MDedge Dermatology

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

The Diagnosis: Scleromyxedema

A punch biopsy of the upper back performed at an outside institution revealed increased histiocytes and abundant interstitial mucin confined to the papillary dermis (Figures 1 and 2), consistent with the lichen myxedematosus (LM) papules that may be seen in scleromyxedema. Serum protein electrophoresis revealed the presence of a protein of restricted mobility on the gamma region that occupied 5.3% of the total protein (0.3 g/dL). Urine protein electrophoresis showed free kappa light chain monoclonal protein in the gamma region. Immunofixation electrophoresis revealed the presence of IgG kappa monoclonal protein in the gamma region with 10% monotype kappa cells. The presence of Raynaud phenomenon and positive antinuclear antibody (1:320, speckled) was noted. Laboratory studies for thyroid-stimulating hormone, C-reactive protein, Scl-70 antibody, myositis panel, ribonucleoprotein antibody, Smith antibody, Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B antibodies, rheumatoid factor, and RNA polymerase III antibody all were within reference range. Our patient was treated with monthly intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and he noted substantial improvement in skin findings after 3 months of IVIG.

Localized lichen myxedematosus is a rare idiopathic cutaneous disease that clinically is characterized by waxy indurated papules and histologically is characterized by diffuse mucin deposition and fibroblast proliferation in the upper dermis.¹ Scleromyxedema is a diffuse variant of LM in which the papules and plaques of LM are associated with skin thickening involving almost the entire body and associated systemic disease. The exact mechanism of this disease is unknown, but the most widely accepted hypothesis is that immunoglobulins and cytokines contribute to the synthesis of glycosaminoglycans and thereby the deposition of mucin in the dermis.² Scleromyxedema has a chronic course and generally responds poorly to existing treatments.¹ Partial improvement has been demonstrated in treatment with topical calcineurin inhibitors and topical steroids.²

The differential diagnosis in our patient included scleromyxedema, scleredema, scleroderma, LM, and reticular erythematosus mucinosis. He was diagnosed with scleromyxedema with kappa monoclonal gammopathy. Scleromyxedema is a rare disorder involving the deposition of mucinous material in the papillary dermis that causes the formation of infiltrative skin lesions.³ The etiology is unknown, but the presence of a monoclonal protein is an important characteristic of this disorder. It is important to rule out thyroid disease as a possible etiology before concluding that the disease process is driven by the monoclonal gammopathy; this will help determine appropriate therapies.^4,5 Usually the monoclonal protein is associated with the IgG lambda subtype. Intravenous immunoglobulin often is considered as a first-line treatment of scleromyxedema and usually is administered at a dosage of 2 g/kg divided over 2 to 5 consecutive days per month.³ Previously, our patient had been treated with IVIG for 3 years for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and had stopped 1 to 2 years before his cutaneous symptoms started. Generally, scleromyxedema patients must stay on IVIG long-term to prevent relapse, typically every 6 to 8 weeks. Second-line treatments for scleromyxedema include systemic corticosteroids and thalidomide.⁶ Scleromyxedema and LM have several clinical and histopathologic features in common. Our patient’s biopsy revealed increased mucin deposition associated with fibroblast proliferation confined to the superficial dermis. These histologic changes can be seen in the setting of either LM or scleromyxedema. Our patient’s diffuse skin thickening and monoclonal gammopathy were more characteristic of scleromyxedema. In contrast, LM is a localized eruption with no internal organ manifestations and no associated systemic disease, such as monoclonal gammopathy and thyroid disease.

Scleredema adultorum of Buschke (also referred to as scleredema) is a rare idiopathic dermatologic condition characterized by thickening and tightening of the skin that leads to firm, nonpitting, woody edema that initially involves the upper back and neck but can spread to the face, scalp, and shoulders; importantly, scleredema spares the hands and feet.⁷ Scleredema has been associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus, streptococcal upper respiratory tract infections, and monoclonal gammopathy.⁸ Although our patient did have a monoclonal gammopathy, he also experienced prominent hand involvement with diffuse skin thickening, which is not typical of scleredema. Additionally, biopsy of scleredema would show increased mucin but would not show the proliferation of fibroblasts that was seen in our patient’s biopsy. Furthermore, scleredema has more profound diffuse superficial and deep mucin deposition compared to scleromyxedema. Scleroderma is an autoimmune cutaneous condition that is divided into 2 categories: localized scleroderma and systemic sclerosis (SSc).⁹ Localized scleroderma (also called morphea) often is characterized by indurated hyperpigmented or hypopigmented lesions. There is an absence of Raynaud phenomenon, telangiectasia, and systemic disease.⁹ Systemic sclerosis is further divided into 2 categories—limited cutaneous and diffuse cutaneous—which are differentiated by the extent of organ system involvement. Limited cutaneous SSc involves calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, esophageal dysmotility, skin sclerosis distal to the elbows and knees, and telangiectasia.⁹ Diffuse cutaneous SSc is characterized by Raynaud phenomenon; cutaneous sclerosis proximal to the elbows and knees; and fibrosis of the gastrointestinal, pulmonary, renal, and cardiac systems.9 Scl-70 antibodies are specific for diffuse cutaneous SSc, and centromere antibodies are specific for limited cutaneous SSc. Scleromyxedema shares many of the same clinical symptoms as scleroderma; therefore, histopathologic examination is important for differentiating these disorders. Histologically, scleroderma is characterized by thickened collagen bundles associated with a variable degree of perivascular and interstitial lymphoplasmacytic inflammation. No increased dermal mucin is present.⁹ Our patient did not have the clinical cutaneous features of localized scleroderma and lacked the signs of internal organ involvement that typically are found in SSc. He did have Raynaud phenomenon but did not have matlike telangiectases or Scl-70 or centromere antibodies.

Reticular erythematosus mucinosis (REM) is a rare inflammatory cutaneous disease that is characterized by diffuse reticular erythematous macules or papules that may be asymptomatic or associated with pruritus.¹⁰ Reticular erythematosus mucinosis most frequently affects middle-aged women and appears on the trunk.⁹ Our patient was not part of the demographic group most frequently affected by REM. More importantly, our patient’s lesions were not erythematous or reticular in appearance, making the diagnosis of REM unlikely. Furthermore, REM has no associated cutaneous sclerosis or induration.

The Diagnosis: Scleromyxedema

A punch biopsy of the upper back performed at an outside institution revealed increased histiocytes and abundant interstitial mucin confined to the papillary dermis (Figures 1 and 2), consistent with the lichen myxedematosus (LM) papules that may be seen in scleromyxedema. Serum protein electrophoresis revealed the presence of a protein of restricted mobility on the gamma region that occupied 5.3% of the total protein (0.3 g/dL). Urine protein electrophoresis showed free kappa light chain monoclonal protein in the gamma region. Immunofixation electrophoresis revealed the presence of IgG kappa monoclonal protein in the gamma region with 10% monotype kappa cells. The presence of Raynaud phenomenon and positive antinuclear antibody (1:320, speckled) was noted. Laboratory studies for thyroid-stimulating hormone, C-reactive protein, Scl-70 antibody, myositis panel, ribonucleoprotein antibody, Smith antibody, Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B antibodies, rheumatoid factor, and RNA polymerase III antibody all were within reference range. Our patient was treated with monthly intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and he noted substantial improvement in skin findings after 3 months of IVIG.

Localized lichen myxedematosus is a rare idiopathic cutaneous disease that clinically is characterized by waxy indurated papules and histologically is characterized by diffuse mucin deposition and fibroblast proliferation in the upper dermis.¹ Scleromyxedema is a diffuse variant of LM in which the papules and plaques of LM are associated with skin thickening involving almost the entire body and associated systemic disease. The exact mechanism of this disease is unknown, but the most widely accepted hypothesis is that immunoglobulins and cytokines contribute to the synthesis of glycosaminoglycans and thereby the deposition of mucin in the dermis.² Scleromyxedema has a chronic course and generally responds poorly to existing treatments.¹ Partial improvement has been demonstrated in treatment with topical calcineurin inhibitors and topical steroids.²

The differential diagnosis in our patient included scleromyxedema, scleredema, scleroderma, LM, and reticular erythematosus mucinosis. He was diagnosed with scleromyxedema with kappa monoclonal gammopathy. Scleromyxedema is a rare disorder involving the deposition of mucinous material in the papillary dermis that causes the formation of infiltrative skin lesions.³ The etiology is unknown, but the presence of a monoclonal protein is an important characteristic of this disorder. It is important to rule out thyroid disease as a possible etiology before concluding that the disease process is driven by the monoclonal gammopathy; this will help determine appropriate therapies.^4,5 Usually the monoclonal protein is associated with the IgG lambda subtype. Intravenous immunoglobulin often is considered as a first-line treatment of scleromyxedema and usually is administered at a dosage of 2 g/kg divided over 2 to 5 consecutive days per month.³ Previously, our patient had been treated with IVIG for 3 years for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and had stopped 1 to 2 years before his cutaneous symptoms started. Generally, scleromyxedema patients must stay on IVIG long-term to prevent relapse, typically every 6 to 8 weeks. Second-line treatments for scleromyxedema include systemic corticosteroids and thalidomide.⁶ Scleromyxedema and LM have several clinical and histopathologic features in common. Our patient’s biopsy revealed increased mucin deposition associated with fibroblast proliferation confined to the superficial dermis. These histologic changes can be seen in the setting of either LM or scleromyxedema. Our patient’s diffuse skin thickening and monoclonal gammopathy were more characteristic of scleromyxedema. In contrast, LM is a localized eruption with no internal organ manifestations and no associated systemic disease, such as monoclonal gammopathy and thyroid disease.

