Article

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released its inaugural report on the devastating global effects of hypertension, including recommendations for combatting this “silent killer.”¹ Notable in the 276-page report is the emphasis on improving access to antihypertensive medications, in part through team-based care and simple evidence-based protocols. This strategy is not surprising given that in clinical medicine we focus on the “high-risk” strategy for prevention­—ie, identify people at increased risk for an adverse health outcome (in this case, cardiovascular disease events) and offer them medication to reduce that risk.²

Should we replace even a small amount of the sodium in processed foods with potassium?

As part of the high-risk strategy, we also counsel at the individual level about lifestyle modifications—but unfortunately, we tend not to get very far. Given the substantial evidence demonstrating its benefits, a low-sodium DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) eating plan is one of the lifestyle recommendations we make for our patients with hypertension.^3,4 The DASH part of the diet involves getting our patients to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and limit sugar and saturated fats. To achieve the low-sodium part, we might counsel against added table salt, but mostly we discourage consumption of canned and other foods that are commercially processed, packaged, and prepared, because that’s the source of more than 70% of our sodium intake.⁵ It’s not difficult to understand why real-world uptake of the low-sodium DASH eating plan is low.⁶

This issue of The Journal of Family Practice features a PURL that supports a much more prominent role for salt substitutes in our counseling recommendations.⁷ Potassium­-enriched salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure (BP) but also reduce the risk for cardiovascular events and death.⁸ They are widely available, and while more expensive per ounce than regular salt (sodium chloride), are still affordable.

Still, encouraging salt substitution with one patient at a time is relying on the high-risk strategy, with its inherently limited potential.² An alternative is the population strategy. For hypertension, that would mean doing something for the entire population that would lead to a downward shift in the distribution of BP.² The shift does not have to be large. We’ve known for more than 3 decades that just a 2–mm Hg reduction in the population’s average systolic BP would reduce stroke mortality by about 6%, coronary heart disease mortality by 4%, and total mortality by 3%.⁹ A 5–mm Hg reduction more than doubles those benefits. We are talking about tens of thousands fewer patients with heart disease and stroke each year and billions of dollars in health care cost savings.

Reducing our nation’s sodium intake, a quintessential population approach, has proven difficult. Our average daily sodium intake is about 3600 mg.¹⁰ Guidance on sodium reduction from the US Food and Drug Administration (targeted to industry) has aimed to reduce Americans’ average sodium intake to 3000 mg/d over the short term, fully acknowledging that the recommended sodium limit is 2300 mg/d.¹¹ We’ve got a long way to go.

Might salt substitution at the population level be a way to simultaneously reduce our sodium intake and increase our potassium intake?¹² The closest I found to a population­wide substitution study was a cluster randomized trial conducted in 6 villages in Peru.¹³ In a stepped-wedge design, households had 25% of their regular salt replaced with potassium salt. Small shops, bakeries, community kitchens, and food vendors also had salt replacement. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a small reduction in systolic BP (1.3 mm Hg) among those with hypertension at baseline (n = 428) and a 51% reduced incidence of developing hypertension among the other 1891 participants over the 4673 ­person-years of follow-up.

I found this study interesting and its results compelling, leading me to wonder: In the United States, where most of our sodium comes from the food industry, should we replace even a small amount of the sodium in processed foods with potassium? We’re not getting there with DASH alone. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released its inaugural report on the devastating global effects of hypertension, including recommendations for combatting this “silent killer.”¹ Notable in the 276-page report is the emphasis on improving access to antihypertensive medications, in part through team-based care and simple evidence-based protocols. This strategy is not surprising given that in clinical medicine we focus on the “high-risk” strategy for prevention­—ie, identify people at increased risk for an adverse health outcome (in this case, cardiovascular disease events) and offer them medication to reduce that risk.²

Should we replace even a small amount of the sodium in processed foods with potassium?

As part of the high-risk strategy, we also counsel at the individual level about lifestyle modifications—but unfortunately, we tend not to get very far. Given the substantial evidence demonstrating its benefits, a low-sodium DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) eating plan is one of the lifestyle recommendations we make for our patients with hypertension.^3,4 The DASH part of the diet involves getting our patients to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and limit sugar and saturated fats. To achieve the low-sodium part, we might counsel against added table salt, but mostly we discourage consumption of canned and other foods that are commercially processed, packaged, and prepared, because that’s the source of more than 70% of our sodium intake.⁵ It’s not difficult to understand why real-world uptake of the low-sodium DASH eating plan is low.⁶

This issue of The Journal of Family Practice features a PURL that supports a much more prominent role for salt substitutes in our counseling recommendations.⁷ Potassium­-enriched salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure (BP) but also reduce the risk for cardiovascular events and death.⁸ They are widely available, and while more expensive per ounce than regular salt (sodium chloride), are still affordable.

Still, encouraging salt substitution with one patient at a time is relying on the high-risk strategy, with its inherently limited potential.² An alternative is the population strategy. For hypertension, that would mean doing something for the entire population that would lead to a downward shift in the distribution of BP.² The shift does not have to be large. We’ve known for more than 3 decades that just a 2–mm Hg reduction in the population’s average systolic BP would reduce stroke mortality by about 6%, coronary heart disease mortality by 4%, and total mortality by 3%.⁹ A 5–mm Hg reduction more than doubles those benefits. We are talking about tens of thousands fewer patients with heart disease and stroke each year and billions of dollars in health care cost savings.

Reducing our nation’s sodium intake, a quintessential population approach, has proven difficult. Our average daily sodium intake is about 3600 mg.¹⁰ Guidance on sodium reduction from the US Food and Drug Administration (targeted to industry) has aimed to reduce Americans’ average sodium intake to 3000 mg/d over the short term, fully acknowledging that the recommended sodium limit is 2300 mg/d.¹¹ We’ve got a long way to go.

Might salt substitution at the population level be a way to simultaneously reduce our sodium intake and increase our potassium intake?¹² The closest I found to a population­wide substitution study was a cluster randomized trial conducted in 6 villages in Peru.¹³ In a stepped-wedge design, households had 25% of their regular salt replaced with potassium salt. Small shops, bakeries, community kitchens, and food vendors also had salt replacement. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a small reduction in systolic BP (1.3 mm Hg) among those with hypertension at baseline (n = 428) and a 51% reduced incidence of developing hypertension among the other 1891 participants over the 4673 ­person-years of follow-up.

I found this study interesting and its results compelling, leading me to wonder: In the United States, where most of our sodium comes from the food industry, should we replace even a small amount of the sodium in processed foods with potassium? We’re not getting there with DASH alone. 

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently released its inaugural report on the devastating global effects of hypertension, including recommendations for combatting this “silent killer.”¹ Notable in the 276-page report is the emphasis on improving access to antihypertensive medications, in part through team-based care and simple evidence-based protocols. This strategy is not surprising given that in clinical medicine we focus on the “high-risk” strategy for prevention­—ie, identify people at increased risk for an adverse health outcome (in this case, cardiovascular disease events) and offer them medication to reduce that risk.²

Should we replace even a small amount of the sodium in processed foods with potassium?

As part of the high-risk strategy, we also counsel at the individual level about lifestyle modifications—but unfortunately, we tend not to get very far. Given the substantial evidence demonstrating its benefits, a low-sodium DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) eating plan is one of the lifestyle recommendations we make for our patients with hypertension.^3,4 The DASH part of the diet involves getting our patients to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and limit sugar and saturated fats. To achieve the low-sodium part, we might counsel against added table salt, but mostly we discourage consumption of canned and other foods that are commercially processed, packaged, and prepared, because that’s the source of more than 70% of our sodium intake.⁵ It’s not difficult to understand why real-world uptake of the low-sodium DASH eating plan is low.⁶

This issue of The Journal of Family Practice features a PURL that supports a much more prominent role for salt substitutes in our counseling recommendations.⁷ Potassium­-enriched salt substitutes not only lower blood pressure (BP) but also reduce the risk for cardiovascular events and death.⁸ They are widely available, and while more expensive per ounce than regular salt (sodium chloride), are still affordable.

Still, encouraging salt substitution with one patient at a time is relying on the high-risk strategy, with its inherently limited potential.² An alternative is the population strategy. For hypertension, that would mean doing something for the entire population that would lead to a downward shift in the distribution of BP.² The shift does not have to be large. We’ve known for more than 3 decades that just a 2–mm Hg reduction in the population’s average systolic BP would reduce stroke mortality by about 6%, coronary heart disease mortality by 4%, and total mortality by 3%.⁹ A 5–mm Hg reduction more than doubles those benefits. We are talking about tens of thousands fewer patients with heart disease and stroke each year and billions of dollars in health care cost savings.

Reducing our nation’s sodium intake, a quintessential population approach, has proven difficult. Our average daily sodium intake is about 3600 mg.¹⁰ Guidance on sodium reduction from the US Food and Drug Administration (targeted to industry) has aimed to reduce Americans’ average sodium intake to 3000 mg/d over the short term, fully acknowledging that the recommended sodium limit is 2300 mg/d.¹¹ We’ve got a long way to go.

Might salt substitution at the population level be a way to simultaneously reduce our sodium intake and increase our potassium intake?¹² The closest I found to a population­wide substitution study was a cluster randomized trial conducted in 6 villages in Peru.¹³ In a stepped-wedge design, households had 25% of their regular salt replaced with potassium salt. Small shops, bakeries, community kitchens, and food vendors also had salt replacement. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a small reduction in systolic BP (1.3 mm Hg) among those with hypertension at baseline (n = 428) and a 51% reduced incidence of developing hypertension among the other 1891 participants over the 4673 ­person-years of follow-up.

I found this study interesting and its results compelling, leading me to wonder: In the United States, where most of our sodium comes from the food industry, should we replace even a small amount of the sodium in processed foods with potassium? We’re not getting there with DASH alone. 

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; [email protected]

THE CASE

A 52-year-old man sought care at the emergency department for intermittent fevers that started within 6 days of receiving his second dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech). After an unremarkable work-up, he was discharged home. Six days later, he returned to the emergency department with a fever of 102 °F and new-onset, progressive tremors in all 4 of his extremities.

The patient had a history of rheumatoid arthritis, for which he was taking oral methotrexate 15 mg once weekly and golimumab 50 mg SQ once monthly, and atrial fibrillation. He’d also had mechanical aortic and mitral valves implanted and was taking warfarin (9 mg/d on weekdays, 6 mg/d on Saturday and Sunday). Aside from his fever, his vital signs were normal. He also had horizontal nystagmus (chronically present) and diffuse tremors/myoclonic movements throughout his upper and lower extremities. The tremors were present at rest and worsened with intention/activity, which affected the patient’s ability to walk and perform activities of daily living.

He was admitted the next day to the family medicine service for further evaluation. Neurology and infectious disease consultations were requested, and a broad initial work-up was undertaken. Hyperreflexia was present in all of his extremities, but his neurologic examination was otherwise normal. Initial laboratory tests demonstrated leukocytosis and elevated liver transaminases. His international normalized ratio (INR) and prothrombin time (PT) also were elevated (> 8 [goal, 2.5-3.5 for mechanical heart valves] and > 90 seconds [normal range, 9.7-13.0 seconds], respectively), thus his warfarin was held and oral vitamin K was started (initial dose of 2.5 mg, which was increased to 5 mg when his INR did not decrease enough).

By Day 2, his INR and PT had normalized enough to reinitiate his warfarin dosing. Results from the viral antibody and polymerase chain reaction testing indicated the presence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection with viremia; blood cultures for bacterial infection were negative. Brain magnetic resonance imaging was ordered and identified a small, acute left-side cerebellar stroke. Lumbar puncture also was ordered but deferred until his INR was below 1.5 (on Day 8), at which point it confirmed the absence of CMV or herpes simplex virus in his central nervous system.

THE DIAGNOSIS

The patient started oral valganciclovir 900 mg twice daily to ameliorate his tremors, but he did not tolerate it well, vomiting after dosing. He was switched to IV ganciclovir 5 mg/kg every 12 hours; however, his tremors were not improving, leading the team to suspect an etiology other than viral infection. A presumptive diagnosis of autoimmune movement disorder was made, and serum tests were ordered; the results were positive for antiphospholipid antibodies, including anticardiolipin and anti-ß₂ glycoprotein-I antibodies. A final diagnosis of autoimmune antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS)–related movement disorder¹ with coagulopathy was reached, and the patient was started on methylprednisolone 1 g/d IV.

We suspected the CMV viremia was reactivated by the COVID-19 vaccine and caused the APS that led to the movement disorder, coagulopathy, and likely, the thrombotic cerebellar stroke. The case was reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).²

DISCUSSION

Clinically evident APS is rare, with an estimated annual incidence of 2.1 per 100,000 according to a 2019 longitudinal cohort study.³ Notably, all identified cases in this cohort had either a venous or arterial thrombotic event—a characterizing feature of APS—with 45% of patients diagnosed with stroke or transient ischemic attack.^3,4

Continue to: The development of antiphospholipid antibodies...

The development of antiphospholipid antibodies has been independently associated with rheumatoid arthritis,⁵ COVID-19,⁶ and CMV infection,⁷ as well as with vaccination for influenza and tetanus.⁸ There also are reports of antiphospholipid antibodies occurring in patients who have received ­adenovirus-vectored and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.^9-11

Movement disorders occurring with APS are unusual, with approximately 1.3% to 4.5% of patients with APS demonstrating this manifestation.¹² One of multiple autoimmune-related movement disorders, APS-­related movement disorder is most commonly associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), although it can occur outside an SLE diagnosis.⁴

Limited evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccination can cause reactivation of dormant herpesviruses.

