User login
Nemolizumab Benefits Seen in Adults, Teens With Atopic Dermatitis
TOPLINE:
(AD).
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers conducted two 48-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, ARCADIA 1 (n = 941; 47% women) and ARCADIA 2 (n = 787; 52% women), involving patients aged 12 and older with moderate to severe AD.
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 30 mg nemolizumab (with a 60-mg loading dose) or placebo, along with background topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors. The mean age range was 33.3-35.2 years.
- The coprimary endpoints were Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 16, significantly more patients receiving nemolizumab vs placebo achieved IGA success in both the ARCADIA 1 (36% vs 25%; P = .0003) and ARCADIA 2 (38% vs 26%; P = .0006) trials.
- EASI-75 response rates were also significantly higher in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group in both trials: ARCADIA 1 (44% vs 29%; P < .0001) and 2 (42% vs 30%; P = .0006).
- Significant improvements in pruritus were observed as early as week 1, with a greater proportion of participants in the nemolizumab vs placebo group achieving at least a four-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score in both trials.
- Rates of adverse events were similar between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, with severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2%-4% of patients.
IN PRACTICE:
“Nemolizumab showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and pruritus in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and a rapid effect in reducing pruritus, as one of the primary complaints of patients. As such, nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of the therapeutic armament if approved,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, from the Department of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. It was published online in The Lancet.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included the absence of longer-term safety data. Additionally, the predominantly White population of the trials may limit the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic groups. The use of concomitant topical therapy might have influenced the placebo response.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Silverberg received honoraria from pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, and his institution also received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Four authors were employees of Galderma. Other authors also declared having ties with pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, outside this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
(AD).
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers conducted two 48-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, ARCADIA 1 (n = 941; 47% women) and ARCADIA 2 (n = 787; 52% women), involving patients aged 12 and older with moderate to severe AD.
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 30 mg nemolizumab (with a 60-mg loading dose) or placebo, along with background topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors. The mean age range was 33.3-35.2 years.
- The coprimary endpoints were Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 16, significantly more patients receiving nemolizumab vs placebo achieved IGA success in both the ARCADIA 1 (36% vs 25%; P = .0003) and ARCADIA 2 (38% vs 26%; P = .0006) trials.
- EASI-75 response rates were also significantly higher in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group in both trials: ARCADIA 1 (44% vs 29%; P < .0001) and 2 (42% vs 30%; P = .0006).
- Significant improvements in pruritus were observed as early as week 1, with a greater proportion of participants in the nemolizumab vs placebo group achieving at least a four-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score in both trials.
- Rates of adverse events were similar between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, with severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2%-4% of patients.
IN PRACTICE:
“Nemolizumab showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and pruritus in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and a rapid effect in reducing pruritus, as one of the primary complaints of patients. As such, nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of the therapeutic armament if approved,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, from the Department of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. It was published online in The Lancet.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included the absence of longer-term safety data. Additionally, the predominantly White population of the trials may limit the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic groups. The use of concomitant topical therapy might have influenced the placebo response.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Silverberg received honoraria from pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, and his institution also received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Four authors were employees of Galderma. Other authors also declared having ties with pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, outside this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
(AD).
METHODOLOGY:
- The researchers conducted two 48-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trials, ARCADIA 1 (n = 941; 47% women) and ARCADIA 2 (n = 787; 52% women), involving patients aged 12 and older with moderate to severe AD.
- Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 30 mg nemolizumab (with a 60-mg loading dose) or placebo, along with background topical corticosteroids with or without topical calcineurin inhibitors. The mean age range was 33.3-35.2 years.
- The coprimary endpoints were Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) success (score of 0 or 1 with at least a two-point improvement from baseline) and at least a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75) at week 16.
TAKEAWAY:
- At week 16, significantly more patients receiving nemolizumab vs placebo achieved IGA success in both the ARCADIA 1 (36% vs 25%; P = .0003) and ARCADIA 2 (38% vs 26%; P = .0006) trials.
- EASI-75 response rates were also significantly higher in the nemolizumab group than in the placebo group in both trials: ARCADIA 1 (44% vs 29%; P < .0001) and 2 (42% vs 30%; P = .0006).