Scleredema adultorum of Buschke (also referred to as scleredema) is a rare idiopathic dermatologic condition characterized by thickening and tightening of the skin that leads to firm, nonpitting, woody edema that initially involves the upper back and neck but can spread to the face, scalp, and shoulders; importantly, scleredema spares the hands and feet.⁷ Scleredema has been associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus, streptococcal upper respiratory tract infections, and monoclonal gammopathy.⁸ Although our patient did have a monoclonal gammopathy, he also experienced prominent hand involvement with diffuse skin thickening, which is not typical of scleredema. Additionally, biopsy of scleredema would show increased mucin but would not show the proliferation of fibroblasts that was seen in our patient’s biopsy. Furthermore, scleredema has more profound diffuse superficial and deep mucin deposition compared to scleromyxedema. Scleroderma is an autoimmune cutaneous condition that is divided into 2 categories: localized scleroderma and systemic sclerosis (SSc).⁹ Localized scleroderma (also called morphea) often is characterized by indurated hyperpigmented or hypopigmented lesions. There is an absence of Raynaud phenomenon, telangiectasia, and systemic disease.⁹ Systemic sclerosis is further divided into 2 categories—limited cutaneous and diffuse cutaneous—which are differentiated by the extent of organ system involvement. Limited cutaneous SSc involves calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, esophageal dysmotility, skin sclerosis distal to the elbows and knees, and telangiectasia.⁹ Diffuse cutaneous SSc is characterized by Raynaud phenomenon; cutaneous sclerosis proximal to the elbows and knees; and fibrosis of the gastrointestinal, pulmonary, renal, and cardiac systems.9 Scl-70 antibodies are specific for diffuse cutaneous SSc, and centromere antibodies are specific for limited cutaneous SSc. Scleromyxedema shares many of the same clinical symptoms as scleroderma; therefore, histopathologic examination is important for differentiating these disorders. Histologically, scleroderma is characterized by thickened collagen bundles associated with a variable degree of perivascular and interstitial lymphoplasmacytic inflammation. No increased dermal mucin is present.⁹ Our patient did not have the clinical cutaneous features of localized scleroderma and lacked the signs of internal organ involvement that typically are found in SSc. He did have Raynaud phenomenon but did not have matlike telangiectases or Scl-70 or centromere antibodies.

Reticular erythematosus mucinosis (REM) is a rare inflammatory cutaneous disease that is characterized by diffuse reticular erythematous macules or papules that may be asymptomatic or associated with pruritus.¹⁰ Reticular erythematosus mucinosis most frequently affects middle-aged women and appears on the trunk.⁹ Our patient was not part of the demographic group most frequently affected by REM. More importantly, our patient’s lesions were not erythematous or reticular in appearance, making the diagnosis of REM unlikely. Furthermore, REM has no associated cutaneous sclerosis or induration.

The Diagnosis: Scleromyxedema

A punch biopsy of the upper back performed at an outside institution revealed increased histiocytes and abundant interstitial mucin confined to the papillary dermis (Figures 1 and 2), consistent with the lichen myxedematosus (LM) papules that may be seen in scleromyxedema. Serum protein electrophoresis revealed the presence of a protein of restricted mobility on the gamma region that occupied 5.3% of the total protein (0.3 g/dL). Urine protein electrophoresis showed free kappa light chain monoclonal protein in the gamma region. Immunofixation electrophoresis revealed the presence of IgG kappa monoclonal protein in the gamma region with 10% monotype kappa cells. The presence of Raynaud phenomenon and positive antinuclear antibody (1:320, speckled) was noted. Laboratory studies for thyroid-stimulating hormone, C-reactive protein, Scl-70 antibody, myositis panel, ribonucleoprotein antibody, Smith antibody, Sjögren syndrome–related antigens A and B antibodies, rheumatoid factor, and RNA polymerase III antibody all were within reference range. Our patient was treated with monthly intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and he noted substantial improvement in skin findings after 3 months of IVIG.

Localized lichen myxedematosus is a rare idiopathic cutaneous disease that clinically is characterized by waxy indurated papules and histologically is characterized by diffuse mucin deposition and fibroblast proliferation in the upper dermis.¹ Scleromyxedema is a diffuse variant of LM in which the papules and plaques of LM are associated with skin thickening involving almost the entire body and associated systemic disease. The exact mechanism of this disease is unknown, but the most widely accepted hypothesis is that immunoglobulins and cytokines contribute to the synthesis of glycosaminoglycans and thereby the deposition of mucin in the dermis.² Scleromyxedema has a chronic course and generally responds poorly to existing treatments.¹ Partial improvement has been demonstrated in treatment with topical calcineurin inhibitors and topical steroids.²

The differential diagnosis in our patient included scleromyxedema, scleredema, scleroderma, LM, and reticular erythematosus mucinosis. He was diagnosed with scleromyxedema with kappa monoclonal gammopathy. Scleromyxedema is a rare disorder involving the deposition of mucinous material in the papillary dermis that causes the formation of infiltrative skin lesions.³ The etiology is unknown, but the presence of a monoclonal protein is an important characteristic of this disorder. It is important to rule out thyroid disease as a possible etiology before concluding that the disease process is driven by the monoclonal gammopathy; this will help determine appropriate therapies.^4,5 Usually the monoclonal protein is associated with the IgG lambda subtype. Intravenous immunoglobulin often is considered as a first-line treatment of scleromyxedema and usually is administered at a dosage of 2 g/kg divided over 2 to 5 consecutive days per month.³ Previously, our patient had been treated with IVIG for 3 years for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy and had stopped 1 to 2 years before his cutaneous symptoms started. Generally, scleromyxedema patients must stay on IVIG long-term to prevent relapse, typically every 6 to 8 weeks. Second-line treatments for scleromyxedema include systemic corticosteroids and thalidomide.⁶ Scleromyxedema and LM have several clinical and histopathologic features in common. Our patient’s biopsy revealed increased mucin deposition associated with fibroblast proliferation confined to the superficial dermis. These histologic changes can be seen in the setting of either LM or scleromyxedema. Our patient’s diffuse skin thickening and monoclonal gammopathy were more characteristic of scleromyxedema. In contrast, LM is a localized eruption with no internal organ manifestations and no associated systemic disease, such as monoclonal gammopathy and thyroid disease.

Scleredema adultorum of Buschke (also referred to as scleredema) is a rare idiopathic dermatologic condition characterized by thickening and tightening of the skin that leads to firm, nonpitting, woody edema that initially involves the upper back and neck but can spread to the face, scalp, and shoulders; importantly, scleredema spares the hands and feet.⁷ Scleredema has been associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus, streptococcal upper respiratory tract infections, and monoclonal gammopathy.⁸ Although our patient did have a monoclonal gammopathy, he also experienced prominent hand involvement with diffuse skin thickening, which is not typical of scleredema. Additionally, biopsy of scleredema would show increased mucin but would not show the proliferation of fibroblasts that was seen in our patient’s biopsy. Furthermore, scleredema has more profound diffuse superficial and deep mucin deposition compared to scleromyxedema. Scleroderma is an autoimmune cutaneous condition that is divided into 2 categories: localized scleroderma and systemic sclerosis (SSc).⁹ Localized scleroderma (also called morphea) often is characterized by indurated hyperpigmented or hypopigmented lesions. There is an absence of Raynaud phenomenon, telangiectasia, and systemic disease.⁹ Systemic sclerosis is further divided into 2 categories—limited cutaneous and diffuse cutaneous—which are differentiated by the extent of organ system involvement. Limited cutaneous SSc involves calcinosis, Raynaud phenomenon, esophageal dysmotility, skin sclerosis distal to the elbows and knees, and telangiectasia.⁹ Diffuse cutaneous SSc is characterized by Raynaud phenomenon; cutaneous sclerosis proximal to the elbows and knees; and fibrosis of the gastrointestinal, pulmonary, renal, and cardiac systems.9 Scl-70 antibodies are specific for diffuse cutaneous SSc, and centromere antibodies are specific for limited cutaneous SSc. Scleromyxedema shares many of the same clinical symptoms as scleroderma; therefore, histopathologic examination is important for differentiating these disorders. Histologically, scleroderma is characterized by thickened collagen bundles associated with a variable degree of perivascular and interstitial lymphoplasmacytic inflammation. No increased dermal mucin is present.⁹ Our patient did not have the clinical cutaneous features of localized scleroderma and lacked the signs of internal organ involvement that typically are found in SSc. He did have Raynaud phenomenon but did not have matlike telangiectases or Scl-70 or centromere antibodies.

Reticular erythematosus mucinosis (REM) is a rare inflammatory cutaneous disease that is characterized by diffuse reticular erythematous macules or papules that may be asymptomatic or associated with pruritus.¹⁰ Reticular erythematosus mucinosis most frequently affects middle-aged women and appears on the trunk.⁹ Our patient was not part of the demographic group most frequently affected by REM. More importantly, our patient’s lesions were not erythematous or reticular in appearance, making the diagnosis of REM unlikely. Furthermore, REM has no associated cutaneous sclerosis or induration.

Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia (ALHE) is a rare nodular unencapsulated mass that is characterized by benign anomalous vascular hyperplasia of epithelioidlike endothelial cells attached to dilated blood vessels. The mass is surrounded by lymphocytes and eosinophils that can present clinically as papules, plaques, or nodules.¹ The etiology of ALHE is unknown; it is hypothesized that it is a vascular neoplasm or a lymphoproliferative disorder.

Coccidioidomycosis (CM) is a prevalent deep fungal infection endemic to the southwestern United States caused by Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii. Infection can occur from direct inoculation through abrasions or direct trauma but usually occurs through the inhalation of spores and can result in a reactive rash (eg, Sweet syndrome, erythema nodosum, interstitial granulomatous dermatitis).² Coccidioidomycosis also can result in respiratory pneumonia and dissemination from pulmonary infection of the skin. As such, it is important to distinguish CM and its immunologically mediated eruptions for accurate diagnosis and treatment.

We report a novel case of ALHE as a reactive dermatologic presentation in a patient with CM.

Case Report

A 72-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with itchy papules and plaques on the arms and legs of 17 years’ duration. Her medical history included coronary artery disease and hypercholesterolemia as well as a remote history of cutaneous marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of the nose, which was confirmed by histology and treated more than 10 years prior and has remained in remission for 6 years. Her current medications included aspirin, atorvastatin, lisinopril, and metoprolol succinate.

Our patient first presented to our dermatology clinic for itchy nodules and papules on the legs and arms. The patient previously had been seen by another dermatologist 2 months prior for the same condition. At that time, biopsies of the lesions were reported as prurigo nodules. Physical examination at the current presentation revealed round, pink to flesh-colored, raised papules and plaques scattered on the arms and legs (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis included lymphomatoid papulosis, cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, pseudolymphoma, cutaneous CM, and papular mucinosis.

Four-mm punch biopsies of the right proximal pretibial region and left knee region were taken and sent for histologic analysis, direct immunofluorescence testing, and tissue culture. Testing for atypical mycobacteria and deep fungal infection was negative; bacterial cultures and sensitivity testing were negative. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative. Microscopic examination of material from the right proximal pretibial region showed widely dilated, variously shaped, large blood vessels in a multinodular pattern; the vessels also were surrounded by an inflammatory cell infiltrate containing eosinophils. Histologic findings were consistent with ALHE.