While APS-related movement disorder occurs with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, the pathogenesis of the movement disorder is unclear.⁴ Patients are typically young women, and the associated movements are choreiform. The condition often occurs with coagulopathy and arterial thrombosis.⁴ Psychiatric manifestations also can occur, including changes in behavior—up to and including psychosis.⁴

Evidence of COVID-19 vaccination reactivating herpesviruses exists, although it is rare and usually does not cause serious health outcomes.¹³ The annual incidence of reactivation related to vaccination is estimated to be 0.7 per 100,000 for varicella zoster virus and 0.03 per 100,000 for herpes simplex virus.¹³ The literature also suggests that the occurrence of Bell palsy—the onset of which may be related to the reactivation of a latent virus—may increase in relation to particular COVID-19 vaccines.^14,15 Although there is no confirmed explanation for these reactivation events at this time, different theories related to altering the focus of immune cells from latent disease to the newly generated antigen have been suggested.¹⁶

To date, reactivation has not been demonstrated with CMV specifically. However, based on the literature reviewed here on the reactivation of herpesviruses and the temporal relationship to infection in our patient, we propose that the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination reactivated his CMV infection and led to his APS-related movement disorder.

Continue to: Treatment is focused on resolved the autoimmune condition

Treatment is focused on resolving the autoimmune condition, usually with corticosteroids. Longer-term treatment of the movement disorder with antiepileptics such as carbamazepine and valproic acid may be necessary.⁴

Our patient received methylprednisolone IV 1 g/d for 3 days and responded quickly to the treatment. He was discharged to a post-acute rehabilitation hospital on Day 16 with a plan for 21 days of antiviral treatment for an acute CMV infection, 1 month of oral steroid taper for the APS, and continued warfarin treatment. This regimen resulted in complete resolution of his movement disorder and negative testing of antiphospholipid antibodies 16 days after he was discharged from the hospital.

THE TAKEAWAY

This case illustrates the possible reactivation of a herpesvirus (CMV) related to COVID-19 vaccination, as well as the development of APS-related movement disorder and coagulopathy related to acute CMV infection with viremia. Vaccination for the COVID-19 virus is seen as the best intervention available for preventing serious illness and death associated with COVID-19 infection. Thus, it is important to be aware of these unusual events when vaccinating large populations. This case also demonstrates the need to understand the interplay of immune status and possible disorders associated with autoimmune conditions. Keeping an open mind when evaluating patients with post-vaccination complaints is beneficial—especially given the volume of distrust and misinformation associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

CORRESPONDENCE
Aaron Lear, MD, MSc, CAQ, Cleveland Clinic Akron General Center for Family Medicine, 1 Akron General Avenue, Building 301, Akron, OH 44307; [email protected]

When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met in June and adopted recommendations for influenza vaccines for the 2023-2024 season, the major discussions focused on the timing of vaccine administration, the composition of the vaccine, and what (if any) special precautions are needed when administering an egg-based vaccine to a person with a history of egg allergy. Here are the takeaways.

When should flu vaccine be administered?

Influenza activity usually peaks between December and the end of March; only twice between 1982 and 2022 did it peak before December. Thus, most people should receive the vaccine in September or October, a recommendation that has not changed from last year. This is early enough to provide adequate protection in most influenza seasons, but late enough to allow protection to persist through the entire season. Vaccination should continue to be offered to those who are unvaccinated throughout the influenza season, as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

Earlier administration is not recommended for most people and is recommended against for those ages 65 years and older (because their immunity from the vaccine may wane faster) and for pregnant people in their first or second trimester (because the vaccine is more effective in preventing influenza in newborns if administered in the third trimester). Evidence regarding waning immunity is inconsistent; however, some studies have shown greater loss of immunity in the elderly compared to younger age groups, as time from vaccination increases.¹

What’s in this year’s vaccines?

The composition of the vaccines used in North America was determined by the World Health Organization in February, based on the most commonly circulating strains. All vaccines approved for use in the 2023-2024 season are quadrivalent and contain 1 influenza A (H1N1) strain, 1 influenza A (H3N2) strain, and 2 influenza B strains. The specifics of each strain are listed in TABLE 1.² The 2 influenza A strains are slightly different for the egg-based and non-egg-based vaccines.² There is no known effectiveness advantage of one antigen strain vs the other.

Should you take special precautions with egg allergy?

There is new wording to the recommendations on the use of egg-based influenza vaccines for those with a history of egg allergy (TABLE 2²). Previously, the ACIP had recommended that if an egg-based vaccine is given to a person with a history of egg allergy, it should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (eg, hospital, clinic, health department, physician office) and should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions. These added precautions were out of step with other organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and allergy-related specialty societies, all of whom recommend no special procedures or precautions when administering any influenza vaccine to those with a history of egg allergy.³

Why the change? Several factors contributed to ACIP’s decision to reword its recommendation. One is that the ovalbumin content of all current influenza vaccines ­(TABLE 3³) is considered too low to trigger an allergic reaction.

Another is the paucity of evidence that egg-based vaccines convey increased risk beyond that for any other vaccine. Although 1% to 3% of children are reported to have an egg allergy, there is no evidence that they are at increased risk for a serious allergic reaction if administered an egg-based vaccine.³ A systematic review of 31 studies (mostly low-quality observational studies and case series) conducted by the ACIP Influenza Work Group found no risk for severe anaphylaxis, hospitalization, or death, even in those with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to eggs.² A review of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data identified 18 cases of reported anaphylaxis after receipt of an inactivated influenza vaccine over a 5-year period, but clinical review confirmed only 7.²

Continue to: And finally, appropriate precautions already...

And finally, appropriate precautions already are recommended for administration of any vaccine. The CDC guidance for best practices for administering vaccines states: “Although allergic reactions are a common concern for vaccine providers, these reactions are uncommon and anaphylaxis following vaccines is rare, occurring at a rate of approximately one per million doses for many vaccines. Epinephrine and equipment for managing an airway should be available for immediate use.”⁴

What does this mean in practice? Family physicians who administer influenza vaccines do not need to use special precautions for any influenza vaccine, or use non-egg-based vaccines, for those who have a history of egg allergy. However, they should be prepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction just as they would for any other vaccine. Any vestigial practices pertaining to egg allergy and influenza vaccines—such as vaccine skin testing prior to vaccination (with dilution of vaccine if positive), vaccination deferral or administration via alternative dosing protocols, and split dosing of vaccine—are unnecessary and should be abandoned. 

When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met in June and adopted recommendations for influenza vaccines for the 2023-2024 season, the major discussions focused on the timing of vaccine administration, the composition of the vaccine, and what (if any) special precautions are needed when administering an egg-based vaccine to a person with a history of egg allergy. Here are the takeaways.

When should flu vaccine be administered?

Influenza activity usually peaks between December and the end of March; only twice between 1982 and 2022 did it peak before December. Thus, most people should receive the vaccine in September or October, a recommendation that has not changed from last year. This is early enough to provide adequate protection in most influenza seasons, but late enough to allow protection to persist through the entire season. Vaccination should continue to be offered to those who are unvaccinated throughout the influenza season, as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

Earlier administration is not recommended for most people and is recommended against for those ages 65 years and older (because their immunity from the vaccine may wane faster) and for pregnant people in their first or second trimester (because the vaccine is more effective in preventing influenza in newborns if administered in the third trimester). Evidence regarding waning immunity is inconsistent; however, some studies have shown greater loss of immunity in the elderly compared to younger age groups, as time from vaccination increases.¹

What’s in this year’s vaccines?

The composition of the vaccines used in North America was determined by the World Health Organization in February, based on the most commonly circulating strains. All vaccines approved for use in the 2023-2024 season are quadrivalent and contain 1 influenza A (H1N1) strain, 1 influenza A (H3N2) strain, and 2 influenza B strains. The specifics of each strain are listed in TABLE 1.² The 2 influenza A strains are slightly different for the egg-based and non-egg-based vaccines.² There is no known effectiveness advantage of one antigen strain vs the other.

Should you take special precautions with egg allergy?

There is new wording to the recommendations on the use of egg-based influenza vaccines for those with a history of egg allergy (TABLE 2²). Previously, the ACIP had recommended that if an egg-based vaccine is given to a person with a history of egg allergy, it should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (eg, hospital, clinic, health department, physician office) and should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions. These added precautions were out of step with other organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and allergy-related specialty societies, all of whom recommend no special procedures or precautions when administering any influenza vaccine to those with a history of egg allergy.³

Why the change? Several factors contributed to ACIP’s decision to reword its recommendation. One is that the ovalbumin content of all current influenza vaccines ­(TABLE 3³) is considered too low to trigger an allergic reaction.

Another is the paucity of evidence that egg-based vaccines convey increased risk beyond that for any other vaccine. Although 1% to 3% of children are reported to have an egg allergy, there is no evidence that they are at increased risk for a serious allergic reaction if administered an egg-based vaccine.³ A systematic review of 31 studies (mostly low-quality observational studies and case series) conducted by the ACIP Influenza Work Group found no risk for severe anaphylaxis, hospitalization, or death, even in those with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to eggs.² A review of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data identified 18 cases of reported anaphylaxis after receipt of an inactivated influenza vaccine over a 5-year period, but clinical review confirmed only 7.²

Continue to: And finally, appropriate precautions already...

And finally, appropriate precautions already are recommended for administration of any vaccine. The CDC guidance for best practices for administering vaccines states: “Although allergic reactions are a common concern for vaccine providers, these reactions are uncommon and anaphylaxis following vaccines is rare, occurring at a rate of approximately one per million doses for many vaccines. Epinephrine and equipment for managing an airway should be available for immediate use.”⁴

What does this mean in practice? Family physicians who administer influenza vaccines do not need to use special precautions for any influenza vaccine, or use non-egg-based vaccines, for those who have a history of egg allergy. However, they should be prepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction just as they would for any other vaccine. Any vestigial practices pertaining to egg allergy and influenza vaccines—such as vaccine skin testing prior to vaccination (with dilution of vaccine if positive), vaccination deferral or administration via alternative dosing protocols, and split dosing of vaccine—are unnecessary and should be abandoned. 

When the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) met in June and adopted recommendations for influenza vaccines for the 2023-2024 season, the major discussions focused on the timing of vaccine administration, the composition of the vaccine, and what (if any) special precautions are needed when administering an egg-based vaccine to a person with a history of egg allergy. Here are the takeaways.

When should flu vaccine be administered?

Influenza activity usually peaks between December and the end of March; only twice between 1982 and 2022 did it peak before December. Thus, most people should receive the vaccine in September or October, a recommendation that has not changed from last year. This is early enough to provide adequate protection in most influenza seasons, but late enough to allow protection to persist through the entire season. Vaccination should continue to be offered to those who are unvaccinated throughout the influenza season, as long as influenza viruses are circulating.

Earlier administration is not recommended for most people and is recommended against for those ages 65 years and older (because their immunity from the vaccine may wane faster) and for pregnant people in their first or second trimester (because the vaccine is more effective in preventing influenza in newborns if administered in the third trimester). Evidence regarding waning immunity is inconsistent; however, some studies have shown greater loss of immunity in the elderly compared to younger age groups, as time from vaccination increases.¹

What’s in this year’s vaccines?

The composition of the vaccines used in North America was determined by the World Health Organization in February, based on the most commonly circulating strains. All vaccines approved for use in the 2023-2024 season are quadrivalent and contain 1 influenza A (H1N1) strain, 1 influenza A (H3N2) strain, and 2 influenza B strains. The specifics of each strain are listed in TABLE 1.² The 2 influenza A strains are slightly different for the egg-based and non-egg-based vaccines.² There is no known effectiveness advantage of one antigen strain vs the other.

Should you take special precautions with egg allergy?

There is new wording to the recommendations on the use of egg-based influenza vaccines for those with a history of egg allergy (TABLE 2²). Previously, the ACIP had recommended that if an egg-based vaccine is given to a person with a history of egg allergy, it should be administered in an inpatient or outpatient medical setting (eg, hospital, clinic, health department, physician office) and should be supervised by a health care provider who is able to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions. These added precautions were out of step with other organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and allergy-related specialty societies, all of whom recommend no special procedures or precautions when administering any influenza vaccine to those with a history of egg allergy.³

Why the change? Several factors contributed to ACIP’s decision to reword its recommendation. One is that the ovalbumin content of all current influenza vaccines ­(TABLE 3³) is considered too low to trigger an allergic reaction.

Another is the paucity of evidence that egg-based vaccines convey increased risk beyond that for any other vaccine. Although 1% to 3% of children are reported to have an egg allergy, there is no evidence that they are at increased risk for a serious allergic reaction if administered an egg-based vaccine.³ A systematic review of 31 studies (mostly low-quality observational studies and case series) conducted by the ACIP Influenza Work Group found no risk for severe anaphylaxis, hospitalization, or death, even in those with a history of an anaphylactic reaction to eggs.² A review of Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) data identified 18 cases of reported anaphylaxis after receipt of an inactivated influenza vaccine over a 5-year period, but clinical review confirmed only 7.²

Continue to: And finally, appropriate precautions already...

And finally, appropriate precautions already are recommended for administration of any vaccine. The CDC guidance for best practices for administering vaccines states: “Although allergic reactions are a common concern for vaccine providers, these reactions are uncommon and anaphylaxis following vaccines is rare, occurring at a rate of approximately one per million doses for many vaccines. Epinephrine and equipment for managing an airway should be available for immediate use.”⁴

What does this mean in practice? Family physicians who administer influenza vaccines do not need to use special precautions for any influenza vaccine, or use non-egg-based vaccines, for those who have a history of egg allergy. However, they should be prepared to respond to a severe allergic reaction just as they would for any other vaccine. Any vestigial practices pertaining to egg allergy and influenza vaccines—such as vaccine skin testing prior to vaccination (with dilution of vaccine if positive), vaccination deferral or administration via alternative dosing protocols, and split dosing of vaccine—are unnecessary and should be abandoned. 

