. In its 2018 statement on the pharmacologic treatment of GDM, the society said that the evidence of benefit of one oral agent over another remains limited.
“When you have dueling guidelines, it means the data are not that clear,” George Saade, MD, professor and chair of obstetrics and gynecology at the Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said in a presentation on GDM. An upcoming $12 million multicenter study to be led by the Ohio State University College of Medicine — coined the DECIDE trial — should provide clarity, he said.
The trial, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which funds comparative clinical effectiveness research designed to be broadly applicable to practice, will enroll and randomize over 1500 pregnant individuals with GDM to either oral metformin or insulin and will follow mothers and children until 2 years after delivery.
The study’s primary and secondary hypotheses, respectively, are that metformin is not inferior to insulin in reducing a composite adverse neonatal outcome (large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia and/or hyperbilirubemia) and that metformin does not result in increased child body mass index at 2 years, compared with insulin. It will also look at patient-reported factors associated with metformin use compared to insulin use — factors that “are important ... to enable clinical implementation of study findings,” said Dr. Saade, who played a role in designing the study over the past several years.
The study will take a pragmatic, real-world approach by ensuring racial and ethnic, socioeconomic, urban and rural, and geographic diversity at both large academic and community-based sites across the United States.
The trial, to be led by Mark Landon, MD, and Kartik Venkatesh, MD, PhD, of Ohio State University, will be the first large trial in the United States to both directly compare the ability of oral hypoglycemics and insulin to prevent GDM-associated pregnancy complications, and to follow children for 2 years, Dr. Saade said. “Prior research was either outside the United States, not randomized, not adequately powered, or had no long-term child follow-up,” he added after the meeting.
The State Of Knowledge About Oral Hypoglycemics
The trial was envisioned several years ago as a three-arm comparative trial including the sulfonylurea glyburide, but data published in recent years has increasingly “not favored” glyburide, and many providers “have stopped using it,” Dr. Saade said during and after the meeting. At this point, “it would not be useful to include it” in a pragmatic trial, he said.
Glyburide became the number one agent after a seminal trial published in 2000 (N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1134-8) showed equivalent glycemic control in about 400 women with GDM who were randomized to receive insulin or glyburide. While the trial was not powered to evaluate other outcomes, there were no significant differences in neonatal complications.
In 2015, a large retrospective population-based study (JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169[5]:452-8) of more than 9,000 women with GDM showed higher risks of neonatal intensive care admission, neonatal hypoglycemia, and large-for-gestational age with glyburide compared with insulin. “It prompted a pause in thinking,” Dr. Saade recalled at the DPSG meeting. After that, several meta-analyses/systematic reviews compared the two treatments, showing varying and sometimes conflicting degrees of difference in neonatal outcomes.
In 2018, a French noninferiority randomized controlled trial (JAMA 2018;319[17]:1773-80) did not show that glyburide is not inferior to insulin in the prevention of perinatal outcomes (macrosomia, neonatal hypoglycemia, and hyperbilirubinemia). “If you add this trial to the systematic reviews, it would probably would shift more in favor of insulin,” Dr. Saade said, noting that the trial’s supplementary data included a higher rate of maternal hypoglycemia with glyburide. “I feel personally now, with all the data, that glyburide is inferior to insulin.”
A 2021 network meta-analysis (BMC Endocr Disord. 2021;21:199) that looked at glycemic control and neonatal outcomes in GDM treated with glyburide, metformin, or insulin, also offers valuable insight, Dr. Saade said. The meta-analysis used a Bayesian framework and presents results as a ranking estimated probability of a treatment being the best or worst — or in between — for different outcomes (glycemic control and neonatal outcomes), which “is one of the best ways to look at data these days,” he said.
“It tells us how likely [it is for one agent] to be better than others. Will it work most of the time? More than 60% of the time?” Dr. Saade explained. For example, the analysis “tell us that for large for gestational age, glyburide has a 94% chance of being the worst, metformin has an 80% change of being the best, and insulin a 76% chance of being in between.”
Overall, the 2021 analysis suggests that “glyburide is the most likely to be worst in most outcomes and that there is equipoise between metformin and insulin,” he said.
Meta-analyses of pharmacologic treatment of GDM have been challenged, he said, by inconsistent reporting in trials of GDM diagnostic criteria, severity of hyperglycemia, and small sample sizes (and wide confidence intervals). Criteria for supplemental insulin are also often “unclear” in trials, Dr. Saade said, as is involvement of social determinants of health and the “care package” enveloping pharmacologic interventions.
Dr. Saade, Dr. Landon, and other researchers have also lamented over the years that there is limited long-term follow-up of exposed offspring.
The Challenge of Heterogeneity
In another presentation on GDM, Maisa Feghali, MD, MS, emphasized that GDM is a heterogeneous condition, with clinical hyperglycemia not capturing individual variation in underlying physiologic processes. A 2016 study (Diabetes Care. 2016;39[6]:1052-5) assessing insulin sensitivity and secretion in 800-plus women at 24-30 weeks’ gestation found that about 50% of those with GDM had predominant insulin resistance, 30% had predominant insulin secretion deficit, and 20% were mixed.