Subsequent biopsies were completed 2 weeks and 1 month from the initial presentation. Both histology reports—from 2 different histopathology laboratories—were consistent with ALHE (Figure 2). Additional work-up during the patient’s initial visit to our clinic for the rash included CM serologic testing, which demonstrated IgM and IgG antibodies. Subsequently, chest radiography revealed a 2.2×2.3-cm mass in the right lower lobe of the lung. Follow-up computed tomography 1 month later confirmed the nodule in the same area to be 2.3×2.1×1.8 cm.

The patient was referred to pulmonology and was treated for pulmonary CM with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily for 4 months. Initial treatment also included clobetasol cream 0.05% applied twice daily, which did not produce marked improvement in pruritus. Narrowband UVB phototherapy was attempted, but the patient could not complete the course because of travel time to the office; however, the patient’s ALHE improved considerably with the fluconazole treatment for pulmonary CM.

Oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was added to the fluconazole 2 months after her initial visit to our office, which kept the ALHE at bay and helped with the pruritus (Figure 3). Pulmonology and primary care comanaged the pulmonary CM with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily. Repeat serologic testing for CM was negative for IgG and IgM after 14 months since the initial visit to the office.

Comment

Pulmonary CM infection has varying dermatologic manifestations. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms ALHE and coccidioidomycosis yielded no case reports; in fact, there have been few reported cases of ALHE at all. Notable conditions associated with ALHE include membranous nephropathy and arteriovenous malformations treated with corticosteroids and surgery, respectively.^3,4 Our case is a rare presentation of CM infection manifesting with ALHE. Following treatment and remission for our patient’s CM infection, the ALHE lesion decreased in size.

Standard treatment of uncomplicated CM involves azole antifungals, typically oral fluconazole or itraconazole 400 to 600 mg/d. In more severe cases (eg, immunocompromised patients) amphotericin B can be used.⁵ Our patient was treated with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily for 4 months.

In the literature, treatment via surgical excision, steroid injection, pulsed-dye laser therapy, and radiotherapy also has been described.^6-8 Antibiotics including clindamycin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin-clavulanate also have been shown to be effective.⁹

In our patient, ALHE improved when oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was added to the oral fluconazole. In fact, after 4 months of treatment, the CM infection and ALHE lesions both improved to a point at which the lesions were not visible. When those lesions recurred 15 months later, they responded with another course of doxycycline and fluconazole.

Upon recurrence, the patient was asked to have her care transferred to her pulmonologist, who then managed the fluconazole regimen. During the pulmonologist’s workup, no peripheral eosinophilia was found. This is important because eosinophils can be a marker for CM infection; in this case, however, the ALHE lesion was a reactive process to the infection. Classically known to play a reactive role in fungal infection, these white blood cells demonstrate reactivity to the environmental fungus Alternaria alternata by contact-dependent killing, utilizing β2 integrins and CD11b to recognize and adhere to β-glucan. Eosinophils react through contact-dependent killing, releasing cytotoxic granule proteins and proinflammatory mediators, and have been documented to occur in CM and Paracoccidioides brasiliensis infection, in which they deposit major basic protein on the organism.¹⁰ Most pertinent to our case with ALHE and CM is the ability of eosinophils to communicate with other immune cells. Eosinophils play a role in the active inflammation of CM through cytokine signaling, which may propagate formation of ALHE.

The function of eosinophils in ALHE is poorly understood; it is unclear whether they act as a primary driver of pathogenesis or are simply indicators of secondary infiltration or infection. Our review of the current literature suggests that eosinophils are unnecessary for progression of ALHE but might be involved at its onset. As reported, even monoclonal antibody therapy (eg, mepolizumab and benralizumab) that effectively depletes eosinophil levels by negating IL-5 signaling do not slow progression of ALHE.¹¹ Symptomatic changes are modest at best (ie, simply softening the ALHE nodules).

Our patient had no peripheral eosinophilia, suggesting that the onset of ALHE might not be caused by eosinophilia but a different inflammatory process—in this patient, by CM. Because peripheral eosinophilia was not seen in our patient, the presence of eosinophils in the ALHE lesion likely is unnecessary for its onset or progression but is a secondary process that exacerbates the lesion. The pathogenesis is unknown but could be directed toward lymphocytes and plasma cells, with eosinophils as part of the dynamic process.¹¹

Conclusion

Because reports of an association between CM and ALHE are limited, our case is distinguished by a unique clinical presentation of ALHE. When a patient is given a diagnosis of ALHE, it therefore is important to consider exposure to CM as a cause, especially in patients who reside in or travel to a region where CM is endemic.

Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia (ALHE) is a rare nodular unencapsulated mass that is characterized by benign anomalous vascular hyperplasia of epithelioidlike endothelial cells attached to dilated blood vessels. The mass is surrounded by lymphocytes and eosinophils that can present clinically as papules, plaques, or nodules.¹ The etiology of ALHE is unknown; it is hypothesized that it is a vascular neoplasm or a lymphoproliferative disorder.

Coccidioidomycosis (CM) is a prevalent deep fungal infection endemic to the southwestern United States caused by Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii. Infection can occur from direct inoculation through abrasions or direct trauma but usually occurs through the inhalation of spores and can result in a reactive rash (eg, Sweet syndrome, erythema nodosum, interstitial granulomatous dermatitis).² Coccidioidomycosis also can result in respiratory pneumonia and dissemination from pulmonary infection of the skin. As such, it is important to distinguish CM and its immunologically mediated eruptions for accurate diagnosis and treatment.

We report a novel case of ALHE as a reactive dermatologic presentation in a patient with CM.

Case Report

A 72-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with itchy papules and plaques on the arms and legs of 17 years’ duration. Her medical history included coronary artery disease and hypercholesterolemia as well as a remote history of cutaneous marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of the nose, which was confirmed by histology and treated more than 10 years prior and has remained in remission for 6 years. Her current medications included aspirin, atorvastatin, lisinopril, and metoprolol succinate.

Our patient first presented to our dermatology clinic for itchy nodules and papules on the legs and arms. The patient previously had been seen by another dermatologist 2 months prior for the same condition. At that time, biopsies of the lesions were reported as prurigo nodules. Physical examination at the current presentation revealed round, pink to flesh-colored, raised papules and plaques scattered on the arms and legs (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis included lymphomatoid papulosis, cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, pseudolymphoma, cutaneous CM, and papular mucinosis.

Four-mm punch biopsies of the right proximal pretibial region and left knee region were taken and sent for histologic analysis, direct immunofluorescence testing, and tissue culture. Testing for atypical mycobacteria and deep fungal infection was negative; bacterial cultures and sensitivity testing were negative. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative. Microscopic examination of material from the right proximal pretibial region showed widely dilated, variously shaped, large blood vessels in a multinodular pattern; the vessels also were surrounded by an inflammatory cell infiltrate containing eosinophils. Histologic findings were consistent with ALHE.

Subsequent biopsies were completed 2 weeks and 1 month from the initial presentation. Both histology reports—from 2 different histopathology laboratories—were consistent with ALHE (Figure 2). Additional work-up during the patient’s initial visit to our clinic for the rash included CM serologic testing, which demonstrated IgM and IgG antibodies. Subsequently, chest radiography revealed a 2.2×2.3-cm mass in the right lower lobe of the lung. Follow-up computed tomography 1 month later confirmed the nodule in the same area to be 2.3×2.1×1.8 cm.

The patient was referred to pulmonology and was treated for pulmonary CM with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily for 4 months. Initial treatment also included clobetasol cream 0.05% applied twice daily, which did not produce marked improvement in pruritus. Narrowband UVB phototherapy was attempted, but the patient could not complete the course because of travel time to the office; however, the patient’s ALHE improved considerably with the fluconazole treatment for pulmonary CM.

Oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was added to the fluconazole 2 months after her initial visit to our office, which kept the ALHE at bay and helped with the pruritus (Figure 3). Pulmonology and primary care comanaged the pulmonary CM with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily. Repeat serologic testing for CM was negative for IgG and IgM after 14 months since the initial visit to the office.

Comment

Pulmonary CM infection has varying dermatologic manifestations. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms ALHE and coccidioidomycosis yielded no case reports; in fact, there have been few reported cases of ALHE at all. Notable conditions associated with ALHE include membranous nephropathy and arteriovenous malformations treated with corticosteroids and surgery, respectively.^3,4 Our case is a rare presentation of CM infection manifesting with ALHE. Following treatment and remission for our patient’s CM infection, the ALHE lesion decreased in size.

Standard treatment of uncomplicated CM involves azole antifungals, typically oral fluconazole or itraconazole 400 to 600 mg/d. In more severe cases (eg, immunocompromised patients) amphotericin B can be used.⁵ Our patient was treated with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily for 4 months.

In the literature, treatment via surgical excision, steroid injection, pulsed-dye laser therapy, and radiotherapy also has been described.^6-8 Antibiotics including clindamycin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin-clavulanate also have been shown to be effective.⁹

In our patient, ALHE improved when oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was added to the oral fluconazole. In fact, after 4 months of treatment, the CM infection and ALHE lesions both improved to a point at which the lesions were not visible. When those lesions recurred 15 months later, they responded with another course of doxycycline and fluconazole.

Upon recurrence, the patient was asked to have her care transferred to her pulmonologist, who then managed the fluconazole regimen. During the pulmonologist’s workup, no peripheral eosinophilia was found. This is important because eosinophils can be a marker for CM infection; in this case, however, the ALHE lesion was a reactive process to the infection. Classically known to play a reactive role in fungal infection, these white blood cells demonstrate reactivity to the environmental fungus Alternaria alternata by contact-dependent killing, utilizing β2 integrins and CD11b to recognize and adhere to β-glucan. Eosinophils react through contact-dependent killing, releasing cytotoxic granule proteins and proinflammatory mediators, and have been documented to occur in CM and Paracoccidioides brasiliensis infection, in which they deposit major basic protein on the organism.¹⁰ Most pertinent to our case with ALHE and CM is the ability of eosinophils to communicate with other immune cells. Eosinophils play a role in the active inflammation of CM through cytokine signaling, which may propagate formation of ALHE.

The function of eosinophils in ALHE is poorly understood; it is unclear whether they act as a primary driver of pathogenesis or are simply indicators of secondary infiltration or infection. Our review of the current literature suggests that eosinophils are unnecessary for progression of ALHE but might be involved at its onset. As reported, even monoclonal antibody therapy (eg, mepolizumab and benralizumab) that effectively depletes eosinophil levels by negating IL-5 signaling do not slow progression of ALHE.¹¹ Symptomatic changes are modest at best (ie, simply softening the ALHE nodules).