Sleep is fundamental to overall health and longevity, with the average person spending about one-third of their life sleeping.¹ Adequate sleep is critical for optimal cognition, memory consolidation, mood regulation, metabolism, appetite regulation, and immune and hormone functioning. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society, adults should sleep at least 7 hours per night on a regular basis “to promote optimal health.”² Yet, between 2013 and 2020, only about 65% of adults in the United States were meeting this amount.³ Insufficient sleep is associated with an increased risk for chronic health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and even premature death.⁴

In a population-based longitudinal study of sleep disorders, short sleep duration was associated with increased body mass index (BMI), low blood levels of leptin, and high ghrelin levels.⁵ In addition to physical impairments, poor sleep can impair cognitive performance and lead to vehicular accidents and increased accidents at work.⁴ The potential economic impact that this may have is significant, and includes increased costs and loss of productivity in the workplace.⁶

Many factors may contribute to short sleep duration: environment, mental and physical condition, and social influences such as occupation, family responsibilities, travel, group activities, and personal care. Furthermore, the rapidly evolving and developing media, communication, and entertainment industries are already strongly implicated in poor sleep quality and quantity, both contributing to excessive daytime sleepiness.⁷ Poor sleep quality is most notable in modern societies, and it correlates with the increasing prevalence of obesity, likely due to sleep’s effect on food consumption and physical activity.⁸ Optimizing a person’s sleep will improve overall health and longevity by inhibiting the development of chronic disease.

How insufficient sleep raises the risk for obesity

Not only is sleep beneficial for brain health, memory, learning, and growth, its effect on food consumption and physical activity likely correlates with the increased prevalence of obesity in modern society. Yet the optimal amount of sleep is controversial, and current recommendations of 7 or more hours of sleep per night for adults are derived from expert panels only.² The recommended sleep duration for children is longer, and it varies by age.⁹ The quality of sleep and its impact on neuroendocrine hormones, not just the quantity of sleep, needs to be factored into these recommendations.

Sleep restriction activates the orexigenic system via the hormones leptin and ghrelin. These hormones control the food reward system, essentially increasing hunger and food intake. Leptin, created by white adipose tissue, is responsible for satiety and decreased food consumption.¹⁰ Ghrelin, made by oxyntic glands in the stomach, is responsible for the sensation of hunger.

Poor sleep will increase the risk for obesity and hinder its treatment. Therefore, sleep quality and duration are vital components of obesity management.

In a 2004 study by Spiegel et al,¹¹ leptin and ghrelin levels were measured during 2 days of sleep restriction (4 hours in bed) and sleep extension (10 hours in bed). Sleep restriction was associated with a decrease in leptin levels and an increase in ghrelin levels. The researchers reported that participants experienced an increase in hunger and ­appetite—especially for calorie-dense foods with high carbohydrate content.

Although research design has limitations with predominantly self-reported sleep data, studies have shown that short sleep time leads to increased food intake by increasing hunger signals and craving of unhealthy foods, and by providing more opportunities to eat while awake. It also may lead to decreased physical activity, creating a sedentary lifestyle that further encourages obesity.⁸ Reduced sleep is even correlated to decreased efficacy of weight-loss treatments.¹²

Continue to: Other sleep characteristics weakly correlated with obesity

Other sleep characteristics weakly correlated with obesity are sleep variability, timing, efficiency, quality, and daytime napping.⁸ Sleep variability causes dysregulation of eating patterns, leading to increased food intake. A shift to later sleep and waking times often results in higher consumption of calories after 8 pm¹³; late-night snacks are a part of this sleep–obesity equation.¹⁴

Poor sleep efficiency and quality decreases N3-stage (deep non-REM) sleep, affects the autonomic nervous system, and has been associated with increased abdominal obesity. Daytime napping, which can cause irregular circadian rhythms and sleep schedules, is associated with increased obesity.¹⁵ Thus, each component of sleep needs to be assessed to promote optimal regulation of the orexigenic system.

It is a cycle of poor sleep causing obesity and obesity causing poor sleep.

Another study showed that inadequate sleep not only promotes unhealthy lifestyle habits that can lead to obesity but also decreases the ability to lose weight.¹⁶ This small study with 10 overweight patients provided its subjects with a controlled caloric intake over 2 weeks. Patients spent two 14-day periods 3 months apart in the laboratory, divided into 2 time-in-bed arms of 8.5 and 5.5 hours per night. Neuroendocrine changes caused by decreased sleep were associated with a significant lean body mass loss while conserving energy-dense fat.¹⁶ This study highlights the importance of sleep hygiene counseling when developing a weight-management plan with patients.

Sleep, and its many components, play an integral role in the prevention and treatment of obesity.¹⁷ Poor sleep will increase the risk for obesity and hinder its treatment. Therefore, sleep quality and duration are vital components of obesity management.

The sleep–obesity link in children and the elderly

Childhood obesity is linked to several chronic diseases in adulthood, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).¹⁸ According to 2017-2018 NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys) data, obesity (BMI ≥ 95th percentile) prevalence among children and adolescents was reported at 19.3% and severe obesity (BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile) at 6.1%. Pediatric overweight prevalence (≥ 85th percentile and < 95th percentile) was 16.1%.¹⁹

Continue to: Although poor sleep is associated...

Although poor sleep is associated with increased risk for obesity, there is no proven cause-effect relationship.²⁰ Nutrition and physical activity have been identified as 2 critical factors in childhood obesity, but sleep health also needs to be investigated. Shorter sleep duration is strongly associated with the development of obesity. Furthermore, children with obesity are more likely to have shorter sleep duration.²¹ A short sleep duration alters plasma levels of insulin, low-density lipoprotein, and high-sensitivity ­C-reactive protein. It is associated with lower diet quality, an increased intake of nutrient-poor foods, and a lower intake of vegetables and fruits.²² Recent studies have shown that interventions to promote earlier bedtimes can improve sleep duration in children.

Older adults have many sleeping issues, including insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-related movement disorders, and sleep-breathing disorders. Additionally, the older population has increased sleep latency, decreased sleep efficiency and total sleep time, decreased REM sleep, more frequent nighttime awakenings, and more daytime napping.²³ The increased sleep disturbance with age is mainly related to higher risk factors for sleep disorders than the aging process itself. Sleeping 5 or fewer hours is associated with an increased risk for obesity and central abdominal fat compared with those who sleep 7 to 8 hours per night.²⁴ Similar to children and youth, older adults also show a strong correlation between inadequate sleep and obesity.²⁴

The consequence: A vicious cycle

Obesity in turn leads to shorter sleep duration and more disruptions. This negatively affects the orexigenic system, and the resulting hormonal derangement promotes worsening obesity. It is a cycle of poor sleep causing obesity and obesity causing poor sleep. Insomnia, in combination with shorter (and longer) sleep times, also has been linked with obesity.²⁵ These patients experience more daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and nighttime sleep disturbances, all correlated with decreased quality of life and higher prevalence of medical comorbidities.^8,26 Additional comorbidities secondary to obesity, including gastroesophageal reflux, depression, and asthma, also have been linked to sleep disturbances.⁸

OSA is a common sleep complication associated with obesity. With the increasing prevalence of obesity, the prevalence of OSA is rising.^8,27 Factors that heighten the risk for OSA are male sex, age 40 to 70 years, postmenopausal status, elevated BMI, and craniofacial and upper airway abnormality.²⁸ However, the US Preventive Services Task Force found insufficient evidence to screen for or treat OSA in asymptomatic adults.²⁸ Signs and symptoms of OSA include nighttime awakenings with choking, loud snoring, and feeling unrefreshed after sleep.²⁹

Approximately half of primary care clinicians do not screen at-risk patients for OSA, and 90% do not use validated OSA screening tools.

OSA is caused by the intermittent narrowing and obstruction of the pharyngeal airway due to anatomical and structural irregularities or neuromuscular impairments. Untreated OSA is associated with cardiovascular disease and cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation. Even with this correlation between obesity and sleep, it is estimated that 80% of OSA remains undiagnosed.³⁰ Approximately half of primary care clinicians do not screen at-risk patients for OSA, and 90% do not use validated OSA screening tools.³¹ Screening tools that have been validated are the STOP, STOP-BANG, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and 4-Variable Screening Tool. However, the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Department of Defense have a more recent guideline recommending STOP as an easier-to-administer screen for OSA.³² A positive result with a screening tool should be confirmed with polysomnography.³²

Continue to: Intervention for OSA

Intervention for OSA. The longest randomized controlled study to date, Sleep AHEAD, evaluated over a period of 10 years the effect of weight loss on OSA severity achieved with either an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) or with diabetes support and education (DSE).³³ OSA severity is rated on an Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), with scores reflecting the number of sleep apnea events per hour. This study demonstrated that weight loss was associated with decreased OSA severity. At 4-year follow-up, the greater the weight loss with ILI intervention, the lower the patients’ OSA severity scores. The study found an average decrease in AHI of 0.68 events per hour for every kilogram of weight loss in the ILI group (P < .0001).^33,34 Over the follow-up visits, the ILI participants had 7.4 events per hour, a more significantly reduced AHI than the DSE participants (P < .0001).^33,34

Additionally, a small cohort of study participants achieved OSA remission (ILI, 34.4%; DSE, 22.2%), indicated by a low AHI score (< 5 events per hour). At the conclusion of the study, OSA severity decreased to a greater degree with ILI intervention.^33,34

Alcohol and drug use can negatively influence sleep patterns and obesity. Higher alcohol consumption is associated with poorer sleep quality and higher chances of developing short sleep duration and snoring.³⁵ Alcohol, a muscle relaxant, causes upper airway narrowing and reduced tongue muscle tone, thereby increasing snoring and OSA as demonstrated by increased AHI on polysomnography after alcohol intake. Alcohol also changes sleep architecture by increasing slow-wave sleep, decreasing REM sleep duration, and increasing sleep arousal in the second half of the night.³⁶ Disrupted circadian rhythm after alcohol consumption was correlated with increased adenosine neurotransmitters derived from ethanol metabolism.³⁷ Alcohol dependence may be related to other psychiatric symptoms, and chronic alcohol use eventually alters sleep mechanisms leading to persistent insomnia, further perpetuating adverse outcomes such as suicidal ideation.³⁶ There are positive associations between beer drinking and measures of abdominal adiposity in men, and “the combination of short sleep duration [and] disinhibited eating … is associated with greater alcohol intake and excess weight.”³⁸

Therefore, counsel patients to avoid alcohol since it is a modifiable risk factor with pervasive adverse health effects.

Many drugs have a profound effect on sleep patterns. Illicit drug use in particular can affect the brain’s neurotransmitter serotonin system. For example, ecstasy users have an increased risk for OSA.³⁹ People with cocaine and heroin use disorder tend to have more sleep-maintenance insomnia.⁴⁰

Continue to: In contrast, those with alcohol...

In contrast, those with alcohol or cannabis use disorder tend to have more sleep-onset insomnia.⁴⁰ Not only do illicit drugs interrupt sleep, but daily tobacco use also has been correlated with increased insomnia and shorter sleep duration since nicotine is a stimulant.⁴¹

Insomnia is commonly treated with sedative antidepressants and hypnotics—eg, mirtazapine and olanzapine—that contribute to weight gain.⁴² In addition, other common pharmaceuticals used for sleep disorders, such as diphenhydramine, have sedative properties and tend to lead to weight gain.⁴³ Because so many medications affect sleep and weight, carefully review patients’ medication lists and switch offending agents to weight-neutral drugs if possible.

Treatment and tools to improve sleep in patients with obesity

Given the strong correlation between obesity and sleep disorders, validated screening tools should be used to assess sleep quality, including onset and potential symptoms associated with poor sleep (TABLE 1⁴⁴). For weight management to succeed in patients with obesity, it is crucial to address sleep in addition to nutrition and physical activity.^17,45

It falls upon the clinician and patient to weigh the benefits and burdens of the pharmacologic treatments of insomnia.

Physical activity has many benefits to overall health, especially for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends at least 150 minutes of ­moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week in addition to muscle-strengthening activities 2 or more days per week.⁴⁶ However, approximately 300 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week is suggested for successful weight loss with exercise alone.⁴⁷

Physical activity and diet in combination are vital, but diet restriction has a more substantial effect on weight loss than physical activity alone.⁴⁸ Still, physical activity is essential in helping maintain and prevent weight regain.

Continue to: Nonpharmacologic interventions

Nonpharmacologic interventions include promoting greater sleep quality and quantity by emphasizing good sleep hygiene practices. Developing a practical and effective bedtime routine, creating a quiet sleep environment, and practicing healthy daily habits are essential components to sleep hygiene(TABLE 2^49,50). Relaxation techniques and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) also can help. CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line intervention for chronic insomnia.⁵¹ Sleep restriction is a type of CBT used to treat insomnia, encouraging short-term sleep loss in the hopes of improving insomnia. A trial by Logue et al showed that patients with overweight and obesity randomized to undergo CBT with better sleep hygiene (nonpharmacologic) interventions had a greater mean weight loss percentage (5% vs 2%; P = .04) than did those who received CBT alone.⁵²

Eastern medicine including herbal interventions lack evidence of efficacy and safety. Further studies need to be done on the effects that chamomile, kava, valerian root (Valeriana officinalis), tryptophan, and Wu Ling (from mycelia Xylaria nigripes) might have on sleep.⁵³

Proceed cautiously with medication. The American College of Physicians recommends a shared decision-making approach when considering pharmacologic therapy for chronic insomnia and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) offers guidance on options.^51,54 However, the evidence behind AASM sleep pharmacologic recommendations is weak, implying a lesser degree of confidence in the outcome and, therefore, in its appropriateness. Thus, it falls upon the clinician and patient to weigh the benefits and burdens of the pharmacologic treatments of insomnia. If indicated, medications suggested to treat sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia are eszopiclone, zolpidem, and temazepam. Zaleplon, triazolam, and ramelteon may improve sleep initiation. Suvorexant and doxepin are used for sleep-maintenance insomnia.⁵⁴ Exploring patient preferences, cost of treatment, health care options, and available resources should all be considered.