Those with predominant insulin resistance had higher BMI, higher fasting glucose, larger infants, and greater risk of GDM-associated adverse outcomes, “suggesting that the risk is not universal or equivalent,” said Dr. Feghali, assistant professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of Pittsburgh and the UPCM Magee-Women’s Hospital.
A 2019 multicenter European study (Diabetologia. 2019;62[11]:2118-28) found an even higher proportion of GDM involving predominant insulin resistance and, similarly, a greater risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in these women than in insulin-sensitive women with GDM, “again suggesting that there’s probably some benefit to looking deeper at physiology to understand individual risk,” she said.
Research published decades ago showed that insulin sensitivity decreases by over 50% during pregnancy, and “what we’ve come to recognize is there [can be] insulin secretion deficiency that’s not able to surmount or overcome the insulin resistance that develops during advanced gestation,” she said. “We need to think not at the population level but at the individual level.”
Dr. Feghali is leading the MATCh-GDM (Metabolic Analysis for Treatment Choice in GDM) study, which has been randomizing women to receive either usual, unmatched treatment or treatment matched to GDM mechanism — metformin for predominant insulin resistance, glyburide, or insulin for predominant insulin secretion defects, and one of the three for combined mechanisms. Data are not available yet.
There is still more to be learned about the pharmacologic effects of oral hypoglycemics, she noted, pointing to a 2020 study (Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107[6]:1362-72) that randomized women to glyburide, metformin, or glyburide/metformin combination therapy and measured insulin sensitivity, beta-cell responsivity, and disposition index. (The latter describes the overall metabolic state and is a product of insulin sensitivity and total beta-cell responsivity.)
“Somewhat surprisingly, they found metformin performed better than glyburide,” shifting the overall disposition index closer to normal, Dr. Feghali said. “But not surprisingly, they found the combination worked best.”
Total beta-cell responsivity occurred in 56% of the glyburide group and 74% of the combination group. Improvements in insulin sensitivity occurred in 84% of the metformin group and 74% of the combination group. Surprisingly, there was “a decrease in first-phase insulin secretion” with glyburide, noted Dr. Feghali — a finding that means “the glyburide story has turned out to be a little more complicated.” With metformin, there was a positive change in insulin secretion as well as insulin sensitivity.
The authors’ conclusion, she noted, “is that there’s potential in thinking about metformin first, as the primary treatment, and then adding glyburide after that.”
Future Use Of Incretin Mimetics, and Intensive Targets in Overweight/Obesity
Dr. Feghali wonders whether incretin hormone mimetics — such as glucagonlike peptide–1 (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP) — could play a future role in GDM treatment, helping to increase insulin secretion.
She is currently recruiting for a pilot study on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in GDM of exenatide, a FDA-approved GLP-1 agonist that has been shown not to cross the placenta and that should, research suggests, lower the risk of maternal hypoglycemia and limit the risk of excessive fetal growth, “overcoming some of the concerns we have with glyburide,” Dr. Feghali said.
A recent study of the gut-generated incretin response during an oral glucose tolerance test in pregnant women with and without GDM showed that post-load GLP-1 and GIP were higher in women with GDM, and that the GLP-1 secretion was associated with insulin secretion only in those with GDM (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022;107(6):e2425-30). “In those with normal OGTT, insulin secretion was independent of GLP-1,” she said. “This study suggests there’s a potential role for incretin mimetics in GDM.”
Also regarding the individualization of GDM treatment, patients who are overweight or obese in the prepregnancy setting and have gestational diabetes represent a different phenotype, she noted, with higher fasting and postprandial blood glucose compared to normal-weight counterparts despite higher doses of medication.
“After controlling for gestational weight gain and glycemic control, we see there’s an independent effect of prepregnancy obesity specifically for an increased risk of macrosomia, preterm birth, and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy,” said Dr. Feghali, referring to a 2015 retrospective study of GDM and obesity (Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:316-25). “It suggests that we might think about redrawing the line, not on diagnosis and screening but on treatment.”
The randomized, controlled Intensive Glycemic Targets in Overweight and Obese Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (iGDM) trial, is now recruiting at multiple centers, including at Dr. Feghali’s University of Pittsburgh, and will investigate the effect of intensive glycemic targets (fasting < 90 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 120 mg/dL) versus standard glycemic targets (fasting < 95 mg/dL, 1-hour postprandial < 140 mg/dL), she said.
In another presentation on GDM, Monica Longo, MD, PhD, of the Inova Health System in Fairfax, Va., said researchers are also looking at whether nutritional supplements such as myo-inositol can reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in GDM, and whether probiotics can improve insulin sensitivity in some patients.
Data on newer insulin analogs in pregnancy are lacking, she noted. “Preliminary data has shown no malformations in infants, but there is some increase in hypoglycemia-related admissions to the NICU,” she said. “It’s worth it [to research more].”