- Significant improvements in pruritus were observed as early as week 1, with a greater proportion of participants in the nemolizumab vs placebo group achieving at least a four-point reduction in the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale score in both trials.
- Rates of adverse events were similar between the nemolizumab and placebo groups, with severe treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in 2%-4% of patients.
IN PRACTICE:
“Nemolizumab showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in inflammation and pruritus in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis and a rapid effect in reducing pruritus, as one of the primary complaints of patients. As such, nemolizumab might offer a valuable extension of the therapeutic armament if approved,” the authors concluded.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Jonathan Silverberg, MD, PhD, from the Department of Dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, DC. It was published online in The Lancet.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s limitations included the absence of longer-term safety data. Additionally, the predominantly White population of the trials may limit the generalizability of the findings to other racial and ethnic groups. The use of concomitant topical therapy might have influenced the placebo response.
DISCLOSURES:
This study was funded by Galderma. Dr. Silverberg received honoraria from pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, and his institution also received grants from Galderma, Incyte, and Pfizer. Four authors were employees of Galderma. Other authors also declared having ties with pharmaceutical companies, including Galderma, outside this work.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Vitamin B1 May Reduce Constipation in Adults
TOPLINE:
Increased dietary intake of vitamin B1 is associated with a lower prevalence of constipation, particularly among men and individuals without hypertension or diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2005-2010 involving 10,371 adults aged ≥ 20 years.
- Participants provided information on fecal characteristics and bowel movement frequency, which was documented for 30 days prior to data collection.
- Constipation was established by either frequency of bowel movements (fewer than three per week) or stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale type 1 or 2).
- Data on vitamin B1 intake were collected through 24-hour total nutritional intake recall interviews. Patients were divided into three groups based on their level of B1 intake: 0.064-1.21 mg, 1.21-1.76 mg, and 1.76-12.61 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 10.8% of participants were identified as having constipation.
- Greater dietary vitamin B1 intake was associated with a 23% reduction in constipation risk (P = .034).
- Additionally, a subgroup analysis found that higher B1 intake was associated with a reduction in constipation risk of 20% in men, 16% in people without hypertension, and 14% in those without diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“This association suggests that enhanced intake of vitamin B1 through diet may facilitate softer stools and heightened intestinal motility, thereby potentially alleviating constipation symptoms. Consequently, healthcare professionals are advised to prioritize the promotion of a well-balanced diet as an initial therapeutic approach, preceding medical interventions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wenyi Du, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou, China, and Wuxi People’s Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Wuxi, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
A causal relationship could not be established between vitamin B1 intake and constipation owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. The study relied on patient interviews and patient self-reported data. Additionally, 24-hour dietary recalls may not have accurately reflected the long-term eating habits of the participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Increased dietary intake of vitamin B1 is associated with a lower prevalence of constipation, particularly among men and individuals without hypertension or diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2005-2010 involving 10,371 adults aged ≥ 20 years.
- Participants provided information on fecal characteristics and bowel movement frequency, which was documented for 30 days prior to data collection.
- Constipation was established by either frequency of bowel movements (fewer than three per week) or stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale type 1 or 2).
- Data on vitamin B1 intake were collected through 24-hour total nutritional intake recall interviews. Patients were divided into three groups based on their level of B1 intake: 0.064-1.21 mg, 1.21-1.76 mg, and 1.76-12.61 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 10.8% of participants were identified as having constipation.
- Greater dietary vitamin B1 intake was associated with a 23% reduction in constipation risk (P = .034).
- Additionally, a subgroup analysis found that higher B1 intake was associated with a reduction in constipation risk of 20% in men, 16% in people without hypertension, and 14% in those without diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“This association suggests that enhanced intake of vitamin B1 through diet may facilitate softer stools and heightened intestinal motility, thereby potentially alleviating constipation symptoms. Consequently, healthcare professionals are advised to prioritize the promotion of a well-balanced diet as an initial therapeutic approach, preceding medical interventions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wenyi Du, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou, China, and Wuxi People’s Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Wuxi, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
A causal relationship could not be established between vitamin B1 intake and constipation owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. The study relied on patient interviews and patient self-reported data. Additionally, 24-hour dietary recalls may not have accurately reflected the long-term eating habits of the participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Increased dietary intake of vitamin B1 is associated with a lower prevalence of constipation, particularly among men and individuals without hypertension or diabetes.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a cross-sectional study using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data from 2005-2010 involving 10,371 adults aged ≥ 20 years.