CORRESPONDENCE
Ecler Ercole Jaqua, MD, MBA, FAAFP, AGSF, FACLM, DipABOM, Loma Linda University Health, 25455 Barton Road, Suite 206A, Loma Linda, CA 92354; [email protected]

Sleep is fundamental to overall health and longevity, with the average person spending about one-third of their life sleeping.¹ Adequate sleep is critical for optimal cognition, memory consolidation, mood regulation, metabolism, appetite regulation, and immune and hormone functioning. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society, adults should sleep at least 7 hours per night on a regular basis “to promote optimal health.”² Yet, between 2013 and 2020, only about 65% of adults in the United States were meeting this amount.³ Insufficient sleep is associated with an increased risk for chronic health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and even premature death.⁴

In a population-based longitudinal study of sleep disorders, short sleep duration was associated with increased body mass index (BMI), low blood levels of leptin, and high ghrelin levels.⁵ In addition to physical impairments, poor sleep can impair cognitive performance and lead to vehicular accidents and increased accidents at work.⁴ The potential economic impact that this may have is significant, and includes increased costs and loss of productivity in the workplace.⁶

Many factors may contribute to short sleep duration: environment, mental and physical condition, and social influences such as occupation, family responsibilities, travel, group activities, and personal care. Furthermore, the rapidly evolving and developing media, communication, and entertainment industries are already strongly implicated in poor sleep quality and quantity, both contributing to excessive daytime sleepiness.⁷ Poor sleep quality is most notable in modern societies, and it correlates with the increasing prevalence of obesity, likely due to sleep’s effect on food consumption and physical activity.⁸ Optimizing a person’s sleep will improve overall health and longevity by inhibiting the development of chronic disease.

How insufficient sleep raises the risk for obesity

Not only is sleep beneficial for brain health, memory, learning, and growth, its effect on food consumption and physical activity likely correlates with the increased prevalence of obesity in modern society. Yet the optimal amount of sleep is controversial, and current recommendations of 7 or more hours of sleep per night for adults are derived from expert panels only.² The recommended sleep duration for children is longer, and it varies by age.⁹ The quality of sleep and its impact on neuroendocrine hormones, not just the quantity of sleep, needs to be factored into these recommendations.

Sleep restriction activates the orexigenic system via the hormones leptin and ghrelin. These hormones control the food reward system, essentially increasing hunger and food intake. Leptin, created by white adipose tissue, is responsible for satiety and decreased food consumption.¹⁰ Ghrelin, made by oxyntic glands in the stomach, is responsible for the sensation of hunger.

Poor sleep will increase the risk for obesity and hinder its treatment. Therefore, sleep quality and duration are vital components of obesity management.

In a 2004 study by Spiegel et al,¹¹ leptin and ghrelin levels were measured during 2 days of sleep restriction (4 hours in bed) and sleep extension (10 hours in bed). Sleep restriction was associated with a decrease in leptin levels and an increase in ghrelin levels. The researchers reported that participants experienced an increase in hunger and ­appetite—especially for calorie-dense foods with high carbohydrate content.

Although research design has limitations with predominantly self-reported sleep data, studies have shown that short sleep time leads to increased food intake by increasing hunger signals and craving of unhealthy foods, and by providing more opportunities to eat while awake. It also may lead to decreased physical activity, creating a sedentary lifestyle that further encourages obesity.⁸ Reduced sleep is even correlated to decreased efficacy of weight-loss treatments.¹²

Continue to: Other sleep characteristics weakly correlated with obesity

Other sleep characteristics weakly correlated with obesity are sleep variability, timing, efficiency, quality, and daytime napping.⁸ Sleep variability causes dysregulation of eating patterns, leading to increased food intake. A shift to later sleep and waking times often results in higher consumption of calories after 8 pm¹³; late-night snacks are a part of this sleep–obesity equation.¹⁴

Poor sleep efficiency and quality decreases N3-stage (deep non-REM) sleep, affects the autonomic nervous system, and has been associated with increased abdominal obesity. Daytime napping, which can cause irregular circadian rhythms and sleep schedules, is associated with increased obesity.¹⁵ Thus, each component of sleep needs to be assessed to promote optimal regulation of the orexigenic system.

It is a cycle of poor sleep causing obesity and obesity causing poor sleep.

Another study showed that inadequate sleep not only promotes unhealthy lifestyle habits that can lead to obesity but also decreases the ability to lose weight.¹⁶ This small study with 10 overweight patients provided its subjects with a controlled caloric intake over 2 weeks. Patients spent two 14-day periods 3 months apart in the laboratory, divided into 2 time-in-bed arms of 8.5 and 5.5 hours per night. Neuroendocrine changes caused by decreased sleep were associated with a significant lean body mass loss while conserving energy-dense fat.¹⁶ This study highlights the importance of sleep hygiene counseling when developing a weight-management plan with patients.

Sleep, and its many components, play an integral role in the prevention and treatment of obesity.¹⁷ Poor sleep will increase the risk for obesity and hinder its treatment. Therefore, sleep quality and duration are vital components of obesity management.

The sleep–obesity link in children and the elderly

Childhood obesity is linked to several chronic diseases in adulthood, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).¹⁸ According to 2017-2018 NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys) data, obesity (BMI ≥ 95th percentile) prevalence among children and adolescents was reported at 19.3% and severe obesity (BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile) at 6.1%. Pediatric overweight prevalence (≥ 85th percentile and < 95th percentile) was 16.1%.¹⁹

Continue to: Although poor sleep is associated...

Although poor sleep is associated with increased risk for obesity, there is no proven cause-effect relationship.²⁰ Nutrition and physical activity have been identified as 2 critical factors in childhood obesity, but sleep health also needs to be investigated. Shorter sleep duration is strongly associated with the development of obesity. Furthermore, children with obesity are more likely to have shorter sleep duration.²¹ A short sleep duration alters plasma levels of insulin, low-density lipoprotein, and high-sensitivity ­C-reactive protein. It is associated with lower diet quality, an increased intake of nutrient-poor foods, and a lower intake of vegetables and fruits.²² Recent studies have shown that interventions to promote earlier bedtimes can improve sleep duration in children.

Older adults have many sleeping issues, including insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-related movement disorders, and sleep-breathing disorders. Additionally, the older population has increased sleep latency, decreased sleep efficiency and total sleep time, decreased REM sleep, more frequent nighttime awakenings, and more daytime napping.²³ The increased sleep disturbance with age is mainly related to higher risk factors for sleep disorders than the aging process itself. Sleeping 5 or fewer hours is associated with an increased risk for obesity and central abdominal fat compared with those who sleep 7 to 8 hours per night.²⁴ Similar to children and youth, older adults also show a strong correlation between inadequate sleep and obesity.²⁴

The consequence: A vicious cycle

Obesity in turn leads to shorter sleep duration and more disruptions. This negatively affects the orexigenic system, and the resulting hormonal derangement promotes worsening obesity. It is a cycle of poor sleep causing obesity and obesity causing poor sleep. Insomnia, in combination with shorter (and longer) sleep times, also has been linked with obesity.²⁵ These patients experience more daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and nighttime sleep disturbances, all correlated with decreased quality of life and higher prevalence of medical comorbidities.^8,26 Additional comorbidities secondary to obesity, including gastroesophageal reflux, depression, and asthma, also have been linked to sleep disturbances.⁸

OSA is a common sleep complication associated with obesity. With the increasing prevalence of obesity, the prevalence of OSA is rising.^8,27 Factors that heighten the risk for OSA are male sex, age 40 to 70 years, postmenopausal status, elevated BMI, and craniofacial and upper airway abnormality.²⁸ However, the US Preventive Services Task Force found insufficient evidence to screen for or treat OSA in asymptomatic adults.²⁸ Signs and symptoms of OSA include nighttime awakenings with choking, loud snoring, and feeling unrefreshed after sleep.²⁹

Approximately half of primary care clinicians do not screen at-risk patients for OSA, and 90% do not use validated OSA screening tools.

OSA is caused by the intermittent narrowing and obstruction of the pharyngeal airway due to anatomical and structural irregularities or neuromuscular impairments. Untreated OSA is associated with cardiovascular disease and cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation. Even with this correlation between obesity and sleep, it is estimated that 80% of OSA remains undiagnosed.³⁰ Approximately half of primary care clinicians do not screen at-risk patients for OSA, and 90% do not use validated OSA screening tools.³¹ Screening tools that have been validated are the STOP, STOP-BANG, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and 4-Variable Screening Tool. However, the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Department of Defense have a more recent guideline recommending STOP as an easier-to-administer screen for OSA.³² A positive result with a screening tool should be confirmed with polysomnography.³²

Continue to: Intervention for OSA

Intervention for OSA. The longest randomized controlled study to date, Sleep AHEAD, evaluated over a period of 10 years the effect of weight loss on OSA severity achieved with either an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) or with diabetes support and education (DSE).³³ OSA severity is rated on an Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), with scores reflecting the number of sleep apnea events per hour. This study demonstrated that weight loss was associated with decreased OSA severity. At 4-year follow-up, the greater the weight loss with ILI intervention, the lower the patients’ OSA severity scores. The study found an average decrease in AHI of 0.68 events per hour for every kilogram of weight loss in the ILI group (P < .0001).^33,34 Over the follow-up visits, the ILI participants had 7.4 events per hour, a more significantly reduced AHI than the DSE participants (P < .0001).^33,34

Additionally, a small cohort of study participants achieved OSA remission (ILI, 34.4%; DSE, 22.2%), indicated by a low AHI score (< 5 events per hour). At the conclusion of the study, OSA severity decreased to a greater degree with ILI intervention.^33,34

Alcohol and drug use can negatively influence sleep patterns and obesity. Higher alcohol consumption is associated with poorer sleep quality and higher chances of developing short sleep duration and snoring.³⁵ Alcohol, a muscle relaxant, causes upper airway narrowing and reduced tongue muscle tone, thereby increasing snoring and OSA as demonstrated by increased AHI on polysomnography after alcohol intake. Alcohol also changes sleep architecture by increasing slow-wave sleep, decreasing REM sleep duration, and increasing sleep arousal in the second half of the night.³⁶ Disrupted circadian rhythm after alcohol consumption was correlated with increased adenosine neurotransmitters derived from ethanol metabolism.³⁷ Alcohol dependence may be related to other psychiatric symptoms, and chronic alcohol use eventually alters sleep mechanisms leading to persistent insomnia, further perpetuating adverse outcomes such as suicidal ideation.³⁶ There are positive associations between beer drinking and measures of abdominal adiposity in men, and “the combination of short sleep duration [and] disinhibited eating … is associated with greater alcohol intake and excess weight.”³⁸

Therefore, counsel patients to avoid alcohol since it is a modifiable risk factor with pervasive adverse health effects.

Many drugs have a profound effect on sleep patterns. Illicit drug use in particular can affect the brain’s neurotransmitter serotonin system. For example, ecstasy users have an increased risk for OSA.³⁹ People with cocaine and heroin use disorder tend to have more sleep-maintenance insomnia.⁴⁰

Continue to: In contrast, those with alcohol...

In contrast, those with alcohol or cannabis use disorder tend to have more sleep-onset insomnia.⁴⁰ Not only do illicit drugs interrupt sleep, but daily tobacco use also has been correlated with increased insomnia and shorter sleep duration since nicotine is a stimulant.⁴¹

Insomnia is commonly treated with sedative antidepressants and hypnotics—eg, mirtazapine and olanzapine—that contribute to weight gain.⁴² In addition, other common pharmaceuticals used for sleep disorders, such as diphenhydramine, have sedative properties and tend to lead to weight gain.⁴³ Because so many medications affect sleep and weight, carefully review patients’ medication lists and switch offending agents to weight-neutral drugs if possible.

Treatment and tools to improve sleep in patients with obesity

Given the strong correlation between obesity and sleep disorders, validated screening tools should be used to assess sleep quality, including onset and potential symptoms associated with poor sleep (TABLE 1⁴⁴). For weight management to succeed in patients with obesity, it is crucial to address sleep in addition to nutrition and physical activity.^17,45

It falls upon the clinician and patient to weigh the benefits and burdens of the pharmacologic treatments of insomnia.

Physical activity has many benefits to overall health, especially for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends at least 150 minutes of ­moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week in addition to muscle-strengthening activities 2 or more days per week.⁴⁶ However, approximately 300 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week is suggested for successful weight loss with exercise alone.⁴⁷

Physical activity and diet in combination are vital, but diet restriction has a more substantial effect on weight loss than physical activity alone.⁴⁸ Still, physical activity is essential in helping maintain and prevent weight regain.

Continue to: Nonpharmacologic interventions

Nonpharmacologic interventions include promoting greater sleep quality and quantity by emphasizing good sleep hygiene practices. Developing a practical and effective bedtime routine, creating a quiet sleep environment, and practicing healthy daily habits are essential components to sleep hygiene(TABLE 2^49,50). Relaxation techniques and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) also can help. CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line intervention for chronic insomnia.⁵¹ Sleep restriction is a type of CBT used to treat insomnia, encouraging short-term sleep loss in the hopes of improving insomnia. A trial by Logue et al showed that patients with overweight and obesity randomized to undergo CBT with better sleep hygiene (nonpharmacologic) interventions had a greater mean weight loss percentage (5% vs 2%; P = .04) than did those who received CBT alone.⁵²

Eastern medicine including herbal interventions lack evidence of efficacy and safety. Further studies need to be done on the effects that chamomile, kava, valerian root (Valeriana officinalis), tryptophan, and Wu Ling (from mycelia Xylaria nigripes) might have on sleep.⁵³

Proceed cautiously with medication. The American College of Physicians recommends a shared decision-making approach when considering pharmacologic therapy for chronic insomnia and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) offers guidance on options.^51,54 However, the evidence behind AASM sleep pharmacologic recommendations is weak, implying a lesser degree of confidence in the outcome and, therefore, in its appropriateness. Thus, it falls upon the clinician and patient to weigh the benefits and burdens of the pharmacologic treatments of insomnia. If indicated, medications suggested to treat sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia are eszopiclone, zolpidem, and temazepam. Zaleplon, triazolam, and ramelteon may improve sleep initiation. Suvorexant and doxepin are used for sleep-maintenance insomnia.⁵⁴ Exploring patient preferences, cost of treatment, health care options, and available resources should all be considered.