Our patient had no peripheral eosinophilia, suggesting that the onset of ALHE might not be caused by eosinophilia but a different inflammatory process—in this patient, by CM. Because peripheral eosinophilia was not seen in our patient, the presence of eosinophils in the ALHE lesion likely is unnecessary for its onset or progression but is a secondary process that exacerbates the lesion. The pathogenesis is unknown but could be directed toward lymphocytes and plasma cells, with eosinophils as part of the dynamic process.¹¹

Conclusion

Because reports of an association between CM and ALHE are limited, our case is distinguished by a unique clinical presentation of ALHE. When a patient is given a diagnosis of ALHE, it therefore is important to consider exposure to CM as a cause, especially in patients who reside in or travel to a region where CM is endemic.

Angiolymphoid hyperplasia with eosinophilia (ALHE) is a rare nodular unencapsulated mass that is characterized by benign anomalous vascular hyperplasia of epithelioidlike endothelial cells attached to dilated blood vessels. The mass is surrounded by lymphocytes and eosinophils that can present clinically as papules, plaques, or nodules.¹ The etiology of ALHE is unknown; it is hypothesized that it is a vascular neoplasm or a lymphoproliferative disorder.

Coccidioidomycosis (CM) is a prevalent deep fungal infection endemic to the southwestern United States caused by Coccidioides immitis and Coccidioides posadasii. Infection can occur from direct inoculation through abrasions or direct trauma but usually occurs through the inhalation of spores and can result in a reactive rash (eg, Sweet syndrome, erythema nodosum, interstitial granulomatous dermatitis).² Coccidioidomycosis also can result in respiratory pneumonia and dissemination from pulmonary infection of the skin. As such, it is important to distinguish CM and its immunologically mediated eruptions for accurate diagnosis and treatment.

We report a novel case of ALHE as a reactive dermatologic presentation in a patient with CM.

Case Report

A 72-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with itchy papules and plaques on the arms and legs of 17 years’ duration. Her medical history included coronary artery disease and hypercholesterolemia as well as a remote history of cutaneous marginal zone B-cell lymphoma of the nose, which was confirmed by histology and treated more than 10 years prior and has remained in remission for 6 years. Her current medications included aspirin, atorvastatin, lisinopril, and metoprolol succinate.

Our patient first presented to our dermatology clinic for itchy nodules and papules on the legs and arms. The patient previously had been seen by another dermatologist 2 months prior for the same condition. At that time, biopsies of the lesions were reported as prurigo nodules. Physical examination at the current presentation revealed round, pink to flesh-colored, raised papules and plaques scattered on the arms and legs (Figure 1). The differential diagnosis included lymphomatoid papulosis, cutaneous B-cell lymphoma, pseudolymphoma, cutaneous CM, and papular mucinosis.

Four-mm punch biopsies of the right proximal pretibial region and left knee region were taken and sent for histologic analysis, direct immunofluorescence testing, and tissue culture. Testing for atypical mycobacteria and deep fungal infection was negative; bacterial cultures and sensitivity testing were negative. Direct immunofluorescence testing was negative. Microscopic examination of material from the right proximal pretibial region showed widely dilated, variously shaped, large blood vessels in a multinodular pattern; the vessels also were surrounded by an inflammatory cell infiltrate containing eosinophils. Histologic findings were consistent with ALHE.

Subsequent biopsies were completed 2 weeks and 1 month from the initial presentation. Both histology reports—from 2 different histopathology laboratories—were consistent with ALHE (Figure 2). Additional work-up during the patient’s initial visit to our clinic for the rash included CM serologic testing, which demonstrated IgM and IgG antibodies. Subsequently, chest radiography revealed a 2.2×2.3-cm mass in the right lower lobe of the lung. Follow-up computed tomography 1 month later confirmed the nodule in the same area to be 2.3×2.1×1.8 cm.

The patient was referred to pulmonology and was treated for pulmonary CM with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily for 4 months. Initial treatment also included clobetasol cream 0.05% applied twice daily, which did not produce marked improvement in pruritus. Narrowband UVB phototherapy was attempted, but the patient could not complete the course because of travel time to the office; however, the patient’s ALHE improved considerably with the fluconazole treatment for pulmonary CM.

Oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was added to the fluconazole 2 months after her initial visit to our office, which kept the ALHE at bay and helped with the pruritus (Figure 3). Pulmonology and primary care comanaged the pulmonary CM with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily. Repeat serologic testing for CM was negative for IgG and IgM after 14 months since the initial visit to the office.

Comment

Pulmonary CM infection has varying dermatologic manifestations. A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms ALHE and coccidioidomycosis yielded no case reports; in fact, there have been few reported cases of ALHE at all. Notable conditions associated with ALHE include membranous nephropathy and arteriovenous malformations treated with corticosteroids and surgery, respectively.^3,4 Our case is a rare presentation of CM infection manifesting with ALHE. Following treatment and remission for our patient’s CM infection, the ALHE lesion decreased in size.

Standard treatment of uncomplicated CM involves azole antifungals, typically oral fluconazole or itraconazole 400 to 600 mg/d. In more severe cases (eg, immunocompromised patients) amphotericin B can be used.⁵ Our patient was treated with oral fluconazole 200 mg twice daily for 4 months.

In the literature, treatment via surgical excision, steroid injection, pulsed-dye laser therapy, and radiotherapy also has been described.^6-8 Antibiotics including clindamycin, doxycycline, and amoxicillin-clavulanate also have been shown to be effective.⁹

In our patient, ALHE improved when oral doxycycline 100 mg twice daily was added to the oral fluconazole. In fact, after 4 months of treatment, the CM infection and ALHE lesions both improved to a point at which the lesions were not visible. When those lesions recurred 15 months later, they responded with another course of doxycycline and fluconazole.

Upon recurrence, the patient was asked to have her care transferred to her pulmonologist, who then managed the fluconazole regimen. During the pulmonologist’s workup, no peripheral eosinophilia was found. This is important because eosinophils can be a marker for CM infection; in this case, however, the ALHE lesion was a reactive process to the infection. Classically known to play a reactive role in fungal infection, these white blood cells demonstrate reactivity to the environmental fungus Alternaria alternata by contact-dependent killing, utilizing β2 integrins and CD11b to recognize and adhere to β-glucan. Eosinophils react through contact-dependent killing, releasing cytotoxic granule proteins and proinflammatory mediators, and have been documented to occur in CM and Paracoccidioides brasiliensis infection, in which they deposit major basic protein on the organism.¹⁰ Most pertinent to our case with ALHE and CM is the ability of eosinophils to communicate with other immune cells. Eosinophils play a role in the active inflammation of CM through cytokine signaling, which may propagate formation of ALHE.

The function of eosinophils in ALHE is poorly understood; it is unclear whether they act as a primary driver of pathogenesis or are simply indicators of secondary infiltration or infection. Our review of the current literature suggests that eosinophils are unnecessary for progression of ALHE but might be involved at its onset. As reported, even monoclonal antibody therapy (eg, mepolizumab and benralizumab) that effectively depletes eosinophil levels by negating IL-5 signaling do not slow progression of ALHE.¹¹ Symptomatic changes are modest at best (ie, simply softening the ALHE nodules).

Our patient had no peripheral eosinophilia, suggesting that the onset of ALHE might not be caused by eosinophilia but a different inflammatory process—in this patient, by CM. Because peripheral eosinophilia was not seen in our patient, the presence of eosinophils in the ALHE lesion likely is unnecessary for its onset or progression but is a secondary process that exacerbates the lesion. The pathogenesis is unknown but could be directed toward lymphocytes and plasma cells, with eosinophils as part of the dynamic process.¹¹

Conclusion

Because reports of an association between CM and ALHE are limited, our case is distinguished by a unique clinical presentation of ALHE. When a patient is given a diagnosis of ALHE, it therefore is important to consider exposure to CM as a cause, especially in patients who reside in or travel to a region where CM is endemic.

PORTLAND, ORE. – In his nearly 2 decades of dermatology practice, Keith L. Duffy, MD, has seen his share of cases where Mohs surgery was misused or misappropriated.

“Appropriate use criteria in Mohs are near and dear to my heart,” Dr. Duffy, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “I want to protect our specialty. I see patients who have dozens of skin cancers. I want to emphasize the long game of management in those patients. You have to think about the tumors in terms of decades.”

In 2012, an ad hoc task force from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery developed appropriate use criteria (AUC) for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered. The task force used a 9-point scale to rate each indication, as follows:

• A score of 7 to 9: The use of MMS is appropriate for the specific indication and is generally considered acceptable.
• A score of 4 to 6: The use of MMS is uncertain for the specific indication, although its use may be appropriate and acceptable.
• A score of 1 to 3: The use of MMS is inappropriate for the specific indication and is generally not considered acceptable.

These ratings were translated into a free Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria App developed by the AAD.

Subsequently, Dr. Duffy and colleagues retrospectively examined the University of Utah’s adherence to the Mohs AUC over the course of 3 months. Their analysis, published in 2015, included 1,026 nonmelanoma skin cancers in 724 patients. Of the 1,026 cancers, 350 (34.1%) were treated with MMS. Of these, 339 (96.9%) were deemed appropriate based on the AUC guidelines, 4 (1.1%) were deemed uncertain, and 7 (2%) were deemed inappropriate.

There were also 611 skin cancers that were not treated with Mohs but met criteria for treatment with Mohs. “Most of these were AUC 7 tumors,” Dr. Duffy said. “When I see an AUC 7 tumor, I give high consideration for certain anatomic locations, especially the lower leg, scalp, eyelid, genitalia, ear, hands, and feet. I also think about the patient’s age, the number of skin cancers, and histological characteristics. Consider the long game in management and remember that skin cancer patients can make a near infinite amount of skin cancers, so be conservative when excising skin cancers to preserve precious skin.”

In his opinion, full thickness wounds requiring sutures should be avoided on the scalp and lower leg, if possible. “Most carcinomas in these locations are superficial and not aggressive in immunocompetent patients,” said Dr. Duffy, who said he has had one patient in 12 years who was not a transplant patient who had a metastatic squamous cell carcinoma on the lower leg. “Postop complications can be totally avoided. I don’t worry about these patients bleeding or [about] dehiscence. They can go back and play golf the next day, so you save valuable skin where the real estate is precious. This underscores a practice pearl: Incorporate the Mohs AUC and consideration of anatomic location when considering the most appropriate treatment of skin cancers.”