FROM DPSG-NA 2023
Temporary Higher Stroke Rate After TAVR
TOPLINE:
Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
- The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
- The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
- Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
TAKEAWAY:
- , accounting for 69% of these events.
- After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
- Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
- SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.
In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”
SOURCE:
The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.
LIMITATIONS:
The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.
DISCLOSURES:
The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
- The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
- The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
- Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
TAKEAWAY:
- , accounting for 69% of these events.
- After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
- Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
- SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.
In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”
SOURCE:
The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.
LIMITATIONS:
The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.
DISCLOSURES:
The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a higher risk for stroke for up to 2 years compared with an age- and sex-matched population, after which their risks are comparable, results of a large Swiss registry study suggest.
METHODOLOGY:
- The study included 11,957 patients from the prospective SwissTAVI Registry, an ongoing mandatory cohort study enrolling consecutive patients undergoing TAVR in Switzerland.
- The study population, which had a mean age of 81.8 years and mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS PROM) of 4.62, with 11.8% having a history of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) and 32.3% a history of atrial fibrillation, underwent TAVR at 15 centers between February 2011 and June 2021.
- The primary outcome was the incidence of stroke, with secondary outcomes including the incidence of CVA, a composite of stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA).
- Researchers calculated standardized stroke ratios (SSRs) and compared stroke trends in patients undergoing TAVR with those of an age- and sex-matched general population in Switzerland derived from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study.
TAKEAWAY:
- , accounting for 69% of these events.
- After excluding 30-day events, the 1-year incidence rates of CVA and stroke were 1.7% and 1.4%, respectively, followed by an annual stroke incidence of 1.2%, 0.8%, 0.9%, and 0.7% in the second, third, fourth, and fifth years post TAVR, respectively.
- Only increased age and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) at discharge were associated with an increased risk for early stroke (up to 30 days post TAVR), whereas dyslipidemia and history of atrial fibrillation and of CVA were associated with an increased risk for late stroke (30 days to 5 years after TAVR).
- SSR in the study population returned to a level comparable to that expected in the general Swiss population after 2 years and through to 5 years post-TAVR.
IN PRACTICE:
Although the study results “are reassuring” with respect to stroke risk beyond 2 years post TAVR, “our findings underscore the continued efforts of stroke-prevention measures” early and longer term, wrote the authors.
In an accompanying editorial, Lauge Østergaard, MD, PhD, Department of Cardiology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, noted the study suggests reduced PVL could lower the risk for early stroke following TAVR and “highlights how assessment of usual risk factors (dyslipidemia and atrial fibrillation) could help reduce the burden of stroke in the long term.”
SOURCE:
The study was carried out by Taishi Okuno, MD, Department of Cardiology, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland, and colleagues. It was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC): Cardiovascular Interventions.
LIMITATIONS:
The study couldn’t investigate the association between antithrombotic regimens and the risk for CVA. Definitions of CVA in the SwissTAVI Registry might differ from those used in the GBD study from which the matched population data were derived. The general population wasn’t matched on comorbidities usually associated with elevated stroke risk, which may have led to underestimation of stroke. As the mean age in the study was 82 years, results may not be extrapolated to a younger population.
DISCLOSURES:
The SwissTAVI registry is supported by the Swiss Heart Foundation, Swiss Working Group of Interventional Cardiology and Acute Coronary Syndromes, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific/Symetis, JenaValve, and St. Jude Medical. Dr. Okuno has no relevant conflicts of interest; see paper for disclosures of other study authors. Dr. Østergaard has received an independent research grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical Cannabis for Chronic Pain Tied to Arrhythmia Risk
TOPLINE:
, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.
METHODOLOGY:
- To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
- They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
- Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
- The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
- Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.
“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.
LIMITATIONS:
Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.
METHODOLOGY:
- To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
- They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
- Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
- The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
- Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.
“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.
LIMITATIONS:
Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
, mainly atrial fibrillation/flutter, a Danish registry study suggested. Cannabis use has been associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk, but data on CV side effects with use of medical cannabis for chronic pain are limited.
METHODOLOGY:
- To investigate, researchers identified 5391 patients with chronic pain (median age 59; 63% women) initiating first-time treatment with medical cannabis during 2018-2021 and matched them (1:5) to 26,941 control patients on age, sex, chronic pain diagnosis, and concomitant use of other noncannabis pain medication.
- They calculated and compared absolute risks for first-time arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation/flutter, conduction disorders, paroxysmal tachycardias, and ventricular arrhythmias) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between groups.
TAKEAWAY:
- Within 180 days, 42 medical cannabis users and 107 control participants developed arrhythmia, most commonly atrial fibrillation/flutter.
- Medical cannabis users had a slightly elevated risk for new-onset arrhythmia compared with nonusers (180-day absolute risk, 0.8% vs 0.4%).