CORRESPONDENCE
Ecler Ercole Jaqua, MD, MBA, FAAFP, AGSF, FACLM, DipABOM, Loma Linda University Health, 25455 Barton Road, Suite 206A, Loma Linda, CA 92354; [email protected]

Sleep is fundamental to overall health and longevity, with the average person spending about one-third of their life sleeping.¹ Adequate sleep is critical for optimal cognition, memory consolidation, mood regulation, metabolism, appetite regulation, and immune and hormone functioning. According to the American Academy of Sleep Medicine and the Sleep Research Society, adults should sleep at least 7 hours per night on a regular basis “to promote optimal health.”² Yet, between 2013 and 2020, only about 65% of adults in the United States were meeting this amount.³ Insufficient sleep is associated with an increased risk for chronic health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and even premature death.⁴

In a population-based longitudinal study of sleep disorders, short sleep duration was associated with increased body mass index (BMI), low blood levels of leptin, and high ghrelin levels.⁵ In addition to physical impairments, poor sleep can impair cognitive performance and lead to vehicular accidents and increased accidents at work.⁴ The potential economic impact that this may have is significant, and includes increased costs and loss of productivity in the workplace.⁶

Many factors may contribute to short sleep duration: environment, mental and physical condition, and social influences such as occupation, family responsibilities, travel, group activities, and personal care. Furthermore, the rapidly evolving and developing media, communication, and entertainment industries are already strongly implicated in poor sleep quality and quantity, both contributing to excessive daytime sleepiness.⁷ Poor sleep quality is most notable in modern societies, and it correlates with the increasing prevalence of obesity, likely due to sleep’s effect on food consumption and physical activity.⁸ Optimizing a person’s sleep will improve overall health and longevity by inhibiting the development of chronic disease.

How insufficient sleep raises the risk for obesity

Not only is sleep beneficial for brain health, memory, learning, and growth, its effect on food consumption and physical activity likely correlates with the increased prevalence of obesity in modern society. Yet the optimal amount of sleep is controversial, and current recommendations of 7 or more hours of sleep per night for adults are derived from expert panels only.² The recommended sleep duration for children is longer, and it varies by age.⁹ The quality of sleep and its impact on neuroendocrine hormones, not just the quantity of sleep, needs to be factored into these recommendations.

Sleep restriction activates the orexigenic system via the hormones leptin and ghrelin. These hormones control the food reward system, essentially increasing hunger and food intake. Leptin, created by white adipose tissue, is responsible for satiety and decreased food consumption.¹⁰ Ghrelin, made by oxyntic glands in the stomach, is responsible for the sensation of hunger.

Poor sleep will increase the risk for obesity and hinder its treatment. Therefore, sleep quality and duration are vital components of obesity management.

In a 2004 study by Spiegel et al,¹¹ leptin and ghrelin levels were measured during 2 days of sleep restriction (4 hours in bed) and sleep extension (10 hours in bed). Sleep restriction was associated with a decrease in leptin levels and an increase in ghrelin levels. The researchers reported that participants experienced an increase in hunger and ­appetite—especially for calorie-dense foods with high carbohydrate content.

Although research design has limitations with predominantly self-reported sleep data, studies have shown that short sleep time leads to increased food intake by increasing hunger signals and craving of unhealthy foods, and by providing more opportunities to eat while awake. It also may lead to decreased physical activity, creating a sedentary lifestyle that further encourages obesity.⁸ Reduced sleep is even correlated to decreased efficacy of weight-loss treatments.¹²

Continue to: Other sleep characteristics weakly correlated with obesity

Other sleep characteristics weakly correlated with obesity are sleep variability, timing, efficiency, quality, and daytime napping.⁸ Sleep variability causes dysregulation of eating patterns, leading to increased food intake. A shift to later sleep and waking times often results in higher consumption of calories after 8 pm¹³; late-night snacks are a part of this sleep–obesity equation.¹⁴

Poor sleep efficiency and quality decreases N3-stage (deep non-REM) sleep, affects the autonomic nervous system, and has been associated with increased abdominal obesity. Daytime napping, which can cause irregular circadian rhythms and sleep schedules, is associated with increased obesity.¹⁵ Thus, each component of sleep needs to be assessed to promote optimal regulation of the orexigenic system.

It is a cycle of poor sleep causing obesity and obesity causing poor sleep.

Another study showed that inadequate sleep not only promotes unhealthy lifestyle habits that can lead to obesity but also decreases the ability to lose weight.¹⁶ This small study with 10 overweight patients provided its subjects with a controlled caloric intake over 2 weeks. Patients spent two 14-day periods 3 months apart in the laboratory, divided into 2 time-in-bed arms of 8.5 and 5.5 hours per night. Neuroendocrine changes caused by decreased sleep were associated with a significant lean body mass loss while conserving energy-dense fat.¹⁶ This study highlights the importance of sleep hygiene counseling when developing a weight-management plan with patients.

Sleep, and its many components, play an integral role in the prevention and treatment of obesity.¹⁷ Poor sleep will increase the risk for obesity and hinder its treatment. Therefore, sleep quality and duration are vital components of obesity management.

The sleep–obesity link in children and the elderly

Childhood obesity is linked to several chronic diseases in adulthood, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, asthma, and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).¹⁸ According to 2017-2018 NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys) data, obesity (BMI ≥ 95th percentile) prevalence among children and adolescents was reported at 19.3% and severe obesity (BMI ≥ 120% of the 95th percentile) at 6.1%. Pediatric overweight prevalence (≥ 85th percentile and < 95th percentile) was 16.1%.¹⁹

Continue to: Although poor sleep is associated...

Although poor sleep is associated with increased risk for obesity, there is no proven cause-effect relationship.²⁰ Nutrition and physical activity have been identified as 2 critical factors in childhood obesity, but sleep health also needs to be investigated. Shorter sleep duration is strongly associated with the development of obesity. Furthermore, children with obesity are more likely to have shorter sleep duration.²¹ A short sleep duration alters plasma levels of insulin, low-density lipoprotein, and high-sensitivity ­C-reactive protein. It is associated with lower diet quality, an increased intake of nutrient-poor foods, and a lower intake of vegetables and fruits.²² Recent studies have shown that interventions to promote earlier bedtimes can improve sleep duration in children.

Older adults have many sleeping issues, including insomnia, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, sleep-related movement disorders, and sleep-breathing disorders. Additionally, the older population has increased sleep latency, decreased sleep efficiency and total sleep time, decreased REM sleep, more frequent nighttime awakenings, and more daytime napping.²³ The increased sleep disturbance with age is mainly related to higher risk factors for sleep disorders than the aging process itself. Sleeping 5 or fewer hours is associated with an increased risk for obesity and central abdominal fat compared with those who sleep 7 to 8 hours per night.²⁴ Similar to children and youth, older adults also show a strong correlation between inadequate sleep and obesity.²⁴

The consequence: A vicious cycle

Obesity in turn leads to shorter sleep duration and more disruptions. This negatively affects the orexigenic system, and the resulting hormonal derangement promotes worsening obesity. It is a cycle of poor sleep causing obesity and obesity causing poor sleep. Insomnia, in combination with shorter (and longer) sleep times, also has been linked with obesity.²⁵ These patients experience more daytime sleepiness, fatigue, and nighttime sleep disturbances, all correlated with decreased quality of life and higher prevalence of medical comorbidities.^8,26 Additional comorbidities secondary to obesity, including gastroesophageal reflux, depression, and asthma, also have been linked to sleep disturbances.⁸

OSA is a common sleep complication associated with obesity. With the increasing prevalence of obesity, the prevalence of OSA is rising.^8,27 Factors that heighten the risk for OSA are male sex, age 40 to 70 years, postmenopausal status, elevated BMI, and craniofacial and upper airway abnormality.²⁸ However, the US Preventive Services Task Force found insufficient evidence to screen for or treat OSA in asymptomatic adults.²⁸ Signs and symptoms of OSA include nighttime awakenings with choking, loud snoring, and feeling unrefreshed after sleep.²⁹

Approximately half of primary care clinicians do not screen at-risk patients for OSA, and 90% do not use validated OSA screening tools.

OSA is caused by the intermittent narrowing and obstruction of the pharyngeal airway due to anatomical and structural irregularities or neuromuscular impairments. Untreated OSA is associated with cardiovascular disease and cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation. Even with this correlation between obesity and sleep, it is estimated that 80% of OSA remains undiagnosed.³⁰ Approximately half of primary care clinicians do not screen at-risk patients for OSA, and 90% do not use validated OSA screening tools.³¹ Screening tools that have been validated are the STOP, STOP-BANG, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and 4-Variable Screening Tool. However, the US Department of Veterans Affairs and the US Department of Defense have a more recent guideline recommending STOP as an easier-to-administer screen for OSA.³² A positive result with a screening tool should be confirmed with polysomnography.³²

Continue to: Intervention for OSA

Intervention for OSA. The longest randomized controlled study to date, Sleep AHEAD, evaluated over a period of 10 years the effect of weight loss on OSA severity achieved with either an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) or with diabetes support and education (DSE).³³ OSA severity is rated on an Apnea-Hypopnea Index (AHI), with scores reflecting the number of sleep apnea events per hour. This study demonstrated that weight loss was associated with decreased OSA severity. At 4-year follow-up, the greater the weight loss with ILI intervention, the lower the patients’ OSA severity scores. The study found an average decrease in AHI of 0.68 events per hour for every kilogram of weight loss in the ILI group (P < .0001).^33,34 Over the follow-up visits, the ILI participants had 7.4 events per hour, a more significantly reduced AHI than the DSE participants (P < .0001).^33,34

Additionally, a small cohort of study participants achieved OSA remission (ILI, 34.4%; DSE, 22.2%), indicated by a low AHI score (< 5 events per hour). At the conclusion of the study, OSA severity decreased to a greater degree with ILI intervention.^33,34

Alcohol and drug use can negatively influence sleep patterns and obesity. Higher alcohol consumption is associated with poorer sleep quality and higher chances of developing short sleep duration and snoring.³⁵ Alcohol, a muscle relaxant, causes upper airway narrowing and reduced tongue muscle tone, thereby increasing snoring and OSA as demonstrated by increased AHI on polysomnography after alcohol intake. Alcohol also changes sleep architecture by increasing slow-wave sleep, decreasing REM sleep duration, and increasing sleep arousal in the second half of the night.³⁶ Disrupted circadian rhythm after alcohol consumption was correlated with increased adenosine neurotransmitters derived from ethanol metabolism.³⁷ Alcohol dependence may be related to other psychiatric symptoms, and chronic alcohol use eventually alters sleep mechanisms leading to persistent insomnia, further perpetuating adverse outcomes such as suicidal ideation.³⁶ There are positive associations between beer drinking and measures of abdominal adiposity in men, and “the combination of short sleep duration [and] disinhibited eating … is associated with greater alcohol intake and excess weight.”³⁸

Therefore, counsel patients to avoid alcohol since it is a modifiable risk factor with pervasive adverse health effects.

Many drugs have a profound effect on sleep patterns. Illicit drug use in particular can affect the brain’s neurotransmitter serotonin system. For example, ecstasy users have an increased risk for OSA.³⁹ People with cocaine and heroin use disorder tend to have more sleep-maintenance insomnia.⁴⁰

Continue to: In contrast, those with alcohol...

In contrast, those with alcohol or cannabis use disorder tend to have more sleep-onset insomnia.⁴⁰ Not only do illicit drugs interrupt sleep, but daily tobacco use also has been correlated with increased insomnia and shorter sleep duration since nicotine is a stimulant.⁴¹

Insomnia is commonly treated with sedative antidepressants and hypnotics—eg, mirtazapine and olanzapine—that contribute to weight gain.⁴² In addition, other common pharmaceuticals used for sleep disorders, such as diphenhydramine, have sedative properties and tend to lead to weight gain.⁴³ Because so many medications affect sleep and weight, carefully review patients’ medication lists and switch offending agents to weight-neutral drugs if possible.

Treatment and tools to improve sleep in patients with obesity

Given the strong correlation between obesity and sleep disorders, validated screening tools should be used to assess sleep quality, including onset and potential symptoms associated with poor sleep (TABLE 1⁴⁴). For weight management to succeed in patients with obesity, it is crucial to address sleep in addition to nutrition and physical activity.^17,45

It falls upon the clinician and patient to weigh the benefits and burdens of the pharmacologic treatments of insomnia.

Physical activity has many benefits to overall health, especially for chronic diseases such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends at least 150 minutes of ­moderate-intensity aerobic activity or 75 minutes of vigorous-intensity aerobic exercise per week in addition to muscle-strengthening activities 2 or more days per week.⁴⁶ However, approximately 300 minutes of moderate-intensity activity per week is suggested for successful weight loss with exercise alone.⁴⁷

Physical activity and diet in combination are vital, but diet restriction has a more substantial effect on weight loss than physical activity alone.⁴⁸ Still, physical activity is essential in helping maintain and prevent weight regain.

Continue to: Nonpharmacologic interventions

Nonpharmacologic interventions include promoting greater sleep quality and quantity by emphasizing good sleep hygiene practices. Developing a practical and effective bedtime routine, creating a quiet sleep environment, and practicing healthy daily habits are essential components to sleep hygiene(TABLE 2^49,50). Relaxation techniques and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) also can help. CBT for insomnia (CBT-I) is the first-line intervention for chronic insomnia.⁵¹ Sleep restriction is a type of CBT used to treat insomnia, encouraging short-term sleep loss in the hopes of improving insomnia. A trial by Logue et al showed that patients with overweight and obesity randomized to undergo CBT with better sleep hygiene (nonpharmacologic) interventions had a greater mean weight loss percentage (5% vs 2%; P = .04) than did those who received CBT alone.⁵²

Eastern medicine including herbal interventions lack evidence of efficacy and safety. Further studies need to be done on the effects that chamomile, kava, valerian root (Valeriana officinalis), tryptophan, and Wu Ling (from mycelia Xylaria nigripes) might have on sleep.⁵³

Proceed cautiously with medication. The American College of Physicians recommends a shared decision-making approach when considering pharmacologic therapy for chronic insomnia and the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) offers guidance on options.^51,54 However, the evidence behind AASM sleep pharmacologic recommendations is weak, implying a lesser degree of confidence in the outcome and, therefore, in its appropriateness. Thus, it falls upon the clinician and patient to weigh the benefits and burdens of the pharmacologic treatments of insomnia. If indicated, medications suggested to treat sleep onset and sleep maintenance insomnia are eszopiclone, zolpidem, and temazepam. Zaleplon, triazolam, and ramelteon may improve sleep initiation. Suvorexant and doxepin are used for sleep-maintenance insomnia.⁵⁴ Exploring patient preferences, cost of treatment, health care options, and available resources should all be considered.

CORRESPONDENCE
Ecler Ercole Jaqua, MD, MBA, FAAFP, AGSF, FACLM, DipABOM, Loma Linda University Health, 25455 Barton Road, Suite 206A, Loma Linda, CA 92354; [email protected]

The Diagnosis: Mycobacterium abscessus Infection

Upon further testing, cultures were positive for Mycobacterium abscessus. Our patient was referred to infectious disease for co-management, and his treatment plan consisted of intravenous amikacin 885 mg 3 times weekly, intravenous imipenem 1 g twice daily, azithromycin 500 mg/d, and omadacycline 150 mg/d for at least 3 months. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were consistent with a combination of cellulitis and osteomyelitis, and our patient was referred to plastic surgery for debridement. He subsequently was lost to follow-up.

Mycobacterium abscessus is classified as both a nontuberculous and rapidly growing mycobacterium. Mycobacterium abscessus recently has emerged as a pathogen of increasing public health concern, especially due to its high rate of antibiotic resistance.^1-5 It is highly prevalent in the environment, and infection has been reported from a wide variety of environmental sources.^6-8 Immunocompromised individuals, such as our patient, undergoing anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy are at increased risk for infection from all Mycobacterium species.^9-11 Recognizing these infections quickly is a priority for patient care, as M abscessus can lead to disseminated infection and high mortality rates.¹

Histopathology of M abscessus consists of granulomatous inflammation with mixed granulomas¹²; however, these findings are not always appreciable, and staining does not always reveal visible organisms. In our patient, histopathology revealed patchy plasmalymphocytic infiltrates of the dermis and subcutaneous tissue, which are signs of generalized inflammation (Figure). Therefore, cultures positive for M abscessus are the gold standard for diagnosis and established the diagnosis in this case.

The differential diagnoses for our patient’s ulceration included squamous cell carcinoma, pyoderma gangrenosum, aseptic abscess ulcer, and pyodermatitispyostomatitis vegetans. Immunosuppressive therapy is a risk factor for squamous cell carcinoma^13,14; however, ulcerated squamous cell carcinoma typically presents with prominent everted edges with a necrotic tumor base.¹⁵ Biopsy reveals cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and variable keratin pearls.¹⁶ Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory skin condition associated with Crohn disease and often is a diagnosis of exclusion characterized by neutrophilic infiltrates on biopsy.^17-19 Aseptic abscess ulcers are characterized by neutrophil-filled lesions that respond to corticosteroids but not antibiotics.²⁰ Pyodermatitis-pyostomatitis vegetans is a rare skin manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease associated with a pustular eruption of the skin and/or mouth. Histopathology reveals pustules within or below the epidermis with many eosinophils or neutrophils. Granulomas do not occur as in M abscessus.²¹

Treatment of M abscessus infection requires the coadministration of several antibiotics across multiple classes to ensure complete disease resolution. High rates of antibiotic resistance are characterized by at least partial resistance to almost every antibiotic; clarithromycin has near-complete efficacy, but resistant strains have started to emerge. Amikacin and cefoxitin are other antibiotics that have reported a resistance rate of less than 50%, but they are only effective 90% and 70% of the time, respectively.^1,22 The antibiotic omadacycline, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat acute bacterial skin and soft-tissue infections, also may have utility in treating M abscessus infections.^23,24 Finally, phage therapy may offer a potential mode of treatment for this bacterium and was used to treat pulmonary infection in a patient with cystic fibrosis.²⁵ Despite these newer innovations, the current standard of care involves clarithromycin or azithromycin in combination with a parenteral antibiotic such as cefoxitin, amikacin, or imipenem for at least 4 months.¹

The Diagnosis: Mycobacterium abscessus Infection

Upon further testing, cultures were positive for Mycobacterium abscessus. Our patient was referred to infectious disease for co-management, and his treatment plan consisted of intravenous amikacin 885 mg 3 times weekly, intravenous imipenem 1 g twice daily, azithromycin 500 mg/d, and omadacycline 150 mg/d for at least 3 months. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were consistent with a combination of cellulitis and osteomyelitis, and our patient was referred to plastic surgery for debridement. He subsequently was lost to follow-up.

Mycobacterium abscessus is classified as both a nontuberculous and rapidly growing mycobacterium. Mycobacterium abscessus recently has emerged as a pathogen of increasing public health concern, especially due to its high rate of antibiotic resistance.^1-5 It is highly prevalent in the environment, and infection has been reported from a wide variety of environmental sources.^6-8 Immunocompromised individuals, such as our patient, undergoing anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy are at increased risk for infection from all Mycobacterium species.^9-11 Recognizing these infections quickly is a priority for patient care, as M abscessus can lead to disseminated infection and high mortality rates.¹

Histopathology of M abscessus consists of granulomatous inflammation with mixed granulomas¹²; however, these findings are not always appreciable, and staining does not always reveal visible organisms. In our patient, histopathology revealed patchy plasmalymphocytic infiltrates of the dermis and subcutaneous tissue, which are signs of generalized inflammation (Figure). Therefore, cultures positive for M abscessus are the gold standard for diagnosis and established the diagnosis in this case.

The differential diagnoses for our patient’s ulceration included squamous cell carcinoma, pyoderma gangrenosum, aseptic abscess ulcer, and pyodermatitispyostomatitis vegetans. Immunosuppressive therapy is a risk factor for squamous cell carcinoma^13,14; however, ulcerated squamous cell carcinoma typically presents with prominent everted edges with a necrotic tumor base.¹⁵ Biopsy reveals cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and variable keratin pearls.¹⁶ Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory skin condition associated with Crohn disease and often is a diagnosis of exclusion characterized by neutrophilic infiltrates on biopsy.^17-19 Aseptic abscess ulcers are characterized by neutrophil-filled lesions that respond to corticosteroids but not antibiotics.²⁰ Pyodermatitis-pyostomatitis vegetans is a rare skin manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease associated with a pustular eruption of the skin and/or mouth. Histopathology reveals pustules within or below the epidermis with many eosinophils or neutrophils. Granulomas do not occur as in M abscessus.²¹

Treatment of M abscessus infection requires the coadministration of several antibiotics across multiple classes to ensure complete disease resolution. High rates of antibiotic resistance are characterized by at least partial resistance to almost every antibiotic; clarithromycin has near-complete efficacy, but resistant strains have started to emerge. Amikacin and cefoxitin are other antibiotics that have reported a resistance rate of less than 50%, but they are only effective 90% and 70% of the time, respectively.^1,22 The antibiotic omadacycline, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat acute bacterial skin and soft-tissue infections, also may have utility in treating M abscessus infections.^23,24 Finally, phage therapy may offer a potential mode of treatment for this bacterium and was used to treat pulmonary infection in a patient with cystic fibrosis.²⁵ Despite these newer innovations, the current standard of care involves clarithromycin or azithromycin in combination with a parenteral antibiotic such as cefoxitin, amikacin, or imipenem for at least 4 months.¹

The Diagnosis: Mycobacterium abscessus Infection

Upon further testing, cultures were positive for Mycobacterium abscessus. Our patient was referred to infectious disease for co-management, and his treatment plan consisted of intravenous amikacin 885 mg 3 times weekly, intravenous imipenem 1 g twice daily, azithromycin 500 mg/d, and omadacycline 150 mg/d for at least 3 months. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were consistent with a combination of cellulitis and osteomyelitis, and our patient was referred to plastic surgery for debridement. He subsequently was lost to follow-up.

Mycobacterium abscessus is classified as both a nontuberculous and rapidly growing mycobacterium. Mycobacterium abscessus recently has emerged as a pathogen of increasing public health concern, especially due to its high rate of antibiotic resistance.^1-5 It is highly prevalent in the environment, and infection has been reported from a wide variety of environmental sources.^6-8 Immunocompromised individuals, such as our patient, undergoing anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy are at increased risk for infection from all Mycobacterium species.^9-11 Recognizing these infections quickly is a priority for patient care, as M abscessus can lead to disseminated infection and high mortality rates.¹

Histopathology of M abscessus consists of granulomatous inflammation with mixed granulomas¹²; however, these findings are not always appreciable, and staining does not always reveal visible organisms. In our patient, histopathology revealed patchy plasmalymphocytic infiltrates of the dermis and subcutaneous tissue, which are signs of generalized inflammation (Figure). Therefore, cultures positive for M abscessus are the gold standard for diagnosis and established the diagnosis in this case.

The differential diagnoses for our patient’s ulceration included squamous cell carcinoma, pyoderma gangrenosum, aseptic abscess ulcer, and pyodermatitispyostomatitis vegetans. Immunosuppressive therapy is a risk factor for squamous cell carcinoma^13,14; however, ulcerated squamous cell carcinoma typically presents with prominent everted edges with a necrotic tumor base.¹⁵ Biopsy reveals cells with abundant eosinophilic cytoplasm, large nuclei, and variable keratin pearls.¹⁶ Pyoderma gangrenosum is an inflammatory skin condition associated with Crohn disease and often is a diagnosis of exclusion characterized by neutrophilic infiltrates on biopsy.^17-19 Aseptic abscess ulcers are characterized by neutrophil-filled lesions that respond to corticosteroids but not antibiotics.²⁰ Pyodermatitis-pyostomatitis vegetans is a rare skin manifestation of inflammatory bowel disease associated with a pustular eruption of the skin and/or mouth. Histopathology reveals pustules within or below the epidermis with many eosinophils or neutrophils. Granulomas do not occur as in M abscessus.²¹

Treatment of M abscessus infection requires the coadministration of several antibiotics across multiple classes to ensure complete disease resolution. High rates of antibiotic resistance are characterized by at least partial resistance to almost every antibiotic; clarithromycin has near-complete efficacy, but resistant strains have started to emerge. Amikacin and cefoxitin are other antibiotics that have reported a resistance rate of less than 50%, but they are only effective 90% and 70% of the time, respectively.^1,22 The antibiotic omadacycline, which is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat acute bacterial skin and soft-tissue infections, also may have utility in treating M abscessus infections.^23,24 Finally, phage therapy may offer a potential mode of treatment for this bacterium and was used to treat pulmonary infection in a patient with cystic fibrosis.²⁵ Despite these newer innovations, the current standard of care involves clarithromycin or azithromycin in combination with a parenteral antibiotic such as cefoxitin, amikacin, or imipenem for at least 4 months.¹

A shave biopsy revealed acanthosis, papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, parakeratosis, and cytoplasmic viral-like inclusions without atypia, consistent with a diagnosis of a common wart. The biopsy ruled out other possible diagnoses, which included keratoacanthoma, seborrheic keratosis, and squamous cell carcinoma.

Cutaneous warts can manifest as common warts (verruca vulgaris), plantar warts (verruca plantaris), or plane warts (verruca plana). These benign skin lesions are caused by human papillomavirus and can manifest in areas of skin trauma; this is known as the Koebner phenomenon. Most warts can be diagnosed through clinical history and examination. Dermoscopy, if performed, may reveal thrombosed capillaries as dotted structures, but there is an increased risk of cross-contamination.¹ That said, some dermatoscopes have disposable covers or can be cleaned with antiviral, antibacterial wipes. If the diagnosis is unclear or the exam is clinically suspicious, a biopsy may be required.

Cases with progressive enlargement and extensive involvement of the skin (as was seen here) are generally associated with certain predisposing conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and immunosuppression.² Our patient screened negative for HIV infection, and further evaluation did not reveal any concerns for immunosuppression.

Treatment for a common wart depends on patient characteristics, preferences, cost, and possible adverse effects. Standard treatment options are topical salicylic acid and cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen. Depending on the location and type of the wart, multiple treatments may be required, and recurrences are common. Intralesional injection with bleomycin, 5‐fluorouracil, or cidofovir is often used for recurrent and refractory warts.

Patients unable to tolerate cryotherapy or local injections may benefit from thermotherapy by heating the wart with a pulsed dye laser.³ Observation is also a reasonable course of action for new warts, as they may spontaneously resolve within a year.

In this case, the patient opted for over-the-counter salicylic acid 17% to be applied nightly until resolution. Cryosurgery would be a next step for him if the lesion does not resolve after 3 months of treatment.

‌

Image courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD. Text courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD, Assistant Professor, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

A shave biopsy revealed acanthosis, papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, parakeratosis, and cytoplasmic viral-like inclusions without atypia, consistent with a diagnosis of a common wart. The biopsy ruled out other possible diagnoses, which included keratoacanthoma, seborrheic keratosis, and squamous cell carcinoma.

Cutaneous warts can manifest as common warts (verruca vulgaris), plantar warts (verruca plantaris), or plane warts (verruca plana). These benign skin lesions are caused by human papillomavirus and can manifest in areas of skin trauma; this is known as the Koebner phenomenon. Most warts can be diagnosed through clinical history and examination. Dermoscopy, if performed, may reveal thrombosed capillaries as dotted structures, but there is an increased risk of cross-contamination.¹ That said, some dermatoscopes have disposable covers or can be cleaned with antiviral, antibacterial wipes. If the diagnosis is unclear or the exam is clinically suspicious, a biopsy may be required.

Cases with progressive enlargement and extensive involvement of the skin (as was seen here) are generally associated with certain predisposing conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and immunosuppression.² Our patient screened negative for HIV infection, and further evaluation did not reveal any concerns for immunosuppression.

Treatment for a common wart depends on patient characteristics, preferences, cost, and possible adverse effects. Standard treatment options are topical salicylic acid and cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen. Depending on the location and type of the wart, multiple treatments may be required, and recurrences are common. Intralesional injection with bleomycin, 5‐fluorouracil, or cidofovir is often used for recurrent and refractory warts.