He also advises dermatologists to consider the histopathologic characteristics of the tumor when treating skin cancers to reduce complications and save tissue, so that patients can resume their lifestyle. “When you read the pathology report, really think about what the dermatopathologist saw under the microscope,” said Dr. Duffy, who is an investigator at the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute. He said that he is able to review the slides for 90% of his own cases before surgery. “I’m lucky that way, but if you have any questions, your dermatopathologist should be on speed dial.”

Ultimately, he concluded, proper selection of a treatment modality for a specific tumor and patient rules the day. “Tumors should be thought about in the context of the patient and not as a single or isolated cancer,” he said.

Dr. Duffy reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – In his nearly 2 decades of dermatology practice, Keith L. Duffy, MD, has seen his share of cases where Mohs surgery was misused or misappropriated.

“Appropriate use criteria in Mohs are near and dear to my heart,” Dr. Duffy, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “I want to protect our specialty. I see patients who have dozens of skin cancers. I want to emphasize the long game of management in those patients. You have to think about the tumors in terms of decades.”

In 2012, an ad hoc task force from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery developed appropriate use criteria (AUC) for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered. The task force used a 9-point scale to rate each indication, as follows:

• A score of 7 to 9: The use of MMS is appropriate for the specific indication and is generally considered acceptable.
• A score of 4 to 6: The use of MMS is uncertain for the specific indication, although its use may be appropriate and acceptable.
• A score of 1 to 3: The use of MMS is inappropriate for the specific indication and is generally not considered acceptable.

These ratings were translated into a free Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria App developed by the AAD.

Subsequently, Dr. Duffy and colleagues retrospectively examined the University of Utah’s adherence to the Mohs AUC over the course of 3 months. Their analysis, published in 2015, included 1,026 nonmelanoma skin cancers in 724 patients. Of the 1,026 cancers, 350 (34.1%) were treated with MMS. Of these, 339 (96.9%) were deemed appropriate based on the AUC guidelines, 4 (1.1%) were deemed uncertain, and 7 (2%) were deemed inappropriate.

There were also 611 skin cancers that were not treated with Mohs but met criteria for treatment with Mohs. “Most of these were AUC 7 tumors,” Dr. Duffy said. “When I see an AUC 7 tumor, I give high consideration for certain anatomic locations, especially the lower leg, scalp, eyelid, genitalia, ear, hands, and feet. I also think about the patient’s age, the number of skin cancers, and histological characteristics. Consider the long game in management and remember that skin cancer patients can make a near infinite amount of skin cancers, so be conservative when excising skin cancers to preserve precious skin.”

In his opinion, full thickness wounds requiring sutures should be avoided on the scalp and lower leg, if possible. “Most carcinomas in these locations are superficial and not aggressive in immunocompetent patients,” said Dr. Duffy, who said he has had one patient in 12 years who was not a transplant patient who had a metastatic squamous cell carcinoma on the lower leg. “Postop complications can be totally avoided. I don’t worry about these patients bleeding or [about] dehiscence. They can go back and play golf the next day, so you save valuable skin where the real estate is precious. This underscores a practice pearl: Incorporate the Mohs AUC and consideration of anatomic location when considering the most appropriate treatment of skin cancers.”

He also advises dermatologists to consider the histopathologic characteristics of the tumor when treating skin cancers to reduce complications and save tissue, so that patients can resume their lifestyle. “When you read the pathology report, really think about what the dermatopathologist saw under the microscope,” said Dr. Duffy, who is an investigator at the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute. He said that he is able to review the slides for 90% of his own cases before surgery. “I’m lucky that way, but if you have any questions, your dermatopathologist should be on speed dial.”

Ultimately, he concluded, proper selection of a treatment modality for a specific tumor and patient rules the day. “Tumors should be thought about in the context of the patient and not as a single or isolated cancer,” he said.

Dr. Duffy reported having no relevant disclosures.

PORTLAND, ORE. – In his nearly 2 decades of dermatology practice, Keith L. Duffy, MD, has seen his share of cases where Mohs surgery was misused or misappropriated.

“Appropriate use criteria in Mohs are near and dear to my heart,” Dr. Duffy, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association. “I want to protect our specialty. I see patients who have dozens of skin cancers. I want to emphasize the long game of management in those patients. You have to think about the tumors in terms of decades.”

In 2012, an ad hoc task force from the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the American College of Mohs Surgery, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association, and the American Society for Mohs Surgery developed appropriate use criteria (AUC) for 270 scenarios for which Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is frequently considered. The task force used a 9-point scale to rate each indication, as follows:

• A score of 7 to 9: The use of MMS is appropriate for the specific indication and is generally considered acceptable.
• A score of 4 to 6: The use of MMS is uncertain for the specific indication, although its use may be appropriate and acceptable.
• A score of 1 to 3: The use of MMS is inappropriate for the specific indication and is generally not considered acceptable.

These ratings were translated into a free Mohs Surgery Appropriate Use Criteria App developed by the AAD.

Subsequently, Dr. Duffy and colleagues retrospectively examined the University of Utah’s adherence to the Mohs AUC over the course of 3 months. Their analysis, published in 2015, included 1,026 nonmelanoma skin cancers in 724 patients. Of the 1,026 cancers, 350 (34.1%) were treated with MMS. Of these, 339 (96.9%) were deemed appropriate based on the AUC guidelines, 4 (1.1%) were deemed uncertain, and 7 (2%) were deemed inappropriate.

There were also 611 skin cancers that were not treated with Mohs but met criteria for treatment with Mohs. “Most of these were AUC 7 tumors,” Dr. Duffy said. “When I see an AUC 7 tumor, I give high consideration for certain anatomic locations, especially the lower leg, scalp, eyelid, genitalia, ear, hands, and feet. I also think about the patient’s age, the number of skin cancers, and histological characteristics. Consider the long game in management and remember that skin cancer patients can make a near infinite amount of skin cancers, so be conservative when excising skin cancers to preserve precious skin.”

In his opinion, full thickness wounds requiring sutures should be avoided on the scalp and lower leg, if possible. “Most carcinomas in these locations are superficial and not aggressive in immunocompetent patients,” said Dr. Duffy, who said he has had one patient in 12 years who was not a transplant patient who had a metastatic squamous cell carcinoma on the lower leg. “Postop complications can be totally avoided. I don’t worry about these patients bleeding or [about] dehiscence. They can go back and play golf the next day, so you save valuable skin where the real estate is precious. This underscores a practice pearl: Incorporate the Mohs AUC and consideration of anatomic location when considering the most appropriate treatment of skin cancers.”

He also advises dermatologists to consider the histopathologic characteristics of the tumor when treating skin cancers to reduce complications and save tissue, so that patients can resume their lifestyle. “When you read the pathology report, really think about what the dermatopathologist saw under the microscope,” said Dr. Duffy, who is an investigator at the University of Utah’s Huntsman Cancer Institute. He said that he is able to review the slides for 90% of his own cases before surgery. “I’m lucky that way, but if you have any questions, your dermatopathologist should be on speed dial.”

Ultimately, he concluded, proper selection of a treatment modality for a specific tumor and patient rules the day. “Tumors should be thought about in the context of the patient and not as a single or isolated cancer,” he said.

Dr. Duffy reported having no relevant disclosures.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

Early in 2020, Anne Peters, MD, caught COVID-19. The author of Medscape’s “Peters on Diabetes” column was sick in March 2020 before state-mandated lockdowns, and well before there were any vaccines.

She remembers sitting in a small exam room with two patients who had flown to her Los Angeles office from New York. The elderly couple had hearing difficulties, so Dr. Peters sat close to them, putting on a continuous glucose monitor. “At that time, we didn’t think of COVID-19 as being in L.A.,” Dr. Peters recalled, “so I think we were not terribly consistent at mask-wearing due to the need to educate.”

“Several days later, I got COVID, but I didn’t know I had COVID per se. I felt crappy, had a terrible sore throat, lost my sense of taste and smell [which was not yet described as a COVID symptom], was completely exhausted, but had no fever or cough, which were the only criteria for getting COVID tested at the time. I didn’t know I had been exposed until 2 weeks later, when the patient’s assistant returned the sensor warning us to ‘be careful’ with it because the patient and his wife were recovering from COVID.”

That early battle with COVID-19 was just the beginning of what would become a 2-year struggle, including familial loss amid her own health problems and concerns about the under-resourced patients she cares for. Here, she shares her journey through the pandemic with this news organization.
 

Question: Thanks for talking to us. Let’s discuss your journey over these past 2.5 years.

Answer: Everybody has their own COVID story because we all went through this together. Some of us have worse COVID stories, and some of us have better ones, but all have been impacted.

I’m not a sick person. I’m a very healthy person but COVID made me so unwell for 2 years. The brain fog and fatigue were nothing compared to the autonomic neuropathy that affected my heart. It was really limiting for me. And I still don’t know the long-term implications, looking 20-30 years from now.
 

Q: When you initially had COVID, what were your symptoms? What was the impact?

A: I had all the symptoms of COVID, except for a cough and fever. I lost my sense of taste and smell. I had a horrible headache, a sore throat, and I was exhausted. I couldn’t get tested because I didn’t have the right symptoms.

Despite being sick, I never stopped working but just switched to telemedicine. I also took my regular monthly trip to our cabin in Montana. I unknowingly flew on a plane with COVID. I wore a well-fitted N95 mask, so I don’t think I gave anybody COVID. I didn’t give COVID to my partner, Eric, which is hard to believe as – at 77 – he’s older than me. He has diabetes, heart disease, and every other high-risk characteristic. If he’d gotten COVID back then, it would have been terrible, as there were no treatments, but luckily he didn’t get it.
 

Q: When were you officially diagnosed?

A: Two or 3 months after I thought I might have had COVID, I checked my antibodies, which tested strongly positive for a prior COVID infection. That was when I knew all the symptoms I’d had were due to the disease.

Q: Not only were you dealing with your own illness, but also that of those close to you. Can you talk about that?

A: In April 2020, my mother who was in her 90s and otherwise healthy except for dementia, got COVID. She could have gotten it from me. I visited often but wore a mask. She had all the horrible pulmonary symptoms. In her advance directive, she didn’t want to be hospitalized so I kept her in her home. She died from COVID in her own bed. It was fairly brutal, but at least I kept her where she felt comforted.

My 91-year-old dad was living in a different residential facility. Throughout COVID he had become very depressed because his social patterns had changed. Prior to COVID, they all ate together, but during the pandemic they were unable to. He missed his social connections, disliked being isolated in his room, hated everyone in masks.