- Participants provided information on fecal characteristics and bowel movement frequency, which was documented for 30 days prior to data collection.
- Constipation was established by either frequency of bowel movements (fewer than three per week) or stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale type 1 or 2).
- Data on vitamin B1 intake were collected through 24-hour total nutritional intake recall interviews. Patients were divided into three groups based on their level of B1 intake: 0.064-1.21 mg, 1.21-1.76 mg, and 1.76-12.61 mg.
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 10.8% of participants were identified as having constipation.
- Greater dietary vitamin B1 intake was associated with a 23% reduction in constipation risk (P = .034).
- Additionally, a subgroup analysis found that higher B1 intake was associated with a reduction in constipation risk of 20% in men, 16% in people without hypertension, and 14% in those without diabetes.
IN PRACTICE:
“This association suggests that enhanced intake of vitamin B1 through diet may facilitate softer stools and heightened intestinal motility, thereby potentially alleviating constipation symptoms. Consequently, healthcare professionals are advised to prioritize the promotion of a well-balanced diet as an initial therapeutic approach, preceding medical interventions,” the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
The study, led by Wenyi Du, the Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou Stomatological Hospital, Suzhou, China, and Wuxi People’s Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Wuxi, China, was published online in BMC Gastroenterology.
LIMITATIONS:
A causal relationship could not be established between vitamin B1 intake and constipation owing to the cross-sectional nature of the study. The study relied on patient interviews and patient self-reported data. Additionally, 24-hour dietary recalls may not have accurately reflected the long-term eating habits of the participants.
DISCLOSURES:
The study had no specific funding source. The authors declared no competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Studies Show Dupilumab Effects In Children with Both Atopic Dermatitis and Alopecia
TOPLINE:
(AA) in a review.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a scoping review of seven studies, a result of a MEDLINE and Embase search on March 1, 2024, which included 31 patients aged 4-17 years with both AD and AA (average age, 11.4 years; 64.5% women).
- The review included four case reports, two case series, and one retrospective chart review.
- Patients had an average duration of AA and AD of 3.31 years and 5.33 years, respectively, before starting dupilumab.
- The type of AA was listed in 22 patients; among these patients, alopecia universalis was the most common (50%), followed by alopecia ophiasis (22.7%), patchy alopecia (18.2%), and alopecia totalis (9.09%).
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 77.4% of patients in the trials achieved hair regrowth with dupilumab treatment with a mean 42.6 reduction in SALT score (measuring scalp hair loss on a scale of 0-100) over an average of 3.21 months (P < .01).
- Severity of AD was reduced by an average of 2.14 units to an average of 0.857 (clear or almost clear AD; P < .01) on the AD Investigator Global Assessment dropping from an average of 3 (severe disease) before treatment.
- There were no characteristics that significantly distinguished patients with AA who responded to treatment from those who did not.
- Four patients reported worsening of preexisting AA after starting dupilumab; two of these continued dupilumab and showed improvement at subsequent follow-ups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our review highlights the efficacy of dupilumab in pediatric AA with concurrent AD,” wrote the authors, noting that “the exact mechanism for this efficacy remains speculative.” Although there have been reports of new or worsening AA with dupilumab, they added, its “favorable safety profile in pediatrics enhances its appeal for AA treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other AA medications.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dea Metko, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 4, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Potential publication bias, inconsistent data reporting, the small number of patients, and short follow-up duration were the main limitations of this study.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. One author received honoraria outside this work. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
(AA) in a review.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a scoping review of seven studies, a result of a MEDLINE and Embase search on March 1, 2024, which included 31 patients aged 4-17 years with both AD and AA (average age, 11.4 years; 64.5% women).