Patients unable to tolerate cryotherapy or local injections may benefit from thermotherapy by heating the wart with a pulsed dye laser.³ Observation is also a reasonable course of action for new warts, as they may spontaneously resolve within a year.

In this case, the patient opted for over-the-counter salicylic acid 17% to be applied nightly until resolution. Cryosurgery would be a next step for him if the lesion does not resolve after 3 months of treatment.

‌

Image courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD. Text courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD, Assistant Professor, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

A shave biopsy revealed acanthosis, papillomatosis, hyperkeratosis, hypergranulosis, parakeratosis, and cytoplasmic viral-like inclusions without atypia, consistent with a diagnosis of a common wart. The biopsy ruled out other possible diagnoses, which included keratoacanthoma, seborrheic keratosis, and squamous cell carcinoma.

Cutaneous warts can manifest as common warts (verruca vulgaris), plantar warts (verruca plantaris), or plane warts (verruca plana). These benign skin lesions are caused by human papillomavirus and can manifest in areas of skin trauma; this is known as the Koebner phenomenon. Most warts can be diagnosed through clinical history and examination. Dermoscopy, if performed, may reveal thrombosed capillaries as dotted structures, but there is an increased risk of cross-contamination.¹ That said, some dermatoscopes have disposable covers or can be cleaned with antiviral, antibacterial wipes. If the diagnosis is unclear or the exam is clinically suspicious, a biopsy may be required.

Cases with progressive enlargement and extensive involvement of the skin (as was seen here) are generally associated with certain predisposing conditions, such as atopic dermatitis and immunosuppression.² Our patient screened negative for HIV infection, and further evaluation did not reveal any concerns for immunosuppression.

Treatment for a common wart depends on patient characteristics, preferences, cost, and possible adverse effects. Standard treatment options are topical salicylic acid and cryotherapy with liquid nitrogen. Depending on the location and type of the wart, multiple treatments may be required, and recurrences are common. Intralesional injection with bleomycin, 5‐fluorouracil, or cidofovir is often used for recurrent and refractory warts.

Patients unable to tolerate cryotherapy or local injections may benefit from thermotherapy by heating the wart with a pulsed dye laser.³ Observation is also a reasonable course of action for new warts, as they may spontaneously resolve within a year.

In this case, the patient opted for over-the-counter salicylic acid 17% to be applied nightly until resolution. Cryosurgery would be a next step for him if the lesion does not resolve after 3 months of treatment.

‌

Image courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD. Text courtesy of Faryal Tahir, MD, Assistant Professor, and Daniel Stulberg, MD, FAAFP, Professor and Chair, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker, MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo.

This month we will discuss "migraine plus" conditions: menstrual migraine as well as migraine-associated symptoms, including allodynia, photophobia, and nausea.

Migraine is one of the most common and disabling conditions worldwide, and it is three times more likely to be found in women than men. This is even more so during reproductive years, where many women experience hormonally triggered migraine attacks. Although some women will experience migraine exclusively perimenstrually, most women who experience menstrual migraine attacks also will have migraine attacks that are not hormonally triggered. It is often challenging to find the correct acute treatment for specific kinds of migraine attacks, and many women will describe specific acute medications as more effective for their nonmenstrual or "regular" migraine attacks compared with their perimenstrual attacks. The study by MacGregor and colleagues investigated the use of ubrogepant and compared its effect between these two subtypes of attacks.

This trial was an extension of the initial phase 3 trial of ubrogepant, called ACHIEVE II. Initial investigators enrolled over 700 patients into an open-label extension, and the participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to their "usual care," 50 mg ubrogepant, or 100 mg ubrogepant. Participants were blinded to the dose of ubrogepant even though they knew that they were taking ubrogepant or their standard acute medication. The purpose of the "usual care" arm was not to collect efficacy results; rather, it was for safety, specifically to evaluate the long-term hepatic safety with ubrogepant.

Participants were allowed to treat up to eight migraine attacks per 4-week interval. The duration of the trial was 52 weeks, and a second dose of medication was allowed, identical to the initial dose. Women in this trial recorded their menstrual start date and whether they treated menstrually related attacks. An attack was considered menstrually related if the headache was within a 5-day window of the onset of menstruation. Of the 734 women enrolled in the intention-to-treat population, 354 reported at least one menstrual cycle start date with a headache day. Efficacy outcome measures included pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose, pain relief at 2 hours post-dose, absence of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea at 2 hours post-dose, normal function at 2 hours post-dose, and use of rescue medication within 24 hours of the initial dose. All information was collected via an electronic diary.

There was no statistically significant difference between 2-hour pain freedom outcomes of menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks, although there was a numerically higher mean percentage of menstrual attacks that was not statistically significant. This was noted for both doses of ubrogepant. This was also the case for 2-hour pain relief; the migraine-associated symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea; for functional disability; and the use of a rescue medication. Among all outcomes it appears that both doses of ubrogepant are equally effective for both menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks. On the basis of this evidence, clinicians may be able to consolidate different acute medications for different migraine subtypes and consider the use of this calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist for all the patient's attacks.

Allodynia is a condition whereby a nonpainful stimulus is perceived as painful. In the context of migraine, this often will occur in the head and neck region and as a result of the chronification of migraine — headache frequency increasing to > 15 days per month. One significant risk factor for the development of chronic migraine is medication overuse, when an acute medication for migraine is used more often than its recommended use. Pijpers and colleagues sought to determine whether the presence of allodynia was predictive for the prognosis of chronic migraine complicated by medication overuse.

This study was a subset of the Chronification And Reversibility of Migraine (CHARM) study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that aimed to investigate whether treatment with botulinum toxin A was of added value in addition to withdrawal therapy in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache. Diagnoses were made in consultation with headache experts and confirmed by a headache diary. Exclusion criteria were: (1) other primary headache or neurologic disorders; (2) other chronic pain disorders with medium to high pain intensity or requiring pain medication; (3) major psychiatric disorders other than depression; (4) major cognitive, behavioral, or oncologic disorders; (5) contraindications for treatment or inability to adhere to the study protocol; (6) (planned) pregnancy or breastfeeding; (7) use of ergots, opioids, or barbiturates; or (8) abuse of drugs in the past 12 months. Allodynia was determined by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC) .

The primary outcome was reversion from chronic to episodic migraine; secondary outcomes were > 50% reduction in monthly migraine days and reduction in number of monthly headache days. A total of 173 participants in the CHARM trial provided baseline allodynia data and were included in this current study. Participants with cutaneous allodynia were mainly women and did not differ significantly in age, number of monthly migraine or headache days, age of onset, use of acute or prophylactic treatment, or being treated with botulinum toxin.

The absence of cutaneous allodynia was predictive for good outcome after 12 weeks. For the primary endpoint, the odds for reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine were 2.5 times higher for participants without allodynia vs with allodynia. In all, 75.0% of participants without allodynia vs 57.4% of participants with allodynia reverted to episodic migraine. These helpful data will allow us to better predict accurately the disease process and better set expectations for our patients with chronic migraine.

In the earlier days of headache treatment, the focus for both acute and preventive medications was a decrease in the severity or frequency of pain. As time has progressed and our understanding of migraine has broadened, we now consider pain one of the many features of migraine, albeit usually the most prominent feature. The CGRP antagonist class of migraine medications has revolutionized how migraine is treated, both acutely and preventively; however, the initial studies all focused on pain-related outcomes. Alpuente and colleagues sought to better determine the effect of CGRP monoclonal antibody medications on other migraine-associated symptoms, specifically photophobia, photophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura.

All injectable CGRP antibody medications were studied. Responses were recorded in an electronic diary. Patients were followed at 3 and 6 months and were excluded if their diary was < 80% complete; a total of 158 patients were included in this study. At 3 months, groups of patients were further divided between those who had > 50% decrease in monthly headache days and those that had < 50% reduction.

The > 50% group showed statistically significant reductions in the ratios of photophobia, phonophobia, and aura after 6 months of treatment, and, of note, these symptoms decreased at a higher rate than the reduction in headache days per month after 6 months. Rates of nausea and dizziness only reduced proportionally to the monthly headache days. For the < 50% group, there was a rebound of dizziness in between months 3 and 6, but all other outcomes decreased in proportion to the monthly headache days.

Our patients all experience symptoms other than headache pain as part of their migraine attacks. When we discuss the risks and benefits of a new treatment, we can now more accurately address many of the other associated symptoms and explain what our patients are likely to expect when starting a new medication. Similar studies have described these findings with the oral CGRP antagonists as well, and most acute migraine studies now use "most bothersome symptom" rather than pain severity as their primary outcome.

This month we will discuss "migraine plus" conditions: menstrual migraine as well as migraine-associated symptoms, including allodynia, photophobia, and nausea.

Migraine is one of the most common and disabling conditions worldwide, and it is three times more likely to be found in women than men. This is even more so during reproductive years, where many women experience hormonally triggered migraine attacks. Although some women will experience migraine exclusively perimenstrually, most women who experience menstrual migraine attacks also will have migraine attacks that are not hormonally triggered. It is often challenging to find the correct acute treatment for specific kinds of migraine attacks, and many women will describe specific acute medications as more effective for their nonmenstrual or "regular" migraine attacks compared with their perimenstrual attacks. The study by MacGregor and colleagues investigated the use of ubrogepant and compared its effect between these two subtypes of attacks.

This trial was an extension of the initial phase 3 trial of ubrogepant, called ACHIEVE II. Initial investigators enrolled over 700 patients into an open-label extension, and the participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to their "usual care," 50 mg ubrogepant, or 100 mg ubrogepant. Participants were blinded to the dose of ubrogepant even though they knew that they were taking ubrogepant or their standard acute medication. The purpose of the "usual care" arm was not to collect efficacy results; rather, it was for safety, specifically to evaluate the long-term hepatic safety with ubrogepant.

Participants were allowed to treat up to eight migraine attacks per 4-week interval. The duration of the trial was 52 weeks, and a second dose of medication was allowed, identical to the initial dose. Women in this trial recorded their menstrual start date and whether they treated menstrually related attacks. An attack was considered menstrually related if the headache was within a 5-day window of the onset of menstruation. Of the 734 women enrolled in the intention-to-treat population, 354 reported at least one menstrual cycle start date with a headache day. Efficacy outcome measures included pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose, pain relief at 2 hours post-dose, absence of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea at 2 hours post-dose, normal function at 2 hours post-dose, and use of rescue medication within 24 hours of the initial dose. All information was collected via an electronic diary.

There was no statistically significant difference between 2-hour pain freedom outcomes of menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks, although there was a numerically higher mean percentage of menstrual attacks that was not statistically significant. This was noted for both doses of ubrogepant. This was also the case for 2-hour pain relief; the migraine-associated symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea; for functional disability; and the use of a rescue medication. Among all outcomes it appears that both doses of ubrogepant are equally effective for both menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks. On the basis of this evidence, clinicians may be able to consolidate different acute medications for different migraine subtypes and consider the use of this calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist for all the patient's attacks.

Allodynia is a condition whereby a nonpainful stimulus is perceived as painful. In the context of migraine, this often will occur in the head and neck region and as a result of the chronification of migraine — headache frequency increasing to > 15 days per month. One significant risk factor for the development of chronic migraine is medication overuse, when an acute medication for migraine is used more often than its recommended use. Pijpers and colleagues sought to determine whether the presence of allodynia was predictive for the prognosis of chronic migraine complicated by medication overuse.

This study was a subset of the Chronification And Reversibility of Migraine (CHARM) study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that aimed to investigate whether treatment with botulinum toxin A was of added value in addition to withdrawal therapy in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache. Diagnoses were made in consultation with headache experts and confirmed by a headache diary. Exclusion criteria were: (1) other primary headache or neurologic disorders; (2) other chronic pain disorders with medium to high pain intensity or requiring pain medication; (3) major psychiatric disorders other than depression; (4) major cognitive, behavioral, or oncologic disorders; (5) contraindications for treatment or inability to adhere to the study protocol; (6) (planned) pregnancy or breastfeeding; (7) use of ergots, opioids, or barbiturates; or (8) abuse of drugs in the past 12 months. Allodynia was determined by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC) .

The primary outcome was reversion from chronic to episodic migraine; secondary outcomes were > 50% reduction in monthly migraine days and reduction in number of monthly headache days. A total of 173 participants in the CHARM trial provided baseline allodynia data and were included in this current study. Participants with cutaneous allodynia were mainly women and did not differ significantly in age, number of monthly migraine or headache days, age of onset, use of acute or prophylactic treatment, or being treated with botulinum toxin.

The absence of cutaneous allodynia was predictive for good outcome after 12 weeks. For the primary endpoint, the odds for reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine were 2.5 times higher for participants without allodynia vs with allodynia. In all, 75.0% of participants without allodynia vs 57.4% of participants with allodynia reverted to episodic migraine. These helpful data will allow us to better predict accurately the disease process and better set expectations for our patients with chronic migraine.

In the earlier days of headache treatment, the focus for both acute and preventive medications was a decrease in the severity or frequency of pain. As time has progressed and our understanding of migraine has broadened, we now consider pain one of the many features of migraine, albeit usually the most prominent feature. The CGRP antagonist class of migraine medications has revolutionized how migraine is treated, both acutely and preventively; however, the initial studies all focused on pain-related outcomes. Alpuente and colleagues sought to better determine the effect of CGRP monoclonal antibody medications on other migraine-associated symptoms, specifically photophobia, photophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura.

All injectable CGRP antibody medications were studied. Responses were recorded in an electronic diary. Patients were followed at 3 and 6 months and were excluded if their diary was < 80% complete; a total of 158 patients were included in this study. At 3 months, groups of patients were further divided between those who had > 50% decrease in monthly headache days and those that had < 50% reduction.