He was a bit demented, but not so much that he couldn’t communicate with me or remember where his grandson was going to law school. I wasn’t allowed inside the facility, which was hard on him. I hadn’t told him his wife died because the hospice social workers advised me that I shouldn’t give him news that he couldn’t process readily until I could spend time with him. Unfortunately, that time never came. In December 2020, he got COVID. One of the people in that facility had gone to the hospital, came back, and tested negative, but actually had COVID and gave it to my dad. The guy who gave it to my dad didn’t die but my dad was terribly ill. He died 2 weeks short of getting his vaccine. He was coherent enough to have a conversation. I asked him: ‘Do you want to go to the hospital?’ And he said: ‘No, because it would be too scary,’ since he couldn’t be with me. I put him on hospice and held his hand as he died from pulmonary COVID, which was awful. I couldn’t give him enough morphine or valium to ease his breathing. But his last words to me were “I love you,” and at the very end he seemed peaceful, which was a blessing.

I got an autopsy, because he wanted one. Nothing else was wrong with him other than COVID. It destroyed his lungs. The rest of him was fine – no heart disease, cancer, or anything else. He died of COVID-19, the same as my mother.

That same week, my aunt, my only surviving older relative, who was in Des Moines, Iowa, died of COVID-19. All three family members died before the vaccine came out.

It was hard to lose my parents. I’m the only surviving child because my sister died in her 20s. It’s not been an easy pandemic. But what pandemic is easy? I just happened to have lost more people than most. Ironically, my grandfather was one of the legionnaires at the Bellevue-Stratford Hotel in Philadelphia in 1976 and died of Legionnaire’s disease before we knew what was causing the outbreak.
 

Q: Were you still struggling with COVID?

A: COVID impacted my whole body. I lost a lot of weight. I didn’t want to eat, and my gastrointestinal system was not happy. It took a while for my sense of taste and smell to come back. Nothing tasted good. I’m not a foodie; I don’t really care about food. We could get takeout or whatever, but none of it appealed to me. I’m not so sure it was a taste thing, I just didn’t feel like eating.

I didn’t realize I had “brain fog” per se, because I felt stressed and overwhelmed by the pandemic and my patients’ concerns. But one day, about 3 months after I had developed COVID, I woke up without the fog. Which made me aware that I hadn’t been feeling right up until that point.

The worst symptoms, however, were cardiac. I noticed also immediately that my heart rate went up very quickly with minimal exertion. My pulse has always been in the 55-60 bpm range, and suddenly just walking across a room made it go up to over 140 bpm. If I did any aerobic activity, it went up over 160 and would be associated with dyspnea and chest pain. I believed these were all post-COVID symptoms and felt validated when reports of others having similar issues were published in the literature.

Q: Did you continue seeing patients?

A: Yes, of course. Patients never needed their doctors more. In East L.A., where patients don’t have easy access to telemedicine, I kept going into clinic throughout the pandemic. In the more affluent Westside of Los Angeles, we switched to telemedicine, which was quite effective for most. However, because diabetes was associated with an increased risk of hospitalization and death from COVID, my patients were understandably afraid. I’ve never been busier, but (like all health care providers), I became more of a COVID provider than a diabetologist.

Q: Do you feel your battle with COVID impacted your work?

A: It didn’t affect me at work. If I was sitting still, I was fine. Sitting at home at a desk, I didn’t notice any symptoms. But as a habitual stair-user, I would be gasping for breath in the stairwell because I couldn’t go up the stairs to my office as I once could.

I think you empathize more with people who had COVID (when you’ve had it yourself). There was such a huge patient burden. And I think that’s been the thing that’s affected health care providers the most – no matter what specialty we’re in – that nobody has answers.
 

Q: What happened after you had your vaccine?

A: The vaccine itself was fine. I didn’t have any reaction to the first two doses. But the first booster made my cardiac issues worse.

By this point, my cardiac problems stopped me from exercising. I even went to the ER with chest pain once because I was having palpitations and chest pressure caused by simply taking my morning shower. Fortunately, I wasn’t having an MI, but I certainly wasn’t “normal.”

My measure of my fitness is the cross-country skiing trail I use in Montana. I know exactly how far I can ski. Usually I can do the loop in 35 minutes. After COVID, I lasted 10 minutes. I would be tachycardic, short of breath with chest pain radiating down my left arm. I would rest and try to keep going. But with each rest period, I only got worse. I would be laying in the snow and strangers would ask if I needed help.
 

Q: What helped you?

A: I’ve read a lot about long COVID and have tried to learn from the experts. Of course, I never went to a doctor directly, although I did ask colleagues for advice. What I learned was to never push myself. I forced myself to create an exercise schedule where I only exercised three times a week with rest days in between. When exercising, the second my heart rate went above 140 bpm, I stopped until I could get it back down. I would push against this new limit, even though my limit was low.

Additionally, I worked on my breathing patterns and did meditative breathing for 10 minutes twice daily using a commercially available app.

Although progress was slow, I did improve, and by June 2022, I seemed back to normal. I was not as fit as I was prior to COVID and needed to improve, but the tachycardic response to exercise and cardiac symptoms were gone. I felt like my normal self. Normal enough to go on a spot packing trip in the Sierras in August. (Horses carried us and a mule carried the gear over the 12,000-foot pass into the mountains, and then left my friend and me high in the Sierras for a week.) We were camped above 10,000 feet and every day hiked up to another high mountain lake where we fly-fished for trout that we ate for dinner. The hikes were a challenge, but not abnormally so. Not as they would have been while I had long COVID.
 

Q: What is the current atmosphere in your clinic?

A: COVID is much milder now in my vaccinated patients, but I feel most health care providers are exhausted. Many of my staff left when COVID hit because they didn’t want to keep working. It made practicing medicine exhausting. There’s been a shortage of nurses, a shortage of everything. We’ve been required to do a whole lot more than we ever did before. It’s much harder to be a doctor. This pandemic is the first time I’ve ever thought of quitting. Granted, I lost my whole family, or at least the older generation, but it’s just been almost overwhelming.

On the plus side, almost every one of my patients has been vaccinated, because early on, people would ask: “Do you trust this vaccine?” I would reply: “I saw my parents die from COVID when they weren’t vaccinated, so you’re getting vaccinated. This is real and the vaccines help.” It made me very good at convincing people to get vaccines because I knew what it was like to see someone dying from COVID up close.
 

Q: What advice do you have for those struggling with the COVID pandemic?

A: People need to decide what their own risk is for getting sick and how many times they want to get COVID. At this point, I want people to go out, but safely. In the beginning, when my patients said, “can I go visit my granddaughter?” I said, “no,” but that was before we had the vaccine. Now I feel it is safe to go out using common sense. I still have my patients wear masks on planes. I still have patients try to eat outside as much as possible. And I tell people to take the precautions that make sense, but I tell them to go out and do things because life is short.

I had a patient in his 70s who has many risk factors like heart disease and diabetes. His granddaughter’s Bat Mitzvah in Florida was coming up. He asked: “Can I go?” I told him “Yes,” but to be safe – to wear an N95 mask on the plane and at the event, and stay in his own hotel room, rather than with the whole family. I said, “You need to do this.” Earlier in the pandemic, I saw people who literally died from loneliness and isolation.

He and his wife flew there. He sent me a picture of himself with his granddaughter. When he returned, he showed me a handwritten note from her that said, “I love you so much. Everyone else canceled, which made me cry. You’re the only one who came. You have no idea how much this meant to me.”

He’s back in L.A., and he didn’t get COVID. He said, “It was the best thing I’ve done in years.” That’s what I need to help people with, navigating this world with COVID and assessing risks and benefits. As with all of medicine, my advice is individualized. My advice changes based on the major circulating variant and the rates of the virus in the population, as well as the risk factors of the individual.
 

Q: What are you doing now?

A: I’m trying to avoid getting COVID again, or another booster. I could get pre-exposure monoclonal antibodies but am waiting to do anything further until I see what happens over the fall and winter. I still wear a mask inside but now do a mix of in-person and telemedicine visits. I still try to go to outdoor restaurants, which is easy in California. But I’m flying to see my son in New York and plan to go to Europe this fall for a meeting. I also go to my cabin in Montana every month to get my “dose” of the wilderness. Overall, I travel for conferences and speaking engagements much less because I have learned the joy of staying home.

Thinking back on my life as a doctor, my career began as an intern at Stanford rotating through Ward 5B, the AIDS unit at San Francisco General Hospital, and will likely end with COVID. In spite of all our medical advances, my generation of physicians, much as many generations before us, has a front-row seat to the vulnerability of humans to infectious diseases and how far we still need to go to protect our patients from communicable illness.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Anne L. Peters, MD, is a professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts; three books on diabetes; and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations.

PORTLAND, ORE. – If a child presents with pseudoporphyria – a bullous photodermatosis with the clinical and histological features of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) but with normal porphyrins – chlorophyll water could be the culprit.

Commercially available, green pigment–infused chlorophyll water is marketed with claims that it supports cancer prevention and digestive health, facilitates weight loss, and improves skin complexion. “It also absorbs light, so lo and behold, if your patient is photosensitive, they might get pseudoporphyria,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

This was one of the clinical pearls he shared during his presentation.

Dr. Sidbury added that the risk of photosensitivity increases in children who are taking other medications such as doxycycline, methotrexate, or even naproxen. At least two cases of pseudoporphyria following self-medication with chlorophyll have been described in the dermatology literature.
 

Is it SSSS or SJS?

Another clinical pearl that Dr. Sidbury shared at the meeting related to staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS), which causes reddening and blistering of the skin that makes it appear scalded or burned. To rule out Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) in a child who presents with such skin manifestations, he routinely performs the unscientific lollipop test, which he learned from Bernard A. “Buddy” Cohen, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

kiliweb/Open Food Facts/CC BY-SA 3.0

“If they eat it, it’s Staph scalded skin,” said Dr. Sidbury, who is also professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle. “If they don’t, it’s likely SJS. It’s not the most specific test, but it’s easy to do, because there’s no mucous membrane involvement in Staph scalded skin.”

In a poster presented during the 2022 annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Sarah Cipriano, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, retrospectively study 85 patients aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with SSSS between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 21, 2021. They found that ancillary blood cultures and CSF cultures did not improve diagnostic precision in SSSS patients.

“They don’t add anything unless there’s an indication beyond the Staph scalded skin,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in the study. “The researchers also found that clindamycin does not improve outcomes in these patients, so avoid using it.” Instead, a first-generation cephalosporin is indicated, and an alternate diagnosis should be considered if the patient does not improve within 48 hours.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he has conducted research for Regeneron, Galderma, and UCB. He is also an adviser for Leo Pharmaceuticals and a speaker for Biersdorf.