- The 180-day risk ratio with cannabis use was 2.07 (95% CI, 1.34-2.80), and the 1-year risk ratio was 1.36 (95% CI, 1.00-1.73).
- Adults with cancer or cardiometabolic disease had the highest risk for arrhythmia with cannabis use (180-day absolute risk difference, 1.1% and 0.8%). There was no significant association between medical cannabis use and ACS risk.
IN PRACTICE:
“With the investigated cohort’s low age and low prevalence of comorbidity in mind, the notable relative risk increase of new-onset arrhythmia, mainly driven by atrial fibrillation/flutter, could be a reason for concern, albeit the absolute risks in this study population were modest,” the authors wrote.
“Medical cannabis may not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ therapeutic option for certain medical conditions and should be contextualized based on patient comorbidities and potential vulnerability to side effects,” added the author of an editorial.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Anders Holt, MD, Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Hellerup, Denmark, was published online on January 11, 2024, in the European Heart Journal, with an editorial by Robert Page II, PharmD, MSPH, University of Colorado, Aurora.
LIMITATIONS:
Residual confounding is possible. The registers lack information on disease severity, clinical measures, blood tests, and lifestyle factors. The route of cannabis administration was not known.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was funded by external and independent medical research grants. Holt had no relevant disclosures. Some coauthors reported research grants and speakers’ fees from various drug companies.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Analysis Finds Risk of Alopecia Areata After COVID-19 Infection
“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”
To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.
The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.
Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.
“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.
Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.
“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.
Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.
The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.
“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”
To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.
The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.
Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.
“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.
Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.
“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.
Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.
The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.
“There is a growing number of reports on new onset, exacerbation, and recurrence of AA after COVID-19,” corresponding author Jin Park, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Jeonbuk National University Medical School, South Korea, and colleagues wrote in a research letter published online January 10, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology. “However, evidence supporting an association between COVID-19 and AA is limited.”
To investigate the association between COVID-19 and AA, the researchers used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency–COVID-19–National Health Insurance Service cohort to conduct a propensity score–matched, nationwide, population-based cohort study from October 8, 2020, to September 30, 2021. They used Cox proportional hazards regression to calculate the incidence, prevalence, and adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) for AA.
The cohort consisted of 259,369 patients with COVID-19 and 259,369 uninfected controls. The researchers observed an increased risk of telogen effluvium in patients with COVID-19 compared with the uninfected controls (AHR, 6.40; 95% CI, 4.92-8.33), while the incidence of epidermal cysts, benign skin tumors, and other negative control outcomes did not differ between groups.
Meanwhile, the incidence of AA in patients with COVID-19 was significantly higher compared with the uninfected controls (43.19 per 10,000 person-years [PY]), regardless of clinical subtype. This translated into an AHR of 1.82 (95% CI, 1.60-2.07). In other findings, the incidence of patchy AA and alopecia totalis and alopecia universalis (AT/AU) was 35.94 and 7.24 per 10,000 PY in patients with COVID-19 compared with 19.43 and 4.18 per 10,000 PY in uninfected controls, respectively.
“These findings support the possible role of COVID-19 in AA occurrence and exacerbation, although other environmental factors, such as psychological stress, may have also contributed to AA development during the pandemic,” the authors concluded. “Plausible mechanisms of AA following COVID-19 include antigenic molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and hair follicle autoantigens, cytokine shifting, and bystander activation.”
They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the potential for detection or misclassification bias and the fact that it did not evaluate causality between the two conditions.
Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment on the study, said that strengths of the study include the large sample size, and the use of positive and negative outcome controls, and that the incidence and prevalence of AA in Korea was stable during the prepandemic period. “A weakness of the study is that all alopecia areata cases may not have necessarily been confirmed,” Dr. Lipner told this news organization.
“Based on this study, dermatologists may consider AA in the differential diagnosis for a patient presenting with hair loss with recent COVID-19 diagnosis,” she added, noting that the potential for prevention of AA flares is also a reason to recommend COVID-19 vaccination for patients with a history of AA.
Christine Ko, MD, professor of dermatology and pathology at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, who was also asked to comment on the study, said that while the analysis suggests a definite epidemiologic association between COVID-19 and AA, “any causal relationship needs further study.” She added that she has no specific advice for patients who develop AA following a COVID-19 infection. “Any conversation about AA can be difficult because there is no way to prognosticate if someone will just have one small, localized area of hair loss,” or several small areas, versus loss of all hair on the head or even the body as well, Dr. Ko explained.
The study was supported with grants from the National Research Foundation of the Korean Government and the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors, as well as Dr. Lipner and Dr. Ko, reported having no relevant disclosures.
FROM JAMA DERMATOLOGY
500-mg Calcium Pill Protects Against Preeclampsia, Researchers Say
Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11.
The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.
Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines.
The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States.
This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.
The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said.
The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills.
Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth.
Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early.
“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said.
Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?
But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia.
Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure.
Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.
“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.
Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11.
The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.
Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines.
The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States.
This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.
The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said.
The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills.
Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth.
Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early.
“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said.
Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?
But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia.
Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure.
Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.
“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.
Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Taking 500 mg of calcium a day reduces the likelihood of pregnant women developing preeclampsia in pregnant women as much as higher doses, according to a study in The New England Journal of Medicine published on January 11.
The study also shows that the lower dose of calcium protects against preterm birth almost as well as the higher dose recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO).
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that preeclampsia occurs in about 1 in 25 pregnancies, and Black women are 60% more likely to develop the condition than are White women.
Calcium supplementation reduces the risks for preeclampsia, per WHO guidelines.
The WHO has recommended between 1500 mg and 2000 mg of calcium supplementation daily along with one 30- to 60-mg iron pill for pregnant women who receive insufficient calcium in their diets, which the WHO says generally occurs in lower-income nations and not wealthier nations, such as the United States.
This dosage amounts to a minimum of three calcium pills per day because the dietary supplements generally come from suppliers in 500-mg doses. Researchers say the supplements are too expensive for many health authorities of low- and middle-income nations to provide, and that taking so many pills presents a barrier to use even if they were plentiful. In countries such as Tanzania and India, governments generally distribute supplements like calcium for free at health clinics, said Christopher Sudfeld, ScD, associate professor of global health and nutrition at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in Boston.
The WHO recommendation is “not implemented many places,” Dr. Sudfeld said. Due to the cost, Tanzania has never implemented WHO’s calcium recommendation, providing only the iron pill, he said.
The randomized double-blinded study included 11,000 pregnant women in Tanzania and 11,000 pregnant women in India. None had yet given birth, which increased their risk for preeclampsia. All participants were older than 18 years and were less than 20 weeks pregnant, according to their most recent menstrual date. Half of participants received the three daily 500-mg calcium pills recommended by WHO; the other half received a single calcium pill and two placebo pills.
Researchers measured blood pressure and urine protein levels starting at 20 weeks of gestation, at delivery, and 6 weeks after giving birth.
Regardless of how much calcium people consumed daily, preeclampsia occurred approximately 3% of both the 500-mg and 1500-mg groups. Similar rates of preterm births occurred in both groups, although in Tanzanian, women in the 500-mg arm were somewhat more likely to give birth early.
“We’re working with governments but we’re also going to disseminate the results to WHO, so that they can do their process for the next antenatal care guidelines, to potentially change the global guidelines,” to support a lower calcium supplement target, Dr. Sudfeld said.
Does Calcium Actually Prevent Preeclampsia?
But Ahizechukwu Eke, MD, PhD, MPH, a pharmacologist who practices maternal fetal medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, questioned whether calcium really works to prevent preeclampsia.
Eke said that the causes of preeclampsia are multifactorial, and researchers have yet to definitively demonstrate the mechanism of action by which calcium works to prevent the condition. One hypothesis is that calcium reduces the amount of contractions in a woman’s uterus, thereby lowering blood pressure.
Low-dose aspirin is also used to prevent preeclampsia, and Dr. Eke said that the pharmacokinetic pathway by which this drug inhibits preeclampsia is more clear.
“I’m not saying we should stop using calcium, far from it,” Dr. Eke said. But as calcium supplementation to prevent preeclampsia continues, Dr. Eke called for pharmacokinetic studies to explore whether and how calcium works.
Dr. Sudfeld and Dr. Eke report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Fall Abstract Las Vegas Dermatology Seminar Compendium; Las Vegas, Nevada; November 2-4, 2023
A 4-month-old male was referred for a 3-week history of an itchy generalized rash that started on the neck
Diagnosis: Infection-induced psoriasis (guttate-type, induced by streptococcal intertrigo)
Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by well-defined, scaly, erythematous plaques. Guttate psoriasis is a distinct variant of psoriasis that is more common in children and adolescents. Guttate psoriasis usually presents with multiple, scattered, small, drop-like (“guttate”), scaly, erythematous papules and plaques.
The pathophysiology of psoriasis involves an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis is a chronic T-cell–mediated inflammatory disease in which there is an altered balance between T-helper-1 (TH1) and TH2 cells, transcription factor genes, and their products. HLA B-13, B-17, and Cw6 are human leukocyte antigen alleles implicated in genetic susceptibility. It is hypothesized that streptococcal infection precipitates guttate psoriasis by streptococcal superantigen–driven activation of cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen (CLA)–positive lymphocytes. It has been shown that streptococcal exotoxins and streptococcal M proteins act as superantigens.
Diagnosis is often made clinically based on characteristic physical findings and a possible preceding history of streptococcal infection. In patients with streptococcal infection, culture from an appropriate site and measurement of serum antistreptococcal antibody titers (for example, anti-DNase, antihyaluronidase and antistreptolysin-O) can help. A skin biopsy is usually not necessary but may be considered.
This patient presented with intertrigo of the neck and axillae at the time of presentation with the papulosquamous rash. Culture of the intertrigo yielded 4+ Group A beta streptococcus.
Treatment
Although there is currently no cure for guttate psoriasis, various treatment options can relieve symptoms and clear skin lesions, and infection-triggered lesions may remit, usually within several months. However, guttate psoriasis may persist and progress to chronic plaque psoriasis. Many treatment options are based mainly on clinical trials targeted for plaque psoriasis treatment.
For mild psoriasis, topical corticosteroids are first-line treatment. Other topical steroids include vitamin D analogs (calcipotriene), topical retinoids (tazarotene), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus), and newer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (roflumilast or tapinarof), neither approved yet in this young age group. In more severe cases, phototherapy with UVB light, traditional systemic immunosuppressive agents (methotrexate, cyclosporine) or targeted biologic therapies may be considered.
Differential Diagnosis
The differential diagnosis may include generalized intertrigo, pityriasis rubra pilaris, tinea corporis, atopic dermatitis, and staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. Guttate psoriasis can be distinguished by history and physical exam. Further studies such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) scrapings may be helpful in ruling out the other disorders.
Intertrigo is an inflammatory condition of the flexural surfaces irritated by warm temperatures, friction, moisture, and poor ventilation that is commonly associated with Candida infection and/or streptococcal infection. Candidal intertrigo can present with erythematous patches or plaques in an intertriginous area that may develop erosions, macerations, fissures, crust, and weeping. Satellite papules and pustules are pathognomonic for Candida species. Streptococcal intertrigo usually presents with bright red color and may be painful or pruritic. Perianal streptococcal infection is reported as a trigger of guttate psoriasis in pediatric patients.
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rare inflammatory papulosquamous disorder with an unknown etiology. Red-orange papules and plaques, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, and palmoplantar hyperkeratosis are primary features. Diagnosis is based on clinical and histopathology. Pityriasis rubra pilaris is self-limited and asymptomatic in many cases. Treatment may not be required, but combination therapy with topical agents includes emollients, keratolytic agents (for example, urea, salicylic acid, alpha-hydroxy acids), topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic agents include oral retinoids and methotrexate.
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that involves genetic and environmental factors, leading to abnormalities in the epidermis and the immune system presenting with its typical morphology and distribution. The morphology of eczematous lesions is distinct from papulosquamous lesions of psoriasis.
Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a toxin-mediated skin disorder which presents with denuded, peeling skin due to epidermolytic exotoxin producing Staphylococcus species. Fever, erythematous rash, malaise, skin pain, and irritability presents initially. Progressive desquamation with accentuation in folds is typical, with progression usually within 1-2 days. Systemic antibiotics covering Staphylococcus should be administered early. Emollients and nonadherent dressings should be applied to affected areas to promote healing. Supportive care includes dehydration management, temperature regulation, and nutrition. Skin desquamation usually occurs within 5 days with resolution within 2 weeks.
This infant displayed streptococcal intertrigo which triggered an early presentation of guttate psoriasis. The patient was managed with completion of a course of oral cephalexin, midstrength topical corticosteroids to the truncal lesions, and mild topical corticosteroids to the face and diaper area with good clinical response.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Leung AK et al. Childhood guttate psoriasis: An updated review. Drugs Context. 2023 Oct 23:12:2023-8-2. doi: 10.7573/dic.2023-8-2.
Galili E et al. New-onset guttate psoriasis: A long-term follow-up study. Dermatology. 2023;239(2):188-194. doi: 10.1159/000527737.
Duffin KC et al. Advances and controversies in our understanding of guttate and plaque psoriasis. J Rheumatol. 2023 Nov;50(Suppl 2):4-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2023-0500.
Saleh D, Tanner LS. Guttate Psoriasis. [Updated 2023 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482498/
Dupire G et al. Antistreptococcal interventions for guttate and chronic plaque psoriasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 5;3(3):CD011571. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011571.pub2.
Diagnosis: Infection-induced psoriasis (guttate-type, induced by streptococcal intertrigo)
Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by well-defined, scaly, erythematous plaques. Guttate psoriasis is a distinct variant of psoriasis that is more common in children and adolescents. Guttate psoriasis usually presents with multiple, scattered, small, drop-like (“guttate”), scaly, erythematous papules and plaques.
The pathophysiology of psoriasis involves an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis is a chronic T-cell–mediated inflammatory disease in which there is an altered balance between T-helper-1 (TH1) and TH2 cells, transcription factor genes, and their products. HLA B-13, B-17, and Cw6 are human leukocyte antigen alleles implicated in genetic susceptibility. It is hypothesized that streptococcal infection precipitates guttate psoriasis by streptococcal superantigen–driven activation of cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen (CLA)–positive lymphocytes. It has been shown that streptococcal exotoxins and streptococcal M proteins act as superantigens.
Diagnosis is often made clinically based on characteristic physical findings and a possible preceding history of streptococcal infection. In patients with streptococcal infection, culture from an appropriate site and measurement of serum antistreptococcal antibody titers (for example, anti-DNase, antihyaluronidase and antistreptolysin-O) can help. A skin biopsy is usually not necessary but may be considered.