- The review included four case reports, two case series, and one retrospective chart review.
- Patients had an average duration of AA and AD of 3.31 years and 5.33 years, respectively, before starting dupilumab.
- The type of AA was listed in 22 patients; among these patients, alopecia universalis was the most common (50%), followed by alopecia ophiasis (22.7%), patchy alopecia (18.2%), and alopecia totalis (9.09%).
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 77.4% of patients in the trials achieved hair regrowth with dupilumab treatment with a mean 42.6 reduction in SALT score (measuring scalp hair loss on a scale of 0-100) over an average of 3.21 months (P < .01).
- Severity of AD was reduced by an average of 2.14 units to an average of 0.857 (clear or almost clear AD; P < .01) on the AD Investigator Global Assessment dropping from an average of 3 (severe disease) before treatment.
- There were no characteristics that significantly distinguished patients with AA who responded to treatment from those who did not.
- Four patients reported worsening of preexisting AA after starting dupilumab; two of these continued dupilumab and showed improvement at subsequent follow-ups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our review highlights the efficacy of dupilumab in pediatric AA with concurrent AD,” wrote the authors, noting that “the exact mechanism for this efficacy remains speculative.” Although there have been reports of new or worsening AA with dupilumab, they added, its “favorable safety profile in pediatrics enhances its appeal for AA treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other AA medications.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dea Metko, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 4, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Potential publication bias, inconsistent data reporting, the small number of patients, and short follow-up duration were the main limitations of this study.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. One author received honoraria outside this work. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
(AA) in a review.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers conducted a scoping review of seven studies, a result of a MEDLINE and Embase search on March 1, 2024, which included 31 patients aged 4-17 years with both AD and AA (average age, 11.4 years; 64.5% women).
- The review included four case reports, two case series, and one retrospective chart review.
- Patients had an average duration of AA and AD of 3.31 years and 5.33 years, respectively, before starting dupilumab.
- The type of AA was listed in 22 patients; among these patients, alopecia universalis was the most common (50%), followed by alopecia ophiasis (22.7%), patchy alopecia (18.2%), and alopecia totalis (9.09%).
TAKEAWAY:
- Overall, 77.4% of patients in the trials achieved hair regrowth with dupilumab treatment with a mean 42.6 reduction in SALT score (measuring scalp hair loss on a scale of 0-100) over an average of 3.21 months (P < .01).
- Severity of AD was reduced by an average of 2.14 units to an average of 0.857 (clear or almost clear AD; P < .01) on the AD Investigator Global Assessment dropping from an average of 3 (severe disease) before treatment.
- There were no characteristics that significantly distinguished patients with AA who responded to treatment from those who did not.
- Four patients reported worsening of preexisting AA after starting dupilumab; two of these continued dupilumab and showed improvement at subsequent follow-ups.
IN PRACTICE:
“Our review highlights the efficacy of dupilumab in pediatric AA with concurrent AD,” wrote the authors, noting that “the exact mechanism for this efficacy remains speculative.” Although there have been reports of new or worsening AA with dupilumab, they added, its “favorable safety profile in pediatrics enhances its appeal for AA treatment, as monotherapy or in combination with other AA medications.”
SOURCE:
The study was led by Dea Metko, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It was published online on July 4, 2024, in Pediatric Dermatology.
LIMITATIONS:
Potential publication bias, inconsistent data reporting, the small number of patients, and short follow-up duration were the main limitations of this study.
DISCLOSURES:
The study funding source was not disclosed. One author received honoraria outside this work. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Women’s Risk for Lupus Rises With Greater Intake of Ultraprocessed Foods
TOPLINE:
A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
- Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
- Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.
TAKEAWAY:
- A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
- The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
- Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
- No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practical application.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
- Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
- Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.
TAKEAWAY:
- A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
- The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
- Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
- No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practical application.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.
METHODOLOGY:
- Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
- Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
- Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.
TAKEAWAY:
- A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
- The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
- Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
- No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.
IN PRACTICE:
This study is too preliminary to have practical application.
SOURCE:
The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.
LIMITATIONS:
The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.
DISCLOSURES:
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.
This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.