PORTLAND, ORE. – If a child presents with pseudoporphyria – a bullous photodermatosis with the clinical and histological features of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) but with normal porphyrins – chlorophyll water could be the culprit.

Commercially available, green pigment–infused chlorophyll water is marketed with claims that it supports cancer prevention and digestive health, facilitates weight loss, and improves skin complexion. “It also absorbs light, so lo and behold, if your patient is photosensitive, they might get pseudoporphyria,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

This was one of the clinical pearls he shared during his presentation.

Dr. Sidbury added that the risk of photosensitivity increases in children who are taking other medications such as doxycycline, methotrexate, or even naproxen. At least two cases of pseudoporphyria following self-medication with chlorophyll have been described in the dermatology literature.
 

Is it SSSS or SJS?

Another clinical pearl that Dr. Sidbury shared at the meeting related to staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS), which causes reddening and blistering of the skin that makes it appear scalded or burned. To rule out Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) in a child who presents with such skin manifestations, he routinely performs the unscientific lollipop test, which he learned from Bernard A. “Buddy” Cohen, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

kiliweb/Open Food Facts/CC BY-SA 3.0

“If they eat it, it’s Staph scalded skin,” said Dr. Sidbury, who is also professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle. “If they don’t, it’s likely SJS. It’s not the most specific test, but it’s easy to do, because there’s no mucous membrane involvement in Staph scalded skin.”

In a poster presented during the 2022 annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Sarah Cipriano, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, retrospectively study 85 patients aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with SSSS between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 21, 2021. They found that ancillary blood cultures and CSF cultures did not improve diagnostic precision in SSSS patients.

“They don’t add anything unless there’s an indication beyond the Staph scalded skin,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in the study. “The researchers also found that clindamycin does not improve outcomes in these patients, so avoid using it.” Instead, a first-generation cephalosporin is indicated, and an alternate diagnosis should be considered if the patient does not improve within 48 hours.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he has conducted research for Regeneron, Galderma, and UCB. He is also an adviser for Leo Pharmaceuticals and a speaker for Biersdorf.

PORTLAND, ORE. – If a child presents with pseudoporphyria – a bullous photodermatosis with the clinical and histological features of porphyria cutanea tarda (PCT) but with normal porphyrins – chlorophyll water could be the culprit.

Commercially available, green pigment–infused chlorophyll water is marketed with claims that it supports cancer prevention and digestive health, facilitates weight loss, and improves skin complexion. “It also absorbs light, so lo and behold, if your patient is photosensitive, they might get pseudoporphyria,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

This was one of the clinical pearls he shared during his presentation.

Dr. Sidbury added that the risk of photosensitivity increases in children who are taking other medications such as doxycycline, methotrexate, or even naproxen. At least two cases of pseudoporphyria following self-medication with chlorophyll have been described in the dermatology literature.
 

Is it SSSS or SJS?

Another clinical pearl that Dr. Sidbury shared at the meeting related to staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome (SSSS), which causes reddening and blistering of the skin that makes it appear scalded or burned. To rule out Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) in a child who presents with such skin manifestations, he routinely performs the unscientific lollipop test, which he learned from Bernard A. “Buddy” Cohen, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

kiliweb/Open Food Facts/CC BY-SA 3.0

“If they eat it, it’s Staph scalded skin,” said Dr. Sidbury, who is also professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle. “If they don’t, it’s likely SJS. It’s not the most specific test, but it’s easy to do, because there’s no mucous membrane involvement in Staph scalded skin.”

In a poster presented during the 2022 annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, Sarah Cipriano, MD, MPH, and colleagues at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, retrospectively study 85 patients aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with SSSS between Jan. 1, 2010, and Aug. 21, 2021. They found that ancillary blood cultures and CSF cultures did not improve diagnostic precision in SSSS patients.

“They don’t add anything unless there’s an indication beyond the Staph scalded skin,” said Dr. Sidbury, who was not involved in the study. “The researchers also found that clindamycin does not improve outcomes in these patients, so avoid using it.” Instead, a first-generation cephalosporin is indicated, and an alternate diagnosis should be considered if the patient does not improve within 48 hours.

Dr. Sidbury disclosed that he has conducted research for Regeneron, Galderma, and UCB. He is also an adviser for Leo Pharmaceuticals and a speaker for Biersdorf.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

Treatment with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), according to a new systemic review and meta-analysis, published online in JAMA Dermatology.

“These findings may provide a reference for clinicians in prescribing JAK inhibitors for patients with AD,” Tai-Li Chen, MD, of Taipei (Taiwan) Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues wrote in the study.

The results shed some welcome light on treatment for this dermatologic population, for whom enthusiasm about JAK inhibitors was dampened by the addition of a boxed warning to the labels of JAK inhibitors last year, required by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning, which describes an increased risk of “serious heart-related events such as heart attack or stroke, cancer, blood clots, and death” was triggered by results of the ORAL Surveillance study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with tofacitinib.

The boxed warning is also included in the labels of topical ruxolitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved by the FDA for mild to moderate AD in 2021, and in the labels of two oral JAK inhibitors, upadacitinib and abrocitinib, approved by the FDA for treating moderate to severe AD in January 2022.

Despite the new findings, some dermatologists are still urging caution.

“All the JAK inhibitor trials are short term. I still think the precautionary principle applies and we need to counsel on the risks of JAKs,” tweeted Aaron Drucker, MD, a dermatologist at Women’s College Hospital, and associate professor at the University of Toronto. “It is great to have these as options for our patients. But we need to be aware of the risks associated with this class of medications, counsel patients about them when we are informing them of the risks and benefits of treatment options, and wait for more data specific to this population to make even more informed decisions,” he told this news organization.

The meta-analysis examined both the risk of incident VTE in untreated patients with AD compared with non-AD patients, as well as the risk of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors compared with those on either placebo or dupilumab. Four JAK inhibitors were studied: abrocitinib, baricitinib (under FDA review for AD), upadacitinib, and SHR0302 (in clinical trials).

Two studies (458,206 participants) found the overall incidence rate of VTE for patients with AD was 0.23 events per 100 patient-years. The risk was did not differ from that in non-AD patients (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.45).

Another 15 studies included 8,787 participants with AD and found no significant differences in the rates of VTE in AD patients treated with JAK inhibitors (0.05%) versus those treated with placebo or dupilumab (0.03%). However “with the increasing applications of JAK inhibitors in AD, more clinical data are needed to identify patients at high risk for VTE,” noted the authors.

“We need more, long-term data,” agreed Dr. Drucker, adding that a major issue is the short-term nature of AD trials to date (generally up to 16 weeks), which “don’t provide adequate reassurance.” He said although the FDA’s boxed warning was prompted by a trial in RA patients treated with tofacitinib (a less selective JAK inhibitor than those approved by the FDA for AD), and the same risks have not been demonstrated specifically for the JAK inhibitors used for a patients with AD, he still remains cautious.

While agreeing on the need for more long-term data, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland, said that the new findings should “provide reassurance” to dermatologists and are “consonant with recent published meta-analyses reporting no increased VTE risk in patients with psoriasis, RA, or inflammatory bowel disease treated with JAK inhibitors” in Arthritis & Rheumatology, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

In an interview, Dr. Blauvelt said that safety profiles emerging for the newer JAK inhibitors, which block JAK 1/2, have been overshadowed by the older RA data for tofacitinib – which is a JAK 1/3 inhibitor, “despite emerging long-term, monotherapy, clinical study data for dermatologic diseases showing no or rare risks of developing severe adverse events outlined in the boxed warnings.”

Both Dr. Blauvelt and Dr. Drucker pointed out that people with RA tend to have more comorbidities than those with AD that would predispose them to adverse events. In fact, “approximately 75% of patients in the ORAL Surveillance study were also on concomitant methotrexate and/or prednisone, which can greatly confound safety results,” said Dr. Blauvelt.

The study authors did not report any disclosures. No funding source for the study was provided. Dr. Drucker has no relevant disclosures. Dr. Blauvelt has been a clinical study investigator in trials for AD treatments, including JAK inhibitors; his disclosures include serving as a speaker, scientific adviser, and/or clinical study investigator for multiple companies including AbbVie, Arcutis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Incyte, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and UCB Pharma.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study in The Lancet Rheumatology examines the strength and duration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine–induced immunoglobulin-G antibody responses over time for patients with a variety of autoimmune diseases, compared with healthy controls.

The presence of humoral antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has been shown to correlate with protection against COVID infection. But for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), host response to COVID infection or to vaccination is affected by the immune dysfunction imposed by the IMID and by the use of immune-modulating drugs to treat it.

This new study finds a weaker – as shown previously – and less sustained immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in patients with a variety of IMIDs, including rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthritis, psoriasis, inflammatory bowel diseases, and other systemic autoimmune diseases such as lupus. It also points toward the possibility of adjusting treatment and vaccination schedules and strategies for these patients based on their antibody levels, among other factors, to preserve best protection against severe COVID.

Kmatta/Moment/Getty Images

“It is important to assess immune response in these patients to see if they still have protection against severe COVID infection,” said lead author David Simon, MD, senior clinical scientist in clinical immunology and rheumatology at University Hospital Erlangen (Germany). “We know that antibody response is an immune correlate. Therefore, it is important to see how large and durable the immune response is to the coronavirus vaccine in these IMID patients, and whether specific drugs or therapies have negative effects on their immune response.”
 

What was studied?

For this large prospective cohort study, researchers registered 5076 coronavirus-vaccinated individuals. They analyzed serum samples obtained between December 15, 2020, and December 1, 2021, from 2,535 patients diagnosed with IMIDs and participating in a prospective coronavirus study program at the Deutsches Zentrum Immuntherapie in Erlangen. The IMID patients had a mean age of 55.0 years, and 58.9% were women.

A healthy control group of 1,198 individuals without IMID who had a mean age of 40.7 years, including 53.8% men, was also recruited for the analysis. All approved coronavirus vaccines were included, following standard vaccination schedules. Antibody response was measured over time by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay from 8 weeks after first vaccination to week 40.

Among the findings, the healthy controls had higher postvaccine antibody levels than did those with IMIDs. But the majority of vaccinated patients with IMID were able to build up a humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2. Patients who were taking B-cell inhibitors like rituximab (Rituxan, Genentech; and biosimilars) and T-cell inhibitors like abatacept (Orencia, Bristol Myers Squibb) for IMIDs had significantly poorer antibody response.

Greater age and the use of combination therapies for IMIDs, compared with monotherapy, further reduced immune response to the vaccine. In terms of vaccination modality, messenger RNA–based vaccines induced higher antibody levels than did vector-based vaccines. The researchers noted that patients with IMID who were given a third vaccine dose could actually catch up well with the antibody responses observed in healthy controls.