This patient presented with intertrigo of the neck and axillae at the time of presentation with the papulosquamous rash. Culture of the intertrigo yielded 4+ Group A beta streptococcus.
Treatment
Although there is currently no cure for guttate psoriasis, various treatment options can relieve symptoms and clear skin lesions, and infection-triggered lesions may remit, usually within several months. However, guttate psoriasis may persist and progress to chronic plaque psoriasis. Many treatment options are based mainly on clinical trials targeted for plaque psoriasis treatment.
For mild psoriasis, topical corticosteroids are first-line treatment. Other topical steroids include vitamin D analogs (calcipotriene), topical retinoids (tazarotene), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus), and newer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (roflumilast or tapinarof), neither approved yet in this young age group. In more severe cases, phototherapy with UVB light, traditional systemic immunosuppressive agents (methotrexate, cyclosporine) or targeted biologic therapies may be considered.
Differential Diagnosis
The differential diagnosis may include generalized intertrigo, pityriasis rubra pilaris, tinea corporis, atopic dermatitis, and staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. Guttate psoriasis can be distinguished by history and physical exam. Further studies such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) scrapings may be helpful in ruling out the other disorders.
Intertrigo is an inflammatory condition of the flexural surfaces irritated by warm temperatures, friction, moisture, and poor ventilation that is commonly associated with Candida infection and/or streptococcal infection. Candidal intertrigo can present with erythematous patches or plaques in an intertriginous area that may develop erosions, macerations, fissures, crust, and weeping. Satellite papules and pustules are pathognomonic for Candida species. Streptococcal intertrigo usually presents with bright red color and may be painful or pruritic. Perianal streptococcal infection is reported as a trigger of guttate psoriasis in pediatric patients.
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rare inflammatory papulosquamous disorder with an unknown etiology. Red-orange papules and plaques, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, and palmoplantar hyperkeratosis are primary features. Diagnosis is based on clinical and histopathology. Pityriasis rubra pilaris is self-limited and asymptomatic in many cases. Treatment may not be required, but combination therapy with topical agents includes emollients, keratolytic agents (for example, urea, salicylic acid, alpha-hydroxy acids), topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic agents include oral retinoids and methotrexate.
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that involves genetic and environmental factors, leading to abnormalities in the epidermis and the immune system presenting with its typical morphology and distribution. The morphology of eczematous lesions is distinct from papulosquamous lesions of psoriasis.
Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a toxin-mediated skin disorder which presents with denuded, peeling skin due to epidermolytic exotoxin producing Staphylococcus species. Fever, erythematous rash, malaise, skin pain, and irritability presents initially. Progressive desquamation with accentuation in folds is typical, with progression usually within 1-2 days. Systemic antibiotics covering Staphylococcus should be administered early. Emollients and nonadherent dressings should be applied to affected areas to promote healing. Supportive care includes dehydration management, temperature regulation, and nutrition. Skin desquamation usually occurs within 5 days with resolution within 2 weeks.
This infant displayed streptococcal intertrigo which triggered an early presentation of guttate psoriasis. The patient was managed with completion of a course of oral cephalexin, midstrength topical corticosteroids to the truncal lesions, and mild topical corticosteroids to the face and diaper area with good clinical response.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Leung AK et al. Childhood guttate psoriasis: An updated review. Drugs Context. 2023 Oct 23:12:2023-8-2. doi: 10.7573/dic.2023-8-2.
Galili E et al. New-onset guttate psoriasis: A long-term follow-up study. Dermatology. 2023;239(2):188-194. doi: 10.1159/000527737.
Duffin KC et al. Advances and controversies in our understanding of guttate and plaque psoriasis. J Rheumatol. 2023 Nov;50(Suppl 2):4-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2023-0500.
Saleh D, Tanner LS. Guttate Psoriasis. [Updated 2023 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482498/
Dupire G et al. Antistreptococcal interventions for guttate and chronic plaque psoriasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 5;3(3):CD011571. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011571.pub2.
Diagnosis: Infection-induced psoriasis (guttate-type, induced by streptococcal intertrigo)
Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by well-defined, scaly, erythematous plaques. Guttate psoriasis is a distinct variant of psoriasis that is more common in children and adolescents. Guttate psoriasis usually presents with multiple, scattered, small, drop-like (“guttate”), scaly, erythematous papules and plaques.
The pathophysiology of psoriasis involves an interplay between genetic and environmental factors. Guttate psoriasis is a chronic T-cell–mediated inflammatory disease in which there is an altered balance between T-helper-1 (TH1) and TH2 cells, transcription factor genes, and their products. HLA B-13, B-17, and Cw6 are human leukocyte antigen alleles implicated in genetic susceptibility. It is hypothesized that streptococcal infection precipitates guttate psoriasis by streptococcal superantigen–driven activation of cutaneous lymphocyte-associated antigen (CLA)–positive lymphocytes. It has been shown that streptococcal exotoxins and streptococcal M proteins act as superantigens.
Diagnosis is often made clinically based on characteristic physical findings and a possible preceding history of streptococcal infection. In patients with streptococcal infection, culture from an appropriate site and measurement of serum antistreptococcal antibody titers (for example, anti-DNase, antihyaluronidase and antistreptolysin-O) can help. A skin biopsy is usually not necessary but may be considered.
This patient presented with intertrigo of the neck and axillae at the time of presentation with the papulosquamous rash. Culture of the intertrigo yielded 4+ Group A beta streptococcus.
Treatment
Although there is currently no cure for guttate psoriasis, various treatment options can relieve symptoms and clear skin lesions, and infection-triggered lesions may remit, usually within several months. However, guttate psoriasis may persist and progress to chronic plaque psoriasis. Many treatment options are based mainly on clinical trials targeted for plaque psoriasis treatment.
For mild psoriasis, topical corticosteroids are first-line treatment. Other topical steroids include vitamin D analogs (calcipotriene), topical retinoids (tazarotene), topical calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus), and newer non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (roflumilast or tapinarof), neither approved yet in this young age group. In more severe cases, phototherapy with UVB light, traditional systemic immunosuppressive agents (methotrexate, cyclosporine) or targeted biologic therapies may be considered.
Differential Diagnosis
The differential diagnosis may include generalized intertrigo, pityriasis rubra pilaris, tinea corporis, atopic dermatitis, and staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. Guttate psoriasis can be distinguished by history and physical exam. Further studies such as potassium hydroxide (KOH) scrapings may be helpful in ruling out the other disorders.
Intertrigo is an inflammatory condition of the flexural surfaces irritated by warm temperatures, friction, moisture, and poor ventilation that is commonly associated with Candida infection and/or streptococcal infection. Candidal intertrigo can present with erythematous patches or plaques in an intertriginous area that may develop erosions, macerations, fissures, crust, and weeping. Satellite papules and pustules are pathognomonic for Candida species. Streptococcal intertrigo usually presents with bright red color and may be painful or pruritic. Perianal streptococcal infection is reported as a trigger of guttate psoriasis in pediatric patients.
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rare inflammatory papulosquamous disorder with an unknown etiology. Red-orange papules and plaques, hyperkeratotic follicular papules, and palmoplantar hyperkeratosis are primary features. Diagnosis is based on clinical and histopathology. Pityriasis rubra pilaris is self-limited and asymptomatic in many cases. Treatment may not be required, but combination therapy with topical agents includes emollients, keratolytic agents (for example, urea, salicylic acid, alpha-hydroxy acids), topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and topical calcineurin inhibitors. Systemic agents include oral retinoids and methotrexate.
Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that involves genetic and environmental factors, leading to abnormalities in the epidermis and the immune system presenting with its typical morphology and distribution. The morphology of eczematous lesions is distinct from papulosquamous lesions of psoriasis.
Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a toxin-mediated skin disorder which presents with denuded, peeling skin due to epidermolytic exotoxin producing Staphylococcus species. Fever, erythematous rash, malaise, skin pain, and irritability presents initially. Progressive desquamation with accentuation in folds is typical, with progression usually within 1-2 days. Systemic antibiotics covering Staphylococcus should be administered early. Emollients and nonadherent dressings should be applied to affected areas to promote healing. Supportive care includes dehydration management, temperature regulation, and nutrition. Skin desquamation usually occurs within 5 days with resolution within 2 weeks.
This infant displayed streptococcal intertrigo which triggered an early presentation of guttate psoriasis. The patient was managed with completion of a course of oral cephalexin, midstrength topical corticosteroids to the truncal lesions, and mild topical corticosteroids to the face and diaper area with good clinical response.
Danny Lee and Samuel Le serve as research fellows in the Pediatric Dermatology Division of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield is Distinguished Professor of Dermatology and Pediatrics and Vice-Chair of the Department of Dermatology at the University of California San Diego and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.
Suggested Reading
Leung AK et al. Childhood guttate psoriasis: An updated review. Drugs Context. 2023 Oct 23:12:2023-8-2. doi: 10.7573/dic.2023-8-2.
Galili E et al. New-onset guttate psoriasis: A long-term follow-up study. Dermatology. 2023;239(2):188-194. doi: 10.1159/000527737.
Duffin KC et al. Advances and controversies in our understanding of guttate and plaque psoriasis. J Rheumatol. 2023 Nov;50(Suppl 2):4-7. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.2023-0500.
Saleh D, Tanner LS. Guttate Psoriasis. [Updated 2023 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482498/
Dupire G et al. Antistreptococcal interventions for guttate and chronic plaque psoriasis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Mar 5;3(3):CD011571. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011571.pub2.
On physical exam, there was an erythematous patch with overlying areas of macerations on the neck and axilla. The trunk, extremities, and diaper area had multiple psoriasiform erythematous thin plaques with overlying scales.