The > 50% group showed statistically significant reductions in the ratios of photophobia, phonophobia, and aura after 6 months of treatment, and, of note, these symptoms decreased at a higher rate than the reduction in headache days per month after 6 months. Rates of nausea and dizziness only reduced proportionally to the monthly headache days. For the < 50% group, there was a rebound of dizziness in between months 3 and 6, but all other outcomes decreased in proportion to the monthly headache days.

Our patients all experience symptoms other than headache pain as part of their migraine attacks. When we discuss the risks and benefits of a new treatment, we can now more accurately address many of the other associated symptoms and explain what our patients are likely to expect when starting a new medication. Similar studies have described these findings with the oral CGRP antagonists as well, and most acute migraine studies now use "most bothersome symptom" rather than pain severity as their primary outcome.

This month we will discuss "migraine plus" conditions: menstrual migraine as well as migraine-associated symptoms, including allodynia, photophobia, and nausea.

Migraine is one of the most common and disabling conditions worldwide, and it is three times more likely to be found in women than men. This is even more so during reproductive years, where many women experience hormonally triggered migraine attacks. Although some women will experience migraine exclusively perimenstrually, most women who experience menstrual migraine attacks also will have migraine attacks that are not hormonally triggered. It is often challenging to find the correct acute treatment for specific kinds of migraine attacks, and many women will describe specific acute medications as more effective for their nonmenstrual or "regular" migraine attacks compared with their perimenstrual attacks. The study by MacGregor and colleagues investigated the use of ubrogepant and compared its effect between these two subtypes of attacks.

This trial was an extension of the initial phase 3 trial of ubrogepant, called ACHIEVE II. Initial investigators enrolled over 700 patients into an open-label extension, and the participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to their "usual care," 50 mg ubrogepant, or 100 mg ubrogepant. Participants were blinded to the dose of ubrogepant even though they knew that they were taking ubrogepant or their standard acute medication. The purpose of the "usual care" arm was not to collect efficacy results; rather, it was for safety, specifically to evaluate the long-term hepatic safety with ubrogepant.

Participants were allowed to treat up to eight migraine attacks per 4-week interval. The duration of the trial was 52 weeks, and a second dose of medication was allowed, identical to the initial dose. Women in this trial recorded their menstrual start date and whether they treated menstrually related attacks. An attack was considered menstrually related if the headache was within a 5-day window of the onset of menstruation. Of the 734 women enrolled in the intention-to-treat population, 354 reported at least one menstrual cycle start date with a headache day. Efficacy outcome measures included pain freedom at 2 hours post-dose, pain relief at 2 hours post-dose, absence of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea at 2 hours post-dose, normal function at 2 hours post-dose, and use of rescue medication within 24 hours of the initial dose. All information was collected via an electronic diary.

There was no statistically significant difference between 2-hour pain freedom outcomes of menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks, although there was a numerically higher mean percentage of menstrual attacks that was not statistically significant. This was noted for both doses of ubrogepant. This was also the case for 2-hour pain relief; the migraine-associated symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, and nausea; for functional disability; and the use of a rescue medication. Among all outcomes it appears that both doses of ubrogepant are equally effective for both menstrual and nonmenstrual migraine attacks. On the basis of this evidence, clinicians may be able to consolidate different acute medications for different migraine subtypes and consider the use of this calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) antagonist for all the patient's attacks.

Allodynia is a condition whereby a nonpainful stimulus is perceived as painful. In the context of migraine, this often will occur in the head and neck region and as a result of the chronification of migraine — headache frequency increasing to > 15 days per month. One significant risk factor for the development of chronic migraine is medication overuse, when an acute medication for migraine is used more often than its recommended use. Pijpers and colleagues sought to determine whether the presence of allodynia was predictive for the prognosis of chronic migraine complicated by medication overuse.

This study was a subset of the Chronification And Reversibility of Migraine (CHARM) study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that aimed to investigate whether treatment with botulinum toxin A was of added value in addition to withdrawal therapy in chronic migraine patients with medication overuse headache. Diagnoses were made in consultation with headache experts and confirmed by a headache diary. Exclusion criteria were: (1) other primary headache or neurologic disorders; (2) other chronic pain disorders with medium to high pain intensity or requiring pain medication; (3) major psychiatric disorders other than depression; (4) major cognitive, behavioral, or oncologic disorders; (5) contraindications for treatment or inability to adhere to the study protocol; (6) (planned) pregnancy or breastfeeding; (7) use of ergots, opioids, or barbiturates; or (8) abuse of drugs in the past 12 months. Allodynia was determined by the Allodynia Symptom Checklist (ASC) .

The primary outcome was reversion from chronic to episodic migraine; secondary outcomes were > 50% reduction in monthly migraine days and reduction in number of monthly headache days. A total of 173 participants in the CHARM trial provided baseline allodynia data and were included in this current study. Participants with cutaneous allodynia were mainly women and did not differ significantly in age, number of monthly migraine or headache days, age of onset, use of acute or prophylactic treatment, or being treated with botulinum toxin.

The absence of cutaneous allodynia was predictive for good outcome after 12 weeks. For the primary endpoint, the odds for reversion from chronic migraine to episodic migraine were 2.5 times higher for participants without allodynia vs with allodynia. In all, 75.0% of participants without allodynia vs 57.4% of participants with allodynia reverted to episodic migraine. These helpful data will allow us to better predict accurately the disease process and better set expectations for our patients with chronic migraine.

In the earlier days of headache treatment, the focus for both acute and preventive medications was a decrease in the severity or frequency of pain. As time has progressed and our understanding of migraine has broadened, we now consider pain one of the many features of migraine, albeit usually the most prominent feature. The CGRP antagonist class of migraine medications has revolutionized how migraine is treated, both acutely and preventively; however, the initial studies all focused on pain-related outcomes. Alpuente and colleagues sought to better determine the effect of CGRP monoclonal antibody medications on other migraine-associated symptoms, specifically photophobia, photophobia, nausea, dizziness, and aura.

All injectable CGRP antibody medications were studied. Responses were recorded in an electronic diary. Patients were followed at 3 and 6 months and were excluded if their diary was < 80% complete; a total of 158 patients were included in this study. At 3 months, groups of patients were further divided between those who had > 50% decrease in monthly headache days and those that had < 50% reduction.

The > 50% group showed statistically significant reductions in the ratios of photophobia, phonophobia, and aura after 6 months of treatment, and, of note, these symptoms decreased at a higher rate than the reduction in headache days per month after 6 months. Rates of nausea and dizziness only reduced proportionally to the monthly headache days. For the < 50% group, there was a rebound of dizziness in between months 3 and 6, but all other outcomes decreased in proportion to the monthly headache days.

Our patients all experience symptoms other than headache pain as part of their migraine attacks. When we discuss the risks and benefits of a new treatment, we can now more accurately address many of the other associated symptoms and explain what our patients are likely to expect when starting a new medication. Similar studies have described these findings with the oral CGRP antagonists as well, and most acute migraine studies now use "most bothersome symptom" rather than pain severity as their primary outcome.

Daniel Einhorn, MD; John Buse, MD, PhD; Ralph DeFronzo, MD; Juan Pablo Frias, MD, and Christopher Lucci, MD, share their insights and perspectives on the connection between difficult-to control T2DM and untreated hypercortisolism:

• Almost a quarter of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) require 3 or more medications to manage their disease, and even then, many patients have difficulty getting their diabetes under control¹

• Elevated cortisol activity can exacerbate the pathophysiology of T2DM and can counter the impact of traditional anti-diabetic medications, making diabetes control challenging^2-6

• Studies emerging over the last two decades suggest that up to 10% of patients with T2DM may have hypercortisolism^7-11

• Patients with treatment-resistant T2DM should therefore be evaluated for hypercortisolism

• Treating the underlying hypercortisolism is important in these patients because managing comorbidities (alone) has not significantly reduced morbidity and mortality^12,13

Daniel Einhorn, MD
Meeting Moderator
Vice President
Endocrine Strategy
Corcept Therapeutics
Menlo Park, CA

John Buse, MD, PhD
University of North Carolina
School of Medicine
UNC Diabetes and Endocrinology Clinic
Chapel Hill, NC

Ralph DeFronzo, MD
University of Texas
Health Science Center
San Antonio, TX

Juan Pablo Frias, MD
Velocity Clinical Research
Los Angeles, CA

Christopher Lucci, MD
Diabetes and Cardiovascular of Rockport
Rockport, TX

 

Click HERE to read the supplement.

References

1. Fang M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2219-2228.
2. Scaroni C, et al. Endocr Rev. 2017;38(3):189-219.
3. Mazziotti G, et al. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2011;22(12):499-506.
4. Pivonello R, et al. Neuroendocrinology. 2010;92(suppl 1):77-81.
5. Mason IC, et al. Diabetologia. 2020;63(3):462-472.
6. Thau L, et al. StatPearls [Internet]. Updated August 29, 2022. Accessed February 3, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538239/
7. Chiodini I, et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;153(6):837-844.
8. Catargi B, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(12):5808-5813.
9. Costa DS, et al. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(6):1032-1038.
10. Leon-Justel A, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(10):3747-3754.
11. Steffensen C, et al. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51(1):62-68.
12. Petramala L, et al. Endocrine. 2020;70(1):150-163.
13. Morelli V, et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:898084.

©2023 Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. DSE-01055 SEP 2023

Daniel Einhorn, MD; John Buse, MD, PhD; Ralph DeFronzo, MD; Juan Pablo Frias, MD, and Christopher Lucci, MD, share their insights and perspectives on the connection between difficult-to control T2DM and untreated hypercortisolism:

• Almost a quarter of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) require 3 or more medications to manage their disease, and even then, many patients have difficulty getting their diabetes under control¹

• Elevated cortisol activity can exacerbate the pathophysiology of T2DM and can counter the impact of traditional anti-diabetic medications, making diabetes control challenging^2-6

• Studies emerging over the last two decades suggest that up to 10% of patients with T2DM may have hypercortisolism^7-11

• Patients with treatment-resistant T2DM should therefore be evaluated for hypercortisolism

• Treating the underlying hypercortisolism is important in these patients because managing comorbidities (alone) has not significantly reduced morbidity and mortality^12,13

Daniel Einhorn, MD
Meeting Moderator
Vice President
Endocrine Strategy
Corcept Therapeutics
Menlo Park, CA

John Buse, MD, PhD
University of North Carolina
School of Medicine
UNC Diabetes and Endocrinology Clinic
Chapel Hill, NC

Ralph DeFronzo, MD
University of Texas
Health Science Center
San Antonio, TX

Juan Pablo Frias, MD
Velocity Clinical Research
Los Angeles, CA

Christopher Lucci, MD
Diabetes and Cardiovascular of Rockport
Rockport, TX

 

Click HERE to read the supplement.

References

1. Fang M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2219-2228.
2. Scaroni C, et al. Endocr Rev. 2017;38(3):189-219.
3. Mazziotti G, et al. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2011;22(12):499-506.
4. Pivonello R, et al. Neuroendocrinology. 2010;92(suppl 1):77-81.
5. Mason IC, et al. Diabetologia. 2020;63(3):462-472.
6. Thau L, et al. StatPearls [Internet]. Updated August 29, 2022. Accessed February 3, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538239/
7. Chiodini I, et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;153(6):837-844.
8. Catargi B, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(12):5808-5813.
9. Costa DS, et al. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(6):1032-1038.
10. Leon-Justel A, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(10):3747-3754.
11. Steffensen C, et al. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51(1):62-68.
12. Petramala L, et al. Endocrine. 2020;70(1):150-163.
13. Morelli V, et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:898084.

©2023 Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. DSE-01055 SEP 2023

Daniel Einhorn, MD; John Buse, MD, PhD; Ralph DeFronzo, MD; Juan Pablo Frias, MD, and Christopher Lucci, MD, share their insights and perspectives on the connection between difficult-to control T2DM and untreated hypercortisolism:

• Almost a quarter of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) require 3 or more medications to manage their disease, and even then, many patients have difficulty getting their diabetes under control¹

• Elevated cortisol activity can exacerbate the pathophysiology of T2DM and can counter the impact of traditional anti-diabetic medications, making diabetes control challenging^2-6

• Studies emerging over the last two decades suggest that up to 10% of patients with T2DM may have hypercortisolism^7-11

• Patients with treatment-resistant T2DM should therefore be evaluated for hypercortisolism

• Treating the underlying hypercortisolism is important in these patients because managing comorbidities (alone) has not significantly reduced morbidity and mortality^12,13

Daniel Einhorn, MD
Meeting Moderator
Vice President
Endocrine Strategy
Corcept Therapeutics
Menlo Park, CA

John Buse, MD, PhD
University of North Carolina
School of Medicine
UNC Diabetes and Endocrinology Clinic
Chapel Hill, NC

Ralph DeFronzo, MD
University of Texas
Health Science Center
San Antonio, TX

Juan Pablo Frias, MD
Velocity Clinical Research
Los Angeles, CA

Christopher Lucci, MD
Diabetes and Cardiovascular of Rockport
Rockport, TX

 

Click HERE to read the supplement.

References

1. Fang M, et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(23):2219-2228.
2. Scaroni C, et al. Endocr Rev. 2017;38(3):189-219.
3. Mazziotti G, et al. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2011;22(12):499-506.
4. Pivonello R, et al. Neuroendocrinology. 2010;92(suppl 1):77-81.
5. Mason IC, et al. Diabetologia. 2020;63(3):462-472.
6. Thau L, et al. StatPearls [Internet]. Updated August 29, 2022. Accessed February 3, 2023. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538239/
7. Chiodini I, et al. Eur J Endocrinol. 2005;153(6):837-844.
8. Catargi B, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88(12):5808-5813.
9. Costa DS, et al. J Diabetes Complications. 2016;30(6):1032-1038.
10. Leon-Justel A, et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101(10):3747-3754.
11. Steffensen C, et al. Horm Metab Res. 2019;51(1):62-68.
12. Petramala L, et al. Endocrine. 2020;70(1):150-163.
13. Morelli V, et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022;13:898084.

©2023 Corcept Therapeutics Incorporated. All Rights Reserved. DSE-01055 SEP 2023