“We looked at whether different IMIDs had a different humoral response, and we also assessed if there are effects from different therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Simon explained. “It doesn’t matter so much what kind of IMID patients have; much more important is the specific drug treatment and its impact on their antibody response.” Some participants were advised to briefly stop taking some immunosuppressive treatments before or after vaccination.

One of Dr. Simon’s coauthors, statistician and rheumatologist Koray Tascilar, MD, added, “This research is important because we looked not only at who responded less, which has been previously established, but who are at greater risk of losing their immune response, and how quickly.”
 

Need to take care

“Most treatments we as rheumatologists give to our patients don’t affect their SARS-CoV-2 humoral response,” Dr. Simon said. “However, there are specific drugs that are associated with lower antibody response. With respect to those drugs, we have to be more careful.”

It is important to be able to tell patients which drugs are safe and won’t have a negative impact on their immune response to vaccinations, Dr. Tascilar said. “But it would be too strong to say we’re ready to choose therapies based on their potential impact on protection against COVID. Yes, there is a risk from catching COVID, but we need to balance that risk with the risk of not giving patients the medications that are necessary to treat their rheumatologic condition.”

These diseases are serious, sometimes life-threatening. “We might think of strategies for how to mitigate the risk of underprotection from COVID that is brought about by these treatments,” he said. For example, offering boosters sooner or more frequently, or prophylactically treating with monoclonal antibodies.

“This study, along other recent studies, has found that antibody levels in patients with immune-mediated diseases wane more rapidly than in healthy controls, and this is especially true of those on medications that interfere with the B and T cells and anticytokine therapies,” Rebecca Haberman, MD, assistant professor, division of rheumatology, New York University Langone Health, noted in an email to this news organization.

“While there is no known antibody level that specifically correlates with clinical protection, and each patient needs to be thought of individually, these findings support the use of supplemental booster dosing in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases,” Dr. Haberman said, adding that her own research in this area has shown similar results.

“As a rheumatologist, I would be more likely to encourage my patients – especially those on immunomodulatory medications – to get boosted.”

Dr. Tascilar said his study does not directly answer the question of whether an earlier booster shot would be an effective strategy for patients with IMID. “In our department, we have an early boosting strategy, based on level of immune response.” But the decision of revaccination or not, and when, is based on a number of factors, not only on the level of antibodies. “It’s just part of the instruments we are using.”

The study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Simon and Dr. Tascilar declared no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The medical profession is held to a high standard of personal conduct, so physicians keep a sharp eye out for how fellow doctors behave. That goes for social media as well as in-person conduct.

This infographic explores what doctors think about how other physicians act on social media (and it’s not as egregious as you might think). If you’re interested in delving deeper into the data, check out the Medscape Physicians Behaving Badly Report 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The medical profession is held to a high standard of personal conduct, so physicians keep a sharp eye out for how fellow doctors behave. That goes for social media as well as in-person conduct.

This infographic explores what doctors think about how other physicians act on social media (and it’s not as egregious as you might think). If you’re interested in delving deeper into the data, check out the Medscape Physicians Behaving Badly Report 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The medical profession is held to a high standard of personal conduct, so physicians keep a sharp eye out for how fellow doctors behave. That goes for social media as well as in-person conduct.

This infographic explores what doctors think about how other physicians act on social media (and it’s not as egregious as you might think). If you’re interested in delving deeper into the data, check out the Medscape Physicians Behaving Badly Report 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The antiviral drug Paxlovid appears to reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 79% and decrease hospitalizations by 73% in at-risk patients who are ages 65 and older, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The pill, which is a combination of the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, received FDA emergency use authorization in December 2021 to treat mild to moderate disease in ages 12 and older who face high risks for having severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death.

“The results of the study show unequivocally that treatment with Paxlovid significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Doron Netzer, MD, the senior study author and a researcher with Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post.

“We are the country’s leader in the provision of giving Paxlovid to relevant patients,” he said. “It was given to patients all over the country, with medical teams monitoring the patients who took the pills.”

The research is considered one of the most thorough studies published to date about how well Paxlovid works, the news outlet reported. The research team analyzed information from Clalit’s electronic medical records. The health care organization covers about 52% of the Israeli population and almost two-thirds of older adults. More than 30,000 COVID-19 patients in Israel have been treated with the drug so far.

Dr. Netzer and colleagues looked at hospitalization and death data for at-risk COVID-19 patients ages 40 and older between Jan. 9 and March 31, when the original Omicron variant was the dominant strain in Israel. During that time, more than 1.1 million Clalit patients were infected with COVID-19, 109,000 patients were considered at-risk, and 3,900 patients received the drug.

The average age of the patients was 60, and 39% of the patients were 65 and older. Overall, 78% of the patients had previous COVID-19 immunity due to vaccination, prior infection, or both.

Among ages 65 and older, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. This represented a 73% lower chance of being hospitalized.

Among ages 40-64, the rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. The risk of hospitalization wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

Among ages 65 and older, there were two deaths from COVID-19 in 2,484 treated patients, compared with 158 in the 40,337 untreated patients. This represented a 79% lower chance of dying from COVID-19.

Among ages 40-64, there was one death from COVID-19 in 1,418 treated patients, compared with 16 in the 65,015 untreated patients. The risk of death wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

For both age groups, a lack of previous COVID-19 immunity and a previous hospitalization were most strongly linked to high rates of hospitalization during the Omicron wave.

The researchers noted that they didn’t break down the data on ages 40-64 who had cancer and other severe conditions that weaken the immune system. These patients may be more likely to benefit from Paxlovid, they said, though future studies will need to analyze the data.

The study didn’t receive any financial or in-kind support, the authors said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral drug Paxlovid appears to reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 79% and decrease hospitalizations by 73% in at-risk patients who are ages 65 and older, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The pill, which is a combination of the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, received FDA emergency use authorization in December 2021 to treat mild to moderate disease in ages 12 and older who face high risks for having severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death.

“The results of the study show unequivocally that treatment with Paxlovid significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Doron Netzer, MD, the senior study author and a researcher with Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post.

“We are the country’s leader in the provision of giving Paxlovid to relevant patients,” he said. “It was given to patients all over the country, with medical teams monitoring the patients who took the pills.”

The research is considered one of the most thorough studies published to date about how well Paxlovid works, the news outlet reported. The research team analyzed information from Clalit’s electronic medical records. The health care organization covers about 52% of the Israeli population and almost two-thirds of older adults. More than 30,000 COVID-19 patients in Israel have been treated with the drug so far.

Dr. Netzer and colleagues looked at hospitalization and death data for at-risk COVID-19 patients ages 40 and older between Jan. 9 and March 31, when the original Omicron variant was the dominant strain in Israel. During that time, more than 1.1 million Clalit patients were infected with COVID-19, 109,000 patients were considered at-risk, and 3,900 patients received the drug.

The average age of the patients was 60, and 39% of the patients were 65 and older. Overall, 78% of the patients had previous COVID-19 immunity due to vaccination, prior infection, or both.

Among ages 65 and older, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. This represented a 73% lower chance of being hospitalized.

Among ages 40-64, the rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. The risk of hospitalization wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

Among ages 65 and older, there were two deaths from COVID-19 in 2,484 treated patients, compared with 158 in the 40,337 untreated patients. This represented a 79% lower chance of dying from COVID-19.

Among ages 40-64, there was one death from COVID-19 in 1,418 treated patients, compared with 16 in the 65,015 untreated patients. The risk of death wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

For both age groups, a lack of previous COVID-19 immunity and a previous hospitalization were most strongly linked to high rates of hospitalization during the Omicron wave.

The researchers noted that they didn’t break down the data on ages 40-64 who had cancer and other severe conditions that weaken the immune system. These patients may be more likely to benefit from Paxlovid, they said, though future studies will need to analyze the data.

The study didn’t receive any financial or in-kind support, the authors said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The antiviral drug Paxlovid appears to reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 by 79% and decrease hospitalizations by 73% in at-risk patients who are ages 65 and older, according to a new study published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

The pill, which is a combination of the drugs nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, received FDA emergency use authorization in December 2021 to treat mild to moderate disease in ages 12 and older who face high risks for having severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death.

“The results of the study show unequivocally that treatment with Paxlovid significantly reduces the risk of hospitalization and death from COVID-19,” Doron Netzer, MD, the senior study author and a researcher with Clalit Health Services, Tel Aviv, told The Jerusalem Post.

“We are the country’s leader in the provision of giving Paxlovid to relevant patients,” he said. “It was given to patients all over the country, with medical teams monitoring the patients who took the pills.”

The research is considered one of the most thorough studies published to date about how well Paxlovid works, the news outlet reported. The research team analyzed information from Clalit’s electronic medical records. The health care organization covers about 52% of the Israeli population and almost two-thirds of older adults. More than 30,000 COVID-19 patients in Israel have been treated with the drug so far.

Dr. Netzer and colleagues looked at hospitalization and death data for at-risk COVID-19 patients ages 40 and older between Jan. 9 and March 31, when the original Omicron variant was the dominant strain in Israel. During that time, more than 1.1 million Clalit patients were infected with COVID-19, 109,000 patients were considered at-risk, and 3,900 patients received the drug.

The average age of the patients was 60, and 39% of the patients were 65 and older. Overall, 78% of the patients had previous COVID-19 immunity due to vaccination, prior infection, or both.

Among ages 65 and older, the rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was 14.7 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 58.9 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. This represented a 73% lower chance of being hospitalized.

Among ages 40-64, the rate of hospitalization due to COVID-19 was 15.2 cases per 100,000 person-days among treated patients, compared with 15.8 cases per 100,000 person-days among untreated patients. The risk of hospitalization wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

Among ages 65 and older, there were two deaths from COVID-19 in 2,484 treated patients, compared with 158 in the 40,337 untreated patients. This represented a 79% lower chance of dying from COVID-19.

Among ages 40-64, there was one death from COVID-19 in 1,418 treated patients, compared with 16 in the 65,015 untreated patients. The risk of death wasn’t significantly lower for this age group.

For both age groups, a lack of previous COVID-19 immunity and a previous hospitalization were most strongly linked to high rates of hospitalization during the Omicron wave.

The researchers noted that they didn’t break down the data on ages 40-64 who had cancer and other severe conditions that weaken the immune system. These patients may be more likely to benefit from Paxlovid, they said, though future studies will need to analyze the data.

The study didn’t receive any financial or in-kind support, the authors said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.