Dermatology News

The first study to systematically address the problem of persistent hair loss in patients who undergo radiation to the scalp for central nervous system or head and neck tumors has found that treatment with topical minoxidil leads to improvement in hair loss.

The study was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

Minoxidil has been used for many years to treat age-associated baldness in men, noted the authors. It was used off label in this study to treat radiation-associated persistent hair loss; 82% of patients showed at least some improvement.

For patients who do not improve with minoxidil, hair transplant and scalp reconstruction with plastic surgery were other options, the authors comment.

“Almost in all instances, there is something that can be done to improve persistent hair loss after radiation and give patients a sense of control,” senior author Mario E. Lacouture, MD, said in an interview. He is director of the Oncodermatology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

About 60% of people with CNS tumors and 30% with head and neck cancer receive radiation to the head, and 75%-100% of these patients experience acute hair loss. For many, hair grows back in 2-3 months. However, for about 60%, hair loss persists for 6 or more months after completion of radiotherapy, the authors note.

In past work, Dr. Lacouture and colleagues found that persistent hair loss in cancer survivors is associated with depression, anxiety, and psychosocial distress.

“There are therapies and procedures that may mitigate persistent radiation therapy hair loss that can bring back psychosocial well-being to many of these patients,” Dr. Lacouture said. “These approaches are likely underutilized because patients are not being referred to specialists in hair or scalp reconstruction.”

Specialists can be found through the International Society for Hair Restoration Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, he added.

Study details

The retrospective cohort study included 71 children and adults who developed persistent hair loss after radiotherapy for primary CNS tumors (90%, n = 64) or head and neck sarcoma (10%, n = 7). The median age of the patients was 27 years (range, 4-75 years); 72% (n = 51) were female and 82% (n = 58) were White.

These patients had been treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City or St. Jude Children’s Hospital in Memphis from January 2011 to January 2019.

The team analyzed standardized clinical photographs of the scalp using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Grade 1 alopecia was defined as hair loss of less than 50% of normal that does not require camouflage with hair pieces, scarves, or similar items. Grade 2 alopecia was defined as hair loss greater than 50% of normal that requires camouflage and is associated with negative psychosocial effects.

Over half of patients (56%, 40/70) had grade 1 hair loss. Clinical images were available for 54 patients; for most of these patients, hair loss was attributable to radiation alone (74%, n = 40). Evaluation of clinical imaging showed three variants of hair loss: localized (54%, 29/54), diffuse (24%, 13/54), and mixed pattern (22%, 12/54). Data on dermatologic imaging of the scalp (trichoscopy) were available for 28 patients; the main finding was white patches (57%, 16/28).

The median scalp radiation dose was 39.6 Gy (range, 15.1-50.0 Gy). The researchers estimate that a dose of 36.1 Gy (95% CI, 33.7-39.6 Gy) was sufficient to induce grade 2 hair loss in 50% of patients.

Severity of hair loss appeared to increase with radiation dose. For every 1-unit increase in radiation dose, the odds of grade 2 hair loss increased by 15% (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.28; P < .001). Proton irradiation was associated with even higher odds of severe hair loss (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.05-30.8; P < .001). Results remained significant when analyses were controlled for sex, age at time of radiotherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy.

The majority of evaluable patients who were treated with topical minoxidil (5%) twice daily showed a response (82%, 28/34) during a median follow-up of 61 weeks (interquartile range, 21-105 weeks).

Among 25 of these patients for whom clinical images were available, 16% (4/25) showed complete response. Two patients improved with hair transplant, and one showed complete response with plastic surgery reconstruction of the hair.

The study had several limitations, including its retrospective design and a lack of complete data for certain variables, such as standardized clinical photographs, trichoscopy images, and radiotherapy treatment plans.

On the basis of these results, the authors are seeking funding for a prospective study of the use of minoxidil for persistent radiation-induced alopecia.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. One or more authors has relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first study to systematically address the problem of persistent hair loss in patients who undergo radiation to the scalp for central nervous system or head and neck tumors has found that treatment with topical minoxidil leads to improvement in hair loss.

The study was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

Minoxidil has been used for many years to treat age-associated baldness in men, noted the authors. It was used off label in this study to treat radiation-associated persistent hair loss; 82% of patients showed at least some improvement.

For patients who do not improve with minoxidil, hair transplant and scalp reconstruction with plastic surgery were other options, the authors comment.

“Almost in all instances, there is something that can be done to improve persistent hair loss after radiation and give patients a sense of control,” senior author Mario E. Lacouture, MD, said in an interview. He is director of the Oncodermatology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

About 60% of people with CNS tumors and 30% with head and neck cancer receive radiation to the head, and 75%-100% of these patients experience acute hair loss. For many, hair grows back in 2-3 months. However, for about 60%, hair loss persists for 6 or more months after completion of radiotherapy, the authors note.

In past work, Dr. Lacouture and colleagues found that persistent hair loss in cancer survivors is associated with depression, anxiety, and psychosocial distress.

“There are therapies and procedures that may mitigate persistent radiation therapy hair loss that can bring back psychosocial well-being to many of these patients,” Dr. Lacouture said. “These approaches are likely underutilized because patients are not being referred to specialists in hair or scalp reconstruction.”

Specialists can be found through the International Society for Hair Restoration Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, he added.

Study details

The retrospective cohort study included 71 children and adults who developed persistent hair loss after radiotherapy for primary CNS tumors (90%, n = 64) or head and neck sarcoma (10%, n = 7). The median age of the patients was 27 years (range, 4-75 years); 72% (n = 51) were female and 82% (n = 58) were White.

These patients had been treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City or St. Jude Children’s Hospital in Memphis from January 2011 to January 2019.

The team analyzed standardized clinical photographs of the scalp using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Grade 1 alopecia was defined as hair loss of less than 50% of normal that does not require camouflage with hair pieces, scarves, or similar items. Grade 2 alopecia was defined as hair loss greater than 50% of normal that requires camouflage and is associated with negative psychosocial effects.

Over half of patients (56%, 40/70) had grade 1 hair loss. Clinical images were available for 54 patients; for most of these patients, hair loss was attributable to radiation alone (74%, n = 40). Evaluation of clinical imaging showed three variants of hair loss: localized (54%, 29/54), diffuse (24%, 13/54), and mixed pattern (22%, 12/54). Data on dermatologic imaging of the scalp (trichoscopy) were available for 28 patients; the main finding was white patches (57%, 16/28).

The median scalp radiation dose was 39.6 Gy (range, 15.1-50.0 Gy). The researchers estimate that a dose of 36.1 Gy (95% CI, 33.7-39.6 Gy) was sufficient to induce grade 2 hair loss in 50% of patients.

Severity of hair loss appeared to increase with radiation dose. For every 1-unit increase in radiation dose, the odds of grade 2 hair loss increased by 15% (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.28; P < .001). Proton irradiation was associated with even higher odds of severe hair loss (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.05-30.8; P < .001). Results remained significant when analyses were controlled for sex, age at time of radiotherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy.

The majority of evaluable patients who were treated with topical minoxidil (5%) twice daily showed a response (82%, 28/34) during a median follow-up of 61 weeks (interquartile range, 21-105 weeks).

Among 25 of these patients for whom clinical images were available, 16% (4/25) showed complete response. Two patients improved with hair transplant, and one showed complete response with plastic surgery reconstruction of the hair.

The study had several limitations, including its retrospective design and a lack of complete data for certain variables, such as standardized clinical photographs, trichoscopy images, and radiotherapy treatment plans.

On the basis of these results, the authors are seeking funding for a prospective study of the use of minoxidil for persistent radiation-induced alopecia.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. One or more authors has relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The first study to systematically address the problem of persistent hair loss in patients who undergo radiation to the scalp for central nervous system or head and neck tumors has found that treatment with topical minoxidil leads to improvement in hair loss.

The study was published online on Aug. 5 in JAMA Dermatology.

Minoxidil has been used for many years to treat age-associated baldness in men, noted the authors. It was used off label in this study to treat radiation-associated persistent hair loss; 82% of patients showed at least some improvement.

For patients who do not improve with minoxidil, hair transplant and scalp reconstruction with plastic surgery were other options, the authors comment.

“Almost in all instances, there is something that can be done to improve persistent hair loss after radiation and give patients a sense of control,” senior author Mario E. Lacouture, MD, said in an interview. He is director of the Oncodermatology Program at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

About 60% of people with CNS tumors and 30% with head and neck cancer receive radiation to the head, and 75%-100% of these patients experience acute hair loss. For many, hair grows back in 2-3 months. However, for about 60%, hair loss persists for 6 or more months after completion of radiotherapy, the authors note.

In past work, Dr. Lacouture and colleagues found that persistent hair loss in cancer survivors is associated with depression, anxiety, and psychosocial distress.

“There are therapies and procedures that may mitigate persistent radiation therapy hair loss that can bring back psychosocial well-being to many of these patients,” Dr. Lacouture said. “These approaches are likely underutilized because patients are not being referred to specialists in hair or scalp reconstruction.”

Specialists can be found through the International Society for Hair Restoration Surgery and the American Academy of Dermatology, he added.

Study details

The retrospective cohort study included 71 children and adults who developed persistent hair loss after radiotherapy for primary CNS tumors (90%, n = 64) or head and neck sarcoma (10%, n = 7). The median age of the patients was 27 years (range, 4-75 years); 72% (n = 51) were female and 82% (n = 58) were White.

These patients had been treated at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City or St. Jude Children’s Hospital in Memphis from January 2011 to January 2019.

The team analyzed standardized clinical photographs of the scalp using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Grade 1 alopecia was defined as hair loss of less than 50% of normal that does not require camouflage with hair pieces, scarves, or similar items. Grade 2 alopecia was defined as hair loss greater than 50% of normal that requires camouflage and is associated with negative psychosocial effects.

Over half of patients (56%, 40/70) had grade 1 hair loss. Clinical images were available for 54 patients; for most of these patients, hair loss was attributable to radiation alone (74%, n = 40). Evaluation of clinical imaging showed three variants of hair loss: localized (54%, 29/54), diffuse (24%, 13/54), and mixed pattern (22%, 12/54). Data on dermatologic imaging of the scalp (trichoscopy) were available for 28 patients; the main finding was white patches (57%, 16/28).

The median scalp radiation dose was 39.6 Gy (range, 15.1-50.0 Gy). The researchers estimate that a dose of 36.1 Gy (95% CI, 33.7-39.6 Gy) was sufficient to induce grade 2 hair loss in 50% of patients.

Severity of hair loss appeared to increase with radiation dose. For every 1-unit increase in radiation dose, the odds of grade 2 hair loss increased by 15% (odds ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.28; P < .001). Proton irradiation was associated with even higher odds of severe hair loss (OR, 5.7; 95% CI, 1.05-30.8; P < .001). Results remained significant when analyses were controlled for sex, age at time of radiotherapy, and concurrent chemotherapy.

The majority of evaluable patients who were treated with topical minoxidil (5%) twice daily showed a response (82%, 28/34) during a median follow-up of 61 weeks (interquartile range, 21-105 weeks).

Among 25 of these patients for whom clinical images were available, 16% (4/25) showed complete response. Two patients improved with hair transplant, and one showed complete response with plastic surgery reconstruction of the hair.

The study had several limitations, including its retrospective design and a lack of complete data for certain variables, such as standardized clinical photographs, trichoscopy images, and radiotherapy treatment plans.

On the basis of these results, the authors are seeking funding for a prospective study of the use of minoxidil for persistent radiation-induced alopecia.

The study was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute Cancer Center. One or more authors has relationships with pharmaceutical companies, as listed in the original article.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A substantial decrease in hospital admissions for acute MI was accompanied by a rise in mortality, particularly for ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI), following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a cross-sectional retrospective study.

Although it can’t be confirmed from these results that the observed increase in in-hospital acute MI (AMI) mortality are related to delays in seeking treatment, this is a reasonable working hypothesis until more is known, commented Harlan Krumholz, MD, who was not involved in the study.

The analysis, derived from data collected at 49 centers in a hospital system spread across six states, supports previous reports that patients with AMI were avoiding hospitalization, according to the investigators, who were led by Tyler J. Gluckman, MD, medical director of the Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Providence Heart Institute, Portland, Ore.

When compared with a nearly 14-month period that preceded the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of AMI-associated hospitalization fell by 19 cases per week (95% confidence interval, –29.0 to –9.0 cases) in the early COVID-19 period, which was defined by the investigators as spanning from Feb. 23, 2020 to March 28, 2020.

The case rate per week then increased by 10.5 (95% CI, 4.6-16.5 cases) in a subsequent 8-week period spanning between March 29, 2020, and May 16, 2020. Although a substantial increase from the early COVID-19 period, the case rate remained below the baseline established before COVID-19.

The analysis looked at 15,244 AMI hospitalizations among 14,724 patients treated in the Providence St. Joseph Hospital System, which has facilities in Alaska, California, Montana, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The 1,915 AMI cases captured from Feb. 23, 2020, represented 13% of the total.
 

Differences in mortality, patients, treatment

In the early period, the ratio of observed-to-expected (O/E) mortality relative to the pre–COVID-19 baseline increased by 27% (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). When STEMI was analyzed separately, the O/E mortality was nearly double that of the baseline period (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.22-2.70). In the latter post–COVID-19 period of observation, the overall increase in AMI-associated mortality on the basis of an O/E ratio was no longer significant relative to the baseline period (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.98-1.47). However, the relative increase in STEMI-associated mortality on an O/E basis was even greater (OR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.65-3.16) in the second COVID-19 period analyzed. Even after risk adjustment, the OR for STEMI mortality remained significantly elevated relative to baseline (1.52; 95% CI, 1.02-2.26).

The differences in AMI patients treated before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and those treated afterwards might be relevant, according to the investigators. Specifically, patients hospitalized after Feb. 23, 2020 were 1-3 years younger (P < .001) depending on type of AMI, and more likely to be Asian (P = .01).

The length of stay was 6 hours shorter in the early COVID-19 period and 7 hours shorter in the latter period relative to baseline, but an analysis of treatment approaches to non-STEMI and STEMI during the COVID-19 pandemic were not found to be significantly different from baseline.

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79% of STEMI patients and 77% of non-STEMI patients were discharged home, which was significantly lower than in the early COVID-19 period, when 83% (P = .02) of STEMI and 81% (P = .006) of non-STEMI patients were discharged home. In the latter period, discharge to home care was also significantly higher than in the baseline period.
 

More than fear of COVID-19?

One theory to account for the reduction in AMI hospitalizations and the increase in AMI-related mortality is the possibility that patients were slow to seek care at acute care hospitals because of concern about COVID-19 infection, according to Dr. Gluckman and coinvestigators.

“Given the time-sensitive nature of STEMI, any delay by patients, emergency medical services, the emergency department, or cardiac catheterization laboratory may have played a role,” they suggested.

In an interview, Dr. Gluckman said that further effort to identify the reasons for the increased AMI-related mortality is planned. Pulling data from the electronic medical records of the patients included in this retrospective analysis might be a “challenge,” but Dr. Gluckman reported that he and his coinvestigators plan to look at a different set of registry data that might provide information on sources of delay, particularly in the STEMI population.

“This includes looking at a number of time factors, such as symptom onset to first medical contact, first medical contact to device, and door-in-door-out times,” Dr. Gluckman said. The goal is to “better understand if delays [in treatment] occurred during the pandemic and, if so, how they may have contributed to increases in risk adjusted mortality.”

Dr. Krumholz, director of the Yale Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Conn., called this study a “useful” confirmation of changes in AMI-related care with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. As reported anecdotally, the study “indicates marked decreases in hospitalizations of patients with AMI even in areas that were not experiencing big outbreaks but did have some restrictions to limit spread,” he noted.

More data gathered by other centers might provide information about what it all means.

“There remain so many questions about what happened and what consequences accrued,” Dr. Krumholz observed. “In the meantime, we need to continue to send the message that people with symptoms that suggest a heart attack need to rapidly seek care.”

The investigators reported having no financial conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Gluckman TJ et al. JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.3629.

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

A new analysis from Michigan’s largest health system provides sobering verification of the risks for QT interval prolongation in COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (HCQ/AZM).

One in five patients (21%) had a corrected QT (QTc) interval of at least 500 msec, a value that increases the risk for torsade de pointes in the general population and at which cardiovascular leaders have suggested withholding HCQ/AZM in COVID-19 patients.

“One of the most striking findings was when we looked at the other drugs being administered to these patients; 61% were being administered drugs that had QT-prolonging effects concomitantly with the HCQ and AZM therapy. So they were inadvertently doubling down on the QT-prolonging effects of these drugs,” senior author David E. Haines, MD, director of the Heart Rhythm Center at William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Mich., said in an interview.

A total of 34 medications overlapped with HCQ/AZM therapy are known or suspected to increase the risk for torsade de pointes, a potentially life-threatening ventricular tachycardia. The most common of these were propofol coadministered in 123 patients, ondansetron in 114, dexmedetomidine in 54, haloperidol in 44, amiodarone in 43, and tramadol in 26.

“This speaks to the medical complexity of this patient population, but also suggests inadequate awareness of the QT-prolonging effects of many common medications,” the researchers say.

The study was published Aug. 5 in JACC Clinical Electrophysiology.

Both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin increase the risk for QTc-interval prolongation by blocking the KCHN2-encoded hERG potassium channel. Several reports have linked the drugs to a triggering of QT prolongation in patients with COVID-19.

For the present study, Dr. Haines and colleagues examined data from 586 consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19 to the Beaumont Hospitals in Royal Oak and Troy, Mich., between March 13 and April 6. A baseline QTc interval was measured with 12-lead ECG prior to treatment initiation with hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice daily for two doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 4 days, and azithromycin 500 mg once followed by 250 mg daily for 4 days.

Because of limited availability at the time, lead II ECG telemetry monitoring over the 5-day course of HCQ/AZM was recommended only in patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec.

Patients without an interpretable baseline ECG or available telemetry/ECG monitoring for at least 1 day were also excluded, leaving 415 patients (mean age, 64 years; 45% female) in the study population. More than half (52%) were Black, 52% had hypertension, 30% had diabetes, and 14% had cancer.

As seen in previous studies, the QTc interval increased progressively and significantly after the administration of HCQ/AZM, from 443 msec to 473 msec.

The average time to maximum QTc was 2.9 days in a subset of 135 patients with QTc measurements prior to starting therapy and on days 1 through 5.

In multivariate analysis, independent predictors of a potentially hazardous QTc interval of at least 500 msec were:

• Age older than 65 years (odds ratio, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-5.54).
• History of  (OR, 4.65; 95% CI, 2.01-10.74).
• Admission  of at least 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.28-3.84).
• Peak troponin I level above 0.04 mg/mL (OR, 3.89; 95% CI, 2.22-6.83).
• Body mass index below 30 kg/m² (OR for a BMI of 30 kg/m² or higher, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.78).

Concomitant use of drugs with known risk for torsade de pointes was a significant risk factor in univariate analysis (OR, 1.73; P = .036), but fell out in the multivariate model.

No patients experienced high-grade arrhythmias during the study. In all, 112 of the 586 patients died during hospitalization, including 85 (21%) of the 415 study patients.

The change in QTc interval from baseline was greater in patients who died. Despite this, the only independent predictor of mortality was older age. One possible explanation is that the decision to monitor patients with baseline QTc intervals of at least 440 msec may have skewed the study population toward people with moderate or slightly long QTc intervals prior to the initiation of HCQ/AZM, Dr. Haines suggested. Monitoring and treatment duration were short, and clinicians also likely adjusted medications when excess QTc prolongation was observed.

Although it’s been months since data collection was completed in April, and the paper was written in record-breaking time, the study “is still very relevant because the drug is still out there,” observed Dr. Haines. “Even though it may not be used in as widespread a fashion as it had been when we first submitted the paper, it is still being used routinely by many hospitals and many practitioners.”

The use of hydroxychloroquine is “going through the roof” because of COVID-19, commented Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, medical director for the Kansas City Heart Rhythm Institute, HCA Midwest Health, Overland Park, Kan., who was not involved in the study.

“This study is very relevant, and I’m glad they shared their experience, and it’s pretty consistent with the data presented by other people. The question of whether hydroxychloroquine helps people with COVID is up for debate, but there is more evidence today that it is not as helpful as it was 3 months ago,” said Dr. Lakkireddy, who is also chair of the American College of Cardiology Electrophysiology Council.

He expressed concern for patients who may be taking HCQ with other medications that have QT-prolonging effects, and for the lack of long-term protocols in place for the drug.

In the coming weeks, however, the ACC and rheumatology leaders will be publishing an expert consensus statement that addresses key issues, such as how to best to use HCQ, maintenance HCQ, electrolyte monitoring, the optimal timing of electrocardiography and cardiac magnetic imaging, and symptoms to look for if cardiac involvement is suspected, Dr. Lakkireddy said.

Asked whether HCQ and AZM should be used in COVID-19 patients, Dr. Haines said in an interview that the “QT-prolonging effects are real, the arrhythmogenic potential is real, and the benefit to patients is nil or marginal. So I think that use of these drugs is appropriate and reasonable if it is done in a setting of a controlled trial, and I support that. But the routine use of these drugs probably is not warranted based on the data that we have available.”

Still, hydroxychloroquine continues to be dragged into the spotlight in recent days as an effective treatment for COVID-19, despite discredited research and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s June 15 revocation of its emergency-use authorization to allow use of HCQ and chloroquine to treat certain hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

“The unfortunate politicization of this issue has really muddied the waters because the general public doesn’t know what to believe or who to believe. The fact that treatment for a disease as serious as COVID should be modulated by political affiliation is just crazy to me,” said Dr. Haines. “We should be using the best science and taking careful observations, and whatever the recommendations derived from that should be uniformly adopted by everybody, irrespective of your political affiliation.”

Dr. Haines has received honoraria from Biosense Webster, Farapulse, and Sagentia, and is a consultant for Affera, Boston Scientific, Integer, Medtronic, Philips Healthcare, and Zoll. Dr. Lakkireddy has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biosense Webster, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic. 

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

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

Patients with sarcoidosis have an increased risk of heart failure and other adverse outcomes, including all-cause mortality, according to a decade-long nationwide study of Danish patients with the inflammatory disease.

“Although these findings are suggestive of the need for regular monitoring of cardiac manifestations in patients with sarcoidosis, it is important to emphasize that no causal relationships can be established from an observational study. Further studies are therefore needed to confirm our findings,” said first author Adelina Yafasova, MB, of Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark, in an interview. The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

To determine the long-term risk of cardiac outcomes, and beyond – including incident heart failure; a composite of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation, ventricular arrhythmias or cardiac arrest; and all-cause mortality – Dr. Yafasova and her colleagues analyzed data from all Danish residents 18 years or older who were diagnosed with sarcoidosis from 1996 to 2016. Patients with any history of cardiac events were excluded. Of the 12,883 diagnosed patients, 11,834 were matched with subjects from a nationwide background population of more than 47,000 based on age, sex, and comorbidity. The median age of both populations was 42.8 (33.1-55.8) and 54.3% were men.

Median follow-up was 8.2 years for the sarcoidosis population and 8.4 years for the background population. The absolute 10-year risk of heart failure was 3.18% (95% confidence interval, 2.83%-3.57%) for sarcoidosis patients and 1.72% (95% CI, 1.58%-1.86%) for their matched controls. The 10-year risk for the composite of ICD implantation, ventricular arrhythmias and cardiac arrest was 0.96% (95% CI, 0.77%-1.18%) for sarcoidosis patients and 0.45% (95% CI, 0.38%-0.53%) for the background population.

For all-cause mortality, the 10-year risk was 10.88% (95% CI, 10.23%-11.55%) for sarcoidosis patients and 7.43% (95% CI, 7.15%-7.72%) for the background population. In a secondary analysis that compared all-cause mortality between the 364 sarcoidosis patients who developed heart failure and the 1,456 patients with heart failure without a history of sarcoidosis, the sarcoidosis group had a 35% higher rate than the nonsarcoidosis group (adjusted hazard ratio 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-1.64).

“It’s not necessarily surprising that sarcoidosis patients would have a higher rate of heart failure,” said Melissa A. Lyle, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., in an interview. “But the key takeaway is that sarcoidosis was associated with a higher rate of all-cause mortality compared to patients with heart failure and no sarcoidosis. That was more of a surprise.”

“There’s been some discrepancy in previous studies describing the cardiovascular outcomes in sarcoidosis,” Dr. Lyle added, “so I think this study provides excellent information while also highlighting the need for additional large-scale studies. We need to have further data on cardiovascular outcomes, which will allow us to refine the consensus statements and guidelines for management and the diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis.”

Dr. Lyle and Leslie T. Cooper Jr., MD, also of the Mayo Clinic, extrapolated on those thoughts in an editorial that accompanied the study. In it, the two authors praised the size and lengthy follow-up of the study, while noting its limitations. Specifically, they stressed that the study’s Danish population “may not be representative of other general populations” because of notable differences in ethnicity, age, and comorbidities.

That said, they reinforced that the study did feature “important takeaways” and that its findings emphasize the “need for monitoring for cardiac manifestations in patients with systemic sarcoidosis.”

In addition to the limitations noted in the editorial, the study’s authors acknowledged that the observational nature limited its “assessment of cause-effect relationships” and that the diagnosis codes for sarcoidosis had not been validated in the Danish National Patient Registry.

The authors of both the study and the editorial reported no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Yafasova A et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 10. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.06.038.

For some patients, a bout of COVID-19 may not be over after hospital discharge, acute symptoms subside, or a couple of tests for SARS-CoV-2 come back negative. Those who have reached these milestones of conquering the disease may find that their recovery journey has only begun. Debilitating symptoms such as fatigue, headache, and dyspnea may linger for weeks or longer. Patients with persistent symptoms, often referred to as “long haulers” in reference to the duration of their recovery, are looking for answers about their condition and when their COVID-19 illness will finally resolve.

Long-haul patients organize

What started as an accumulation of anecdotal evidence in social media, blogs, and the mainstream press about slow recovery and long-lasting symptoms of COVID-19 is now the focus of clinical trials in the population of recovering patients. Projects such as the COVID Symptom Study, initiated by the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; King’s College London; and Stanford (Calif.) University, are collecting data on symptoms from millions of patients and will eventually contribute to a better understanding of prolonged recovery.

Patients looking for answers have created groups on social media such as Facebook to exchange information about their experiences (e.g., Survivor Corps, COVID-19 Support Group, COVID-19 Recovered Survivors). Recovering patients have created patient-led research organizations (Body Politic COVID-19 Support Group) to explore persistent symptoms and begin to create data for research.
 

Some data on lingering symptoms

A small study of 143 previously hospitalized, recovering patients in Italy found that 87.4% of the cohort had at least one persistent symptom 2 months or longer after initial onset and at more than a month after discharge. In this sample, only 5% had been intubated. (JAMA 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12603).

One study found that even patients who have had relatively mild symptoms and were not hospitalized can have persistent symptoms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey of adults who tested positive for the positive reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and found that, among the 292 respondents, 35% were still feeling the impact of the disease 2-3 weeks after testing. Fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. The survey found that delayed recovery was evident in nearly a quarter of 18- to 34-year-olds and in a third of 35- to 49-year-olds who were not sick enough to require hospitalization (MMWR. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1).

Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, ATSF, a pulmonologist and member of the CHEST Physician editorial advisory board, has treated patients with COVID-19 and shared some of his thoughts on the problem of prolonged symptoms of COVID-19.
 

Q: Should clinicians expect to see COVID-19 patients who have symptoms persisting weeks after they are diagnosed?

Dr. Gupta: I think clinicians, especially in primary care, are already seeing many patients with lingering symptoms, both respiratory and nonrespiratory related, and debility. A few patients here in the San Francisco Bay Area that I have spoken with 4-6 weeks out from their acute illness have complained of persisting, though improving, fatigue and cough. Early studies are confirming this as a topical issue. There may be other long-lasting sequelae of COVID-19 beyond the common mild lingering symptoms. It will also be important to consider (and get more data on) to what degree asymptomatic patients develop some degree of mild inflammatory and subsequent fibrotic changes in organs like the lungs and heart

Q: How does the recovery phase of COVID-19 compare with recovery from severe influenza or ARDS?

Dr. Gupta: Most prior influenza and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) studies have provided initial follow-up at 3 months and beyond, so technically speaking, it is a little difficult to compare the symptomatology patterns in the JAMA study of 2 months on follow-up. Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that, even though few patients in the study had ARDS requiring intubation (severe disease), many patients with milder disease had significant lingering symptoms (55% with three or more symptoms) at 2 months.

This fits logically with the premise, which we have some limited data on with ARDS (N Engl J Med. 2003;348:683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022450) and severe influenza infection survivors (Nature Sci Rep. 2017;7:17275. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17497-6) that varying degrees of the inflammation cascade triggered by certain viruses can lead to changes in important patient-reported outcomes, and objective measures such as pulmonary function over the long term.

Q: What can you do for patients with lingering symptoms of COVID-19 or what can you tell them about their symptoms?

Dr. Gupta: For many patients, there is fear, given the novel nature of the virus/pandemic, that their symptoms may persist long term. Acknowledgment of their symptoms is validating and important for us to recognize as we learn more about the virus. As we are finding, many patients are going online to find answers, after sometimes feeling rushed or dismissed initially in the clinical setting.

In my experience, the bar is fairly high for most patients to reach out to their physicians with complaints of lingering symptoms after acute infection. For the ones who do reach out, they tend to have either a greater constellation of symptoms or higher severity of one or two key symptoms. After assessing and, when appropriate, ruling out secondary infections or newly developed conditions, I shift toward symptom management. I encourage such patients to build up slowly. I suggest they work first on their activities of daily living (bathing, grooming), then their instrumental activities of daily living (cooking, cleaning, checking the mail), and then to engage, based on their tolerance of symptoms, to light purposeful exercise. There are many online resources for at-home exercise activities that I recommend to patients who are more debilitated; some larger centers are beginning to offer some forms of telepulmonary rehab.

Based on what we know about other causes of viral pneumonitis and ARDS, I ask such symptomatic patients to expect a slow, gradual, and in most cases a complete recovery, and depending on the individual case, I recommend pulmonary function tests and imaging that may be helpful to track that progress.

I remind myself, and patients, that our understanding may change as we learn more over time. Checking in at set intervals, even if not in person but through a phone call, can go a long way in a setting where we do not have a specific therapy, other than gradual exercise training, to help these patients recover faster. Reassurance and encouragement are vital for patients who are struggling with the lingering burden of disease and who may find it difficult to return to work or function as usual at home. The final point is to be mindful of our patient’s mental health and, where our reassurance is not enough, to consider appropriate mental health referrals.

Q: Can you handle this kind of problem with telemedicine or which patients with lingering symptoms need to come into the office – or failing that, the ED?

Dr. Gupta: Telemedicine in the outpatient setting provides a helpful tool to assess and manage patients, in my experience, with limited and straightforward complaints. Its scope is limited diagnostically (assessing symptoms and signs) as is its reach (ability to connect with elderly, disabled, or patients without/limited telemedicine access). In many instances, telemedicine limits our ability to connect with patients emotionally and build trust. Many patients who have gone through the acute illness that we see in pulmonary clinic on follow-up are older in age, and for many, video visits are not a practical solution. Telemedicine visits can sometimes present challenges for me as well in terms of thoroughly conveying lifestyle and symptom management strategies. Health literacy is typically easier to gauge and address in person.

For patients with any degree of enduring dyspnea, more so in the acute phase, I recommend home pulse oximetry for monitoring their oxygen saturation if it is financially and technically feasible for them to obtain one. Sending a patient to the ED is an option of last resort, but one that is necessary in some cases. I expect patients with lingering symptoms to tell me that symptoms may be persisting, hopefully gradually improving, and not getting worse. If post–COVID-19 symptoms such as fever, dyspnea, fatigue, or lightheadedness are new or worsening, particularly rapidly, the safest and best option I advise patients is to go to the ED for further assessment and testing. Postviral bacterial pneumonia is something we should consider, and there is some potential for aspergillosis as well.

Q: Do you have any concerns about patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or other pulmonary issues having lingering symptoms that may mask exacerbations or may cause exacerbation of their disease?

Dr. Gupta: So far, patients with chronic lung conditions do not appear to have not been disproportionately affected by the pandemic in terms of absolute numbers or percentage wise compared to the general public. I think that sheltering in place has been readily followed by many of these patients, and in addition, I assume better adherence to their maintenance therapies has likely helped. The very few cases of patients with underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease that I have seen have fared very poorly when they were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the hospital. There are emerging data about short-term outcomes from severe COVID-19 infection in patients with interstitial lung disease in Europe (medRxiv. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.15.20152967), and from physicians treating pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202005-521OC). But so far, little has been published on the outcomes of mild disease in these patients with chronic lung disease.

Q: It’s still early days to know the significance of lingering symptoms. But at what point do you begin to consider the possibility of some kind of relapse? And what is your next move if the symptoms get worse?

Dr. Gupta: COVID-19 recurrence, whether because of reinfection or relapse, is a potential concern but not one that is very commonly seen so far in my purview. Generally, symptoms of post–COVID-19 infection that are lingering trend toward getting better, even if slowly. If post–COVID-19 infection symptoms are progressing (particularly if rapidly), that would be a strong indication to evaluate that patient in the ED (less likely in clinic), reswab them for SARS-CoV-2, and obtain further testing such as blood work and imaging. A significant challenge from a research perspective will be determining if coinfection with another virus is playing a role as we move closer to the fall season.

[email protected]

For some patients, a bout of COVID-19 may not be over after hospital discharge, acute symptoms subside, or a couple of tests for SARS-CoV-2 come back negative. Those who have reached these milestones of conquering the disease may find that their recovery journey has only begun. Debilitating symptoms such as fatigue, headache, and dyspnea may linger for weeks or longer. Patients with persistent symptoms, often referred to as “long haulers” in reference to the duration of their recovery, are looking for answers about their condition and when their COVID-19 illness will finally resolve.

Long-haul patients organize

What started as an accumulation of anecdotal evidence in social media, blogs, and the mainstream press about slow recovery and long-lasting symptoms of COVID-19 is now the focus of clinical trials in the population of recovering patients. Projects such as the COVID Symptom Study, initiated by the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; King’s College London; and Stanford (Calif.) University, are collecting data on symptoms from millions of patients and will eventually contribute to a better understanding of prolonged recovery.

Patients looking for answers have created groups on social media such as Facebook to exchange information about their experiences (e.g., Survivor Corps, COVID-19 Support Group, COVID-19 Recovered Survivors). Recovering patients have created patient-led research organizations (Body Politic COVID-19 Support Group) to explore persistent symptoms and begin to create data for research.
 

Some data on lingering symptoms

A small study of 143 previously hospitalized, recovering patients in Italy found that 87.4% of the cohort had at least one persistent symptom 2 months or longer after initial onset and at more than a month after discharge. In this sample, only 5% had been intubated. (JAMA 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12603).

One study found that even patients who have had relatively mild symptoms and were not hospitalized can have persistent symptoms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey of adults who tested positive for the positive reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and found that, among the 292 respondents, 35% were still feeling the impact of the disease 2-3 weeks after testing. Fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. The survey found that delayed recovery was evident in nearly a quarter of 18- to 34-year-olds and in a third of 35- to 49-year-olds who were not sick enough to require hospitalization (MMWR. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1).

Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, ATSF, a pulmonologist and member of the CHEST Physician editorial advisory board, has treated patients with COVID-19 and shared some of his thoughts on the problem of prolonged symptoms of COVID-19.
 

Q: Should clinicians expect to see COVID-19 patients who have symptoms persisting weeks after they are diagnosed?

Dr. Gupta: I think clinicians, especially in primary care, are already seeing many patients with lingering symptoms, both respiratory and nonrespiratory related, and debility. A few patients here in the San Francisco Bay Area that I have spoken with 4-6 weeks out from their acute illness have complained of persisting, though improving, fatigue and cough. Early studies are confirming this as a topical issue. There may be other long-lasting sequelae of COVID-19 beyond the common mild lingering symptoms. It will also be important to consider (and get more data on) to what degree asymptomatic patients develop some degree of mild inflammatory and subsequent fibrotic changes in organs like the lungs and heart

Q: How does the recovery phase of COVID-19 compare with recovery from severe influenza or ARDS?

Dr. Gupta: Most prior influenza and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) studies have provided initial follow-up at 3 months and beyond, so technically speaking, it is a little difficult to compare the symptomatology patterns in the JAMA study of 2 months on follow-up. Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that, even though few patients in the study had ARDS requiring intubation (severe disease), many patients with milder disease had significant lingering symptoms (55% with three or more symptoms) at 2 months.

This fits logically with the premise, which we have some limited data on with ARDS (N Engl J Med. 2003;348:683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022450) and severe influenza infection survivors (Nature Sci Rep. 2017;7:17275. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17497-6) that varying degrees of the inflammation cascade triggered by certain viruses can lead to changes in important patient-reported outcomes, and objective measures such as pulmonary function over the long term.

Q: What can you do for patients with lingering symptoms of COVID-19 or what can you tell them about their symptoms?

Dr. Gupta: For many patients, there is fear, given the novel nature of the virus/pandemic, that their symptoms may persist long term. Acknowledgment of their symptoms is validating and important for us to recognize as we learn more about the virus. As we are finding, many patients are going online to find answers, after sometimes feeling rushed or dismissed initially in the clinical setting.

In my experience, the bar is fairly high for most patients to reach out to their physicians with complaints of lingering symptoms after acute infection. For the ones who do reach out, they tend to have either a greater constellation of symptoms or higher severity of one or two key symptoms. After assessing and, when appropriate, ruling out secondary infections or newly developed conditions, I shift toward symptom management. I encourage such patients to build up slowly. I suggest they work first on their activities of daily living (bathing, grooming), then their instrumental activities of daily living (cooking, cleaning, checking the mail), and then to engage, based on their tolerance of symptoms, to light purposeful exercise. There are many online resources for at-home exercise activities that I recommend to patients who are more debilitated; some larger centers are beginning to offer some forms of telepulmonary rehab.

Based on what we know about other causes of viral pneumonitis and ARDS, I ask such symptomatic patients to expect a slow, gradual, and in most cases a complete recovery, and depending on the individual case, I recommend pulmonary function tests and imaging that may be helpful to track that progress.

I remind myself, and patients, that our understanding may change as we learn more over time. Checking in at set intervals, even if not in person but through a phone call, can go a long way in a setting where we do not have a specific therapy, other than gradual exercise training, to help these patients recover faster. Reassurance and encouragement are vital for patients who are struggling with the lingering burden of disease and who may find it difficult to return to work or function as usual at home. The final point is to be mindful of our patient’s mental health and, where our reassurance is not enough, to consider appropriate mental health referrals.

Q: Can you handle this kind of problem with telemedicine or which patients with lingering symptoms need to come into the office – or failing that, the ED?

Dr. Gupta: Telemedicine in the outpatient setting provides a helpful tool to assess and manage patients, in my experience, with limited and straightforward complaints. Its scope is limited diagnostically (assessing symptoms and signs) as is its reach (ability to connect with elderly, disabled, or patients without/limited telemedicine access). In many instances, telemedicine limits our ability to connect with patients emotionally and build trust. Many patients who have gone through the acute illness that we see in pulmonary clinic on follow-up are older in age, and for many, video visits are not a practical solution. Telemedicine visits can sometimes present challenges for me as well in terms of thoroughly conveying lifestyle and symptom management strategies. Health literacy is typically easier to gauge and address in person.

For patients with any degree of enduring dyspnea, more so in the acute phase, I recommend home pulse oximetry for monitoring their oxygen saturation if it is financially and technically feasible for them to obtain one. Sending a patient to the ED is an option of last resort, but one that is necessary in some cases. I expect patients with lingering symptoms to tell me that symptoms may be persisting, hopefully gradually improving, and not getting worse. If post–COVID-19 symptoms such as fever, dyspnea, fatigue, or lightheadedness are new or worsening, particularly rapidly, the safest and best option I advise patients is to go to the ED for further assessment and testing. Postviral bacterial pneumonia is something we should consider, and there is some potential for aspergillosis as well.

Q: Do you have any concerns about patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or other pulmonary issues having lingering symptoms that may mask exacerbations or may cause exacerbation of their disease?

Dr. Gupta: So far, patients with chronic lung conditions do not appear to have not been disproportionately affected by the pandemic in terms of absolute numbers or percentage wise compared to the general public. I think that sheltering in place has been readily followed by many of these patients, and in addition, I assume better adherence to their maintenance therapies has likely helped. The very few cases of patients with underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease that I have seen have fared very poorly when they were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the hospital. There are emerging data about short-term outcomes from severe COVID-19 infection in patients with interstitial lung disease in Europe (medRxiv. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.15.20152967), and from physicians treating pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202005-521OC). But so far, little has been published on the outcomes of mild disease in these patients with chronic lung disease.

Q: It’s still early days to know the significance of lingering symptoms. But at what point do you begin to consider the possibility of some kind of relapse? And what is your next move if the symptoms get worse?

Dr. Gupta: COVID-19 recurrence, whether because of reinfection or relapse, is a potential concern but not one that is very commonly seen so far in my purview. Generally, symptoms of post–COVID-19 infection that are lingering trend toward getting better, even if slowly. If post–COVID-19 infection symptoms are progressing (particularly if rapidly), that would be a strong indication to evaluate that patient in the ED (less likely in clinic), reswab them for SARS-CoV-2, and obtain further testing such as blood work and imaging. A significant challenge from a research perspective will be determining if coinfection with another virus is playing a role as we move closer to the fall season.

[email protected]

For some patients, a bout of COVID-19 may not be over after hospital discharge, acute symptoms subside, or a couple of tests for SARS-CoV-2 come back negative. Those who have reached these milestones of conquering the disease may find that their recovery journey has only begun. Debilitating symptoms such as fatigue, headache, and dyspnea may linger for weeks or longer. Patients with persistent symptoms, often referred to as “long haulers” in reference to the duration of their recovery, are looking for answers about their condition and when their COVID-19 illness will finally resolve.

Long-haul patients organize

What started as an accumulation of anecdotal evidence in social media, blogs, and the mainstream press about slow recovery and long-lasting symptoms of COVID-19 is now the focus of clinical trials in the population of recovering patients. Projects such as the COVID Symptom Study, initiated by the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston; the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston; King’s College London; and Stanford (Calif.) University, are collecting data on symptoms from millions of patients and will eventually contribute to a better understanding of prolonged recovery.

Patients looking for answers have created groups on social media such as Facebook to exchange information about their experiences (e.g., Survivor Corps, COVID-19 Support Group, COVID-19 Recovered Survivors). Recovering patients have created patient-led research organizations (Body Politic COVID-19 Support Group) to explore persistent symptoms and begin to create data for research.
 

Some data on lingering symptoms

A small study of 143 previously hospitalized, recovering patients in Italy found that 87.4% of the cohort had at least one persistent symptom 2 months or longer after initial onset and at more than a month after discharge. In this sample, only 5% had been intubated. (JAMA 2020 Jul 9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.12603).

One study found that even patients who have had relatively mild symptoms and were not hospitalized can have persistent symptoms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a survey of adults who tested positive for the positive reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 and found that, among the 292 respondents, 35% were still feeling the impact of the disease 2-3 weeks after testing. Fatigue (71%), cough (61%), and headache (61%) were the most commonly reported symptoms. The survey found that delayed recovery was evident in nearly a quarter of 18- to 34-year-olds and in a third of 35- to 49-year-olds who were not sick enough to require hospitalization (MMWR. 2020 Jul 24. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6930e1).

Sachin Gupta, MD, FCCP, ATSF, a pulmonologist and member of the CHEST Physician editorial advisory board, has treated patients with COVID-19 and shared some of his thoughts on the problem of prolonged symptoms of COVID-19.
 

Q: Should clinicians expect to see COVID-19 patients who have symptoms persisting weeks after they are diagnosed?

Dr. Gupta: I think clinicians, especially in primary care, are already seeing many patients with lingering symptoms, both respiratory and nonrespiratory related, and debility. A few patients here in the San Francisco Bay Area that I have spoken with 4-6 weeks out from their acute illness have complained of persisting, though improving, fatigue and cough. Early studies are confirming this as a topical issue. There may be other long-lasting sequelae of COVID-19 beyond the common mild lingering symptoms. It will also be important to consider (and get more data on) to what degree asymptomatic patients develop some degree of mild inflammatory and subsequent fibrotic changes in organs like the lungs and heart

Q: How does the recovery phase of COVID-19 compare with recovery from severe influenza or ARDS?

Dr. Gupta: Most prior influenza and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) studies have provided initial follow-up at 3 months and beyond, so technically speaking, it is a little difficult to compare the symptomatology patterns in the JAMA study of 2 months on follow-up. Nevertheless, the key takeaway is that, even though few patients in the study had ARDS requiring intubation (severe disease), many patients with milder disease had significant lingering symptoms (55% with three or more symptoms) at 2 months.

This fits logically with the premise, which we have some limited data on with ARDS (N Engl J Med. 2003;348:683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa022450) and severe influenza infection survivors (Nature Sci Rep. 2017;7:17275. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17497-6) that varying degrees of the inflammation cascade triggered by certain viruses can lead to changes in important patient-reported outcomes, and objective measures such as pulmonary function over the long term.

Q: What can you do for patients with lingering symptoms of COVID-19 or what can you tell them about their symptoms?

Dr. Gupta: For many patients, there is fear, given the novel nature of the virus/pandemic, that their symptoms may persist long term. Acknowledgment of their symptoms is validating and important for us to recognize as we learn more about the virus. As we are finding, many patients are going online to find answers, after sometimes feeling rushed or dismissed initially in the clinical setting.

In my experience, the bar is fairly high for most patients to reach out to their physicians with complaints of lingering symptoms after acute infection. For the ones who do reach out, they tend to have either a greater constellation of symptoms or higher severity of one or two key symptoms. After assessing and, when appropriate, ruling out secondary infections or newly developed conditions, I shift toward symptom management. I encourage such patients to build up slowly. I suggest they work first on their activities of daily living (bathing, grooming), then their instrumental activities of daily living (cooking, cleaning, checking the mail), and then to engage, based on their tolerance of symptoms, to light purposeful exercise. There are many online resources for at-home exercise activities that I recommend to patients who are more debilitated; some larger centers are beginning to offer some forms of telepulmonary rehab.

Based on what we know about other causes of viral pneumonitis and ARDS, I ask such symptomatic patients to expect a slow, gradual, and in most cases a complete recovery, and depending on the individual case, I recommend pulmonary function tests and imaging that may be helpful to track that progress.

I remind myself, and patients, that our understanding may change as we learn more over time. Checking in at set intervals, even if not in person but through a phone call, can go a long way in a setting where we do not have a specific therapy, other than gradual exercise training, to help these patients recover faster. Reassurance and encouragement are vital for patients who are struggling with the lingering burden of disease and who may find it difficult to return to work or function as usual at home. The final point is to be mindful of our patient’s mental health and, where our reassurance is not enough, to consider appropriate mental health referrals.

Q: Can you handle this kind of problem with telemedicine or which patients with lingering symptoms need to come into the office – or failing that, the ED?

Dr. Gupta: Telemedicine in the outpatient setting provides a helpful tool to assess and manage patients, in my experience, with limited and straightforward complaints. Its scope is limited diagnostically (assessing symptoms and signs) as is its reach (ability to connect with elderly, disabled, or patients without/limited telemedicine access). In many instances, telemedicine limits our ability to connect with patients emotionally and build trust. Many patients who have gone through the acute illness that we see in pulmonary clinic on follow-up are older in age, and for many, video visits are not a practical solution. Telemedicine visits can sometimes present challenges for me as well in terms of thoroughly conveying lifestyle and symptom management strategies. Health literacy is typically easier to gauge and address in person.

For patients with any degree of enduring dyspnea, more so in the acute phase, I recommend home pulse oximetry for monitoring their oxygen saturation if it is financially and technically feasible for them to obtain one. Sending a patient to the ED is an option of last resort, but one that is necessary in some cases. I expect patients with lingering symptoms to tell me that symptoms may be persisting, hopefully gradually improving, and not getting worse. If post–COVID-19 symptoms such as fever, dyspnea, fatigue, or lightheadedness are new or worsening, particularly rapidly, the safest and best option I advise patients is to go to the ED for further assessment and testing. Postviral bacterial pneumonia is something we should consider, and there is some potential for aspergillosis as well.

Q: Do you have any concerns about patients with asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or other pulmonary issues having lingering symptoms that may mask exacerbations or may cause exacerbation of their disease?

Dr. Gupta: So far, patients with chronic lung conditions do not appear to have not been disproportionately affected by the pandemic in terms of absolute numbers or percentage wise compared to the general public. I think that sheltering in place has been readily followed by many of these patients, and in addition, I assume better adherence to their maintenance therapies has likely helped. The very few cases of patients with underlying chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease that I have seen have fared very poorly when they were diagnosed with COVID-19 in the hospital. There are emerging data about short-term outcomes from severe COVID-19 infection in patients with interstitial lung disease in Europe (medRxiv. 2020 Jul 17. doi: 10.1101/2020.07.15.20152967), and from physicians treating pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020 Jul 29. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202005-521OC). But so far, little has been published on the outcomes of mild disease in these patients with chronic lung disease.

Q: It’s still early days to know the significance of lingering symptoms. But at what point do you begin to consider the possibility of some kind of relapse? And what is your next move if the symptoms get worse?

Dr. Gupta: COVID-19 recurrence, whether because of reinfection or relapse, is a potential concern but not one that is very commonly seen so far in my purview. Generally, symptoms of post–COVID-19 infection that are lingering trend toward getting better, even if slowly. If post–COVID-19 infection symptoms are progressing (particularly if rapidly), that would be a strong indication to evaluate that patient in the ED (less likely in clinic), reswab them for SARS-CoV-2, and obtain further testing such as blood work and imaging. A significant challenge from a research perspective will be determining if coinfection with another virus is playing a role as we move closer to the fall season.

[email protected]

A study using safety surveillance data of botulinum toxin found significant associations between its use and antidepressant effects, across several indications and different injection sites, according to the study’s authors.

Their results show that the antidepressant effect of botulinum toxin “administered for various indications goes beyond the control of the intended disease states and does not depend on the location of the injection,” according to Tigran Makunts, PharmD, of the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors.

Previous high-quality studies have found botulinum toxin treatment has been associated with antidepressant effects when administered to the glabellar region of the face, they noted. The study was published in Scientific Reports.

The researchers evaluated adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s current adverse event reporting system (FAERS) between September 2012 and December 2019, and the FDA’s previous adverse event reporting system between January 2004 and August 2012. Overall, they analyzed 174,243 reports, which were divided into eight treatment-related groups based on the indication for botulinum toxin: Cosmetic use (20,684 patients), migraine (4,180 patients), spasms and spasticity not involving facial muscles (2,335 patients), neurological and urinary bladder disorders (915 patients), torticollis (1,360 patients), hyperhidrosis (601 patients), blepharospasm (487 patients), and sialorrhea (157 patients). Each group was matched to controls from the FAERS database, who had different treatments for the same indications. (Reports in which patients were on an antidepressant or where depression was listed as an indication were not included).

In nearly all treatment groups, reports of depression and depression-related adverse events were significantly lower among those who received botulinum toxin, compared with controls: For those who received botulinum toxin injections in facial muscles for cosmetic uses, the reporting odds ratio was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.78). Significant effects were also see in the following groups: those who received injections into facial and head muscles for migraine (ROR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.74), injections into the upper and lower limbs for spasms and spasticity (ROR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42), injections into neck muscles for torticollis and neck pain (ROR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.44), injections into eyelid muscles for blepharospasm (ROR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39), and injections into the axilla and palm for hyperhidrosis (ROR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.33).

There were no cases of depression or depression-related adverse event reports among those treated with botulinum toxin for sialorrhea with injections into the parotid and submandibular glands, and there were decreased reports of depression among those who received detrusor muscle injections for neurological and urinary bladder disorders, but the results in both groups were not statistically significant, according to the researchers.

In an interview, Ruben Abagyan, PhD, study coauthor and professor at Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, said the study’s finding go “beyond breaking a positive feedback loop between depression and the ‘frown’ wrinkles in the glabellar region of the forehead.” The data showing efficacy with botulinum toxin injected in other areas of the body can help clinicians “expand their search for the most effective injection location and dose beyond the facial injections to improve the depression-related therapeutic outcomes.”

Another takeaway from the study, he noted, is that botulinum toxin can have effects beyond the local effect seen near an injection site. Administering botulinum toxin for spasms and spasticity, excessive sweating, migraine, urinary bladder disorders, blepharospasm, or excessive salivation/drooling could result in reduced depression and improved systemic neurological effects.

“Severe depression remains a very difficult condition to treat. The existing drugs have dangerous side effects, the onset of the therapeutic action is delayed by at least a month, and the adherence to the medication is suboptimal. Therefore, finding new ways to treat depression is critical,” Dr. Abagyan said. “Botulinum toxin opens up a new physiological mechanism to be tried to reduce depression.”

Michelle Magid, MD, MBA, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview that, although the study was retrospective, “physicians can feel confident that botulinum toxin treatment will not cause depression; it may very well lead to improved mood in some of their patients.” Dr. Magid was not an author of this study, but has studied botulinum toxin as a possible treatment of depression.

“Previous studies have shown that botulinum toxin injected into the forehead region can improve symptoms of depression. The studies were small and confined to treating the glabellar region only,” she added. “This is a large retrospective study showing that botulinum toxin injected into other regions, such as the neck, underarms, bladder, hands, arms, and legs, can also have an antidepressant effect.”

Dr. Magid agreed that the use of botulinum toxin as an antidepressant should be investigated further, and could be a tool for patients who do not respond well to traditional antidepressant medications.

In their paper, the authors offered several plausible mechanisms for the antidepressant effects of botulinum toxin, including transneuronal transport to the parts of the central nervous system that regulate mood and emotion, systemic distribution, distributed muscle stress memory, and efficacy in the primary indication treatment. Although the mechanism of action is not well understood, Dr. Magid noted it could be the removal of somatic symptoms that contribute to an improvement in mood.

“It is possible that alleviating the psychological distress associated with neck spasms, excessive sweating [and so on] can be causing the antidepressive effects,” she said. “However, it is also possible that depression is actualized by a series of somatic symptoms – body aches, insomnia, sweating, for example. By removing somatic symptoms, one may also remove the correlating mood dysregulation.”

The study “certainly raises a lot of questions,” particularly about the “apparent multiple mechanisms of action of BoNT that we don’t understand yet,” Mark Rubin, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif., said in an interview. “I believe it lends great deal of credence to the use of [botulinum toxin] for depression and certainly validates the need for more robust clinical trials for that indication,” he added.

“I think what we all as clinicians need to take away from this paper is that there is a great deal we don’t understand about the global pharmacologic effects of [botulinum toxin] and equally important, that there are apparently other pharmacologic pathways we need to explore in the treatment of depression, said Dr. Rubin, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not an investigator in the study.

One author reported being a consultant for Allergan. Dr. Makunts and the other author report no relevant conflicts of interest; Dr. Magid reported being a consultant for Allergan and a speaker for Ipsen. Dr. Rubin had no related disclosures.

SOURCE: Makunts T et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 30;10(1):12851. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69773-7.

A study using safety surveillance data of botulinum toxin found significant associations between its use and antidepressant effects, across several indications and different injection sites, according to the study’s authors.

Their results show that the antidepressant effect of botulinum toxin “administered for various indications goes beyond the control of the intended disease states and does not depend on the location of the injection,” according to Tigran Makunts, PharmD, of the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors.

Previous high-quality studies have found botulinum toxin treatment has been associated with antidepressant effects when administered to the glabellar region of the face, they noted. The study was published in Scientific Reports.

The researchers evaluated adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s current adverse event reporting system (FAERS) between September 2012 and December 2019, and the FDA’s previous adverse event reporting system between January 2004 and August 2012. Overall, they analyzed 174,243 reports, which were divided into eight treatment-related groups based on the indication for botulinum toxin: Cosmetic use (20,684 patients), migraine (4,180 patients), spasms and spasticity not involving facial muscles (2,335 patients), neurological and urinary bladder disorders (915 patients), torticollis (1,360 patients), hyperhidrosis (601 patients), blepharospasm (487 patients), and sialorrhea (157 patients). Each group was matched to controls from the FAERS database, who had different treatments for the same indications. (Reports in which patients were on an antidepressant or where depression was listed as an indication were not included).

In nearly all treatment groups, reports of depression and depression-related adverse events were significantly lower among those who received botulinum toxin, compared with controls: For those who received botulinum toxin injections in facial muscles for cosmetic uses, the reporting odds ratio was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.78). Significant effects were also see in the following groups: those who received injections into facial and head muscles for migraine (ROR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.74), injections into the upper and lower limbs for spasms and spasticity (ROR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42), injections into neck muscles for torticollis and neck pain (ROR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.44), injections into eyelid muscles for blepharospasm (ROR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39), and injections into the axilla and palm for hyperhidrosis (ROR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.33).

There were no cases of depression or depression-related adverse event reports among those treated with botulinum toxin for sialorrhea with injections into the parotid and submandibular glands, and there were decreased reports of depression among those who received detrusor muscle injections for neurological and urinary bladder disorders, but the results in both groups were not statistically significant, according to the researchers.

In an interview, Ruben Abagyan, PhD, study coauthor and professor at Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, said the study’s finding go “beyond breaking a positive feedback loop between depression and the ‘frown’ wrinkles in the glabellar region of the forehead.” The data showing efficacy with botulinum toxin injected in other areas of the body can help clinicians “expand their search for the most effective injection location and dose beyond the facial injections to improve the depression-related therapeutic outcomes.”

Another takeaway from the study, he noted, is that botulinum toxin can have effects beyond the local effect seen near an injection site. Administering botulinum toxin for spasms and spasticity, excessive sweating, migraine, urinary bladder disorders, blepharospasm, or excessive salivation/drooling could result in reduced depression and improved systemic neurological effects.

“Severe depression remains a very difficult condition to treat. The existing drugs have dangerous side effects, the onset of the therapeutic action is delayed by at least a month, and the adherence to the medication is suboptimal. Therefore, finding new ways to treat depression is critical,” Dr. Abagyan said. “Botulinum toxin opens up a new physiological mechanism to be tried to reduce depression.”

Michelle Magid, MD, MBA, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview that, although the study was retrospective, “physicians can feel confident that botulinum toxin treatment will not cause depression; it may very well lead to improved mood in some of their patients.” Dr. Magid was not an author of this study, but has studied botulinum toxin as a possible treatment of depression.

“Previous studies have shown that botulinum toxin injected into the forehead region can improve symptoms of depression. The studies were small and confined to treating the glabellar region only,” she added. “This is a large retrospective study showing that botulinum toxin injected into other regions, such as the neck, underarms, bladder, hands, arms, and legs, can also have an antidepressant effect.”

Dr. Magid agreed that the use of botulinum toxin as an antidepressant should be investigated further, and could be a tool for patients who do not respond well to traditional antidepressant medications.

In their paper, the authors offered several plausible mechanisms for the antidepressant effects of botulinum toxin, including transneuronal transport to the parts of the central nervous system that regulate mood and emotion, systemic distribution, distributed muscle stress memory, and efficacy in the primary indication treatment. Although the mechanism of action is not well understood, Dr. Magid noted it could be the removal of somatic symptoms that contribute to an improvement in mood.

“It is possible that alleviating the psychological distress associated with neck spasms, excessive sweating [and so on] can be causing the antidepressive effects,” she said. “However, it is also possible that depression is actualized by a series of somatic symptoms – body aches, insomnia, sweating, for example. By removing somatic symptoms, one may also remove the correlating mood dysregulation.”

The study “certainly raises a lot of questions,” particularly about the “apparent multiple mechanisms of action of BoNT that we don’t understand yet,” Mark Rubin, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif., said in an interview. “I believe it lends great deal of credence to the use of [botulinum toxin] for depression and certainly validates the need for more robust clinical trials for that indication,” he added.

“I think what we all as clinicians need to take away from this paper is that there is a great deal we don’t understand about the global pharmacologic effects of [botulinum toxin] and equally important, that there are apparently other pharmacologic pathways we need to explore in the treatment of depression, said Dr. Rubin, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not an investigator in the study.

One author reported being a consultant for Allergan. Dr. Makunts and the other author report no relevant conflicts of interest; Dr. Magid reported being a consultant for Allergan and a speaker for Ipsen. Dr. Rubin had no related disclosures.

SOURCE: Makunts T et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 30;10(1):12851. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69773-7.

A study using safety surveillance data of botulinum toxin found significant associations between its use and antidepressant effects, across several indications and different injection sites, according to the study’s authors.

Their results show that the antidepressant effect of botulinum toxin “administered for various indications goes beyond the control of the intended disease states and does not depend on the location of the injection,” according to Tigran Makunts, PharmD, of the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of California, San Diego, and coauthors.

Previous high-quality studies have found botulinum toxin treatment has been associated with antidepressant effects when administered to the glabellar region of the face, they noted. The study was published in Scientific Reports.

The researchers evaluated adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s current adverse event reporting system (FAERS) between September 2012 and December 2019, and the FDA’s previous adverse event reporting system between January 2004 and August 2012. Overall, they analyzed 174,243 reports, which were divided into eight treatment-related groups based on the indication for botulinum toxin: Cosmetic use (20,684 patients), migraine (4,180 patients), spasms and spasticity not involving facial muscles (2,335 patients), neurological and urinary bladder disorders (915 patients), torticollis (1,360 patients), hyperhidrosis (601 patients), blepharospasm (487 patients), and sialorrhea (157 patients). Each group was matched to controls from the FAERS database, who had different treatments for the same indications. (Reports in which patients were on an antidepressant or where depression was listed as an indication were not included).

In nearly all treatment groups, reports of depression and depression-related adverse events were significantly lower among those who received botulinum toxin, compared with controls: For those who received botulinum toxin injections in facial muscles for cosmetic uses, the reporting odds ratio was 0.46 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.78). Significant effects were also see in the following groups: those who received injections into facial and head muscles for migraine (ROR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.48-0.74), injections into the upper and lower limbs for spasms and spasticity (ROR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.18-0.42), injections into neck muscles for torticollis and neck pain (ROR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.20-0.44), injections into eyelid muscles for blepharospasm (ROR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.05-0.39), and injections into the axilla and palm for hyperhidrosis (ROR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04-0.33).

There were no cases of depression or depression-related adverse event reports among those treated with botulinum toxin for sialorrhea with injections into the parotid and submandibular glands, and there were decreased reports of depression among those who received detrusor muscle injections for neurological and urinary bladder disorders, but the results in both groups were not statistically significant, according to the researchers.

In an interview, Ruben Abagyan, PhD, study coauthor and professor at Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, said the study’s finding go “beyond breaking a positive feedback loop between depression and the ‘frown’ wrinkles in the glabellar region of the forehead.” The data showing efficacy with botulinum toxin injected in other areas of the body can help clinicians “expand their search for the most effective injection location and dose beyond the facial injections to improve the depression-related therapeutic outcomes.”

Another takeaway from the study, he noted, is that botulinum toxin can have effects beyond the local effect seen near an injection site. Administering botulinum toxin for spasms and spasticity, excessive sweating, migraine, urinary bladder disorders, blepharospasm, or excessive salivation/drooling could result in reduced depression and improved systemic neurological effects.

“Severe depression remains a very difficult condition to treat. The existing drugs have dangerous side effects, the onset of the therapeutic action is delayed by at least a month, and the adherence to the medication is suboptimal. Therefore, finding new ways to treat depression is critical,” Dr. Abagyan said. “Botulinum toxin opens up a new physiological mechanism to be tried to reduce depression.”

Michelle Magid, MD, MBA, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an interview that, although the study was retrospective, “physicians can feel confident that botulinum toxin treatment will not cause depression; it may very well lead to improved mood in some of their patients.” Dr. Magid was not an author of this study, but has studied botulinum toxin as a possible treatment of depression.

“Previous studies have shown that botulinum toxin injected into the forehead region can improve symptoms of depression. The studies were small and confined to treating the glabellar region only,” she added. “This is a large retrospective study showing that botulinum toxin injected into other regions, such as the neck, underarms, bladder, hands, arms, and legs, can also have an antidepressant effect.”

Dr. Magid agreed that the use of botulinum toxin as an antidepressant should be investigated further, and could be a tool for patients who do not respond well to traditional antidepressant medications.

In their paper, the authors offered several plausible mechanisms for the antidepressant effects of botulinum toxin, including transneuronal transport to the parts of the central nervous system that regulate mood and emotion, systemic distribution, distributed muscle stress memory, and efficacy in the primary indication treatment. Although the mechanism of action is not well understood, Dr. Magid noted it could be the removal of somatic symptoms that contribute to an improvement in mood.

“It is possible that alleviating the psychological distress associated with neck spasms, excessive sweating [and so on] can be causing the antidepressive effects,” she said. “However, it is also possible that depression is actualized by a series of somatic symptoms – body aches, insomnia, sweating, for example. By removing somatic symptoms, one may also remove the correlating mood dysregulation.”

The study “certainly raises a lot of questions,” particularly about the “apparent multiple mechanisms of action of BoNT that we don’t understand yet,” Mark Rubin, MD, a cosmetic dermatologist who practices in Beverly Hills, Calif., said in an interview. “I believe it lends great deal of credence to the use of [botulinum toxin] for depression and certainly validates the need for more robust clinical trials for that indication,” he added.

“I think what we all as clinicians need to take away from this paper is that there is a great deal we don’t understand about the global pharmacologic effects of [botulinum toxin] and equally important, that there are apparently other pharmacologic pathways we need to explore in the treatment of depression, said Dr. Rubin, of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, who was not an investigator in the study.

One author reported being a consultant for Allergan. Dr. Makunts and the other author report no relevant conflicts of interest; Dr. Magid reported being a consultant for Allergan and a speaker for Ipsen. Dr. Rubin had no related disclosures.

SOURCE: Makunts T et al. Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 30;10(1):12851. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-69773-7.

In the clinical experience of Libby Edwards, MD, the diagnosis of lichen sclerosus in a young girl often triggers worry from patients and parents alike.

“The parents are worried about the ramifications of genital diseases and they’re worried about scarring,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Meanwhile, during the initial assessment, physicians tend to think about sexual abuse or sexually transmitted diseases as the primary culprit. “It’s really important that you consider those issues, but they’re not usually what’s going on,” said Dr. Edwards, a dermatologist who practices in Charlotte, N.C. “Also, for some reason we jump to yeast as a cause of diseases in the genital area. If the child is out of diapers and hasn’t reached puberty, it’s almost never yeast. Do a culture. Try and prove yeast. If it doesn’t respond to treatment for yeast, it’s not going to be yeast. Reassure, and don’t forget to reassure.”

The causes of lichen sclerosus in young girls are not completely understood, she continued, but a main factor is autoimmune-related, which can cause a distinctive rash that usually affects the genital skin around the vulva and anus. Lichen sclerosus presents classically as white, fragile plaques. “Textbooks say that there is cigarette paper-like crinkling of skin,” Dr. Edwards said. “I think of it being more like cellophane paper. In children, we often see it as smooth, kind of waxy and shiny, compared to adults. Children usually present with pruritus and irritation.”

Lichen sclerosus often starts in the clitoral area and on the perineum, and often with an edematous clitoral hood. “It often eventuates into clitoral phimosis, meaning that there is midline adhesion so that the clitoris is buried,” she said. “In adults, seeing this clitoral phimosis is a reliable sign of a scarring dermatosis – most often lichen sclerosus. But you can’t say that in children, because little girls will often have scarring over the clitoris. It’s just physiologic and means nothing, and it will go away at puberty. Certainly, sometimes this white discoloration can have crinkling. Purpura and tearing are common; if you look at lichen sclerosus histologically it looks like a thin epithelium that’s stretched over gelatin. Any rubbing and scratching can cause bleeding in the skin.”

Clinical appearance of well demarcated white skin with texture change drives the diagnosis. “It can be hard to tell from vitiligo at times, but there always should be texture change – whether it’s crinkling, whether it’s waxy, whether it’s smooth – and it’s symptomatic,” she said.

A biopsy is not usually required. “I think a good picture [of the affected area] or some sort of objective description in the chart is important, because most children do so well that in a few months there’s no sign of it, and the next provider [they see] may not believe that they ever had it,” she said.

The recommended initial treatment for lichen sclerosus in girls is a tiny amount of a superpotent topical corticosteroid ointment such as clobetasol or halobetasol one to two times daily until the skin is clear, which usually takes 2-4 months. “You do not treat these children until they’re comfortable, because that may be a week,” Dr. Edwards said. “You treat these children until the skin looks normal. Then you need to keep treating them, because if you don’t, the skin will relapse, even though they might not have symptoms.”

Following initial treatment, she recommends use of a superpotent corticosteroid once per day three times a week, or a midpotency steroid like triamcinolone ointment 0.1% every day. In her clinical experience, if lesions clear and remain clear with long-term treatment through puberty, the chances are good that they’ll stay clear if the medication is stopped.

“There are no studies on what to do after a patient clears,” said Dr. Edwards, chief of dermatology at Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, and adjunct clinical professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “We have been informed by trial and error. If a child is totally clear after puberty, I will stop their medication and see them back every 3 months for about a year and a half. If they stay clear after a year and a half, I find that they stay clear. I wonder what happens at menopause. We surely don’t know.”

With consistent topical treatment, many patients will have clearing in one area of affected skin after a month or two, and it will take 3 or 4 months for the remaining area to clear. “I tend to see patients back every 6-8 weeks until they’re clear,” she said. “I do not like the idea of sending people out and saying, ‘use this medication twice a day for a month, then once a day for a month, then three times a week, then as needed.’

For patients concerned about the long-term use of topical steroids, the immunosuppressants tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are options. “They are often irritating on the vulva, but can work better than steroids for extragenital disease,” Dr. Edwards said. “Parents sometimes object to the use of a corticosteroid, but because these produce slower benefit and often burn with application, you can remind the parents that tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are not without side effects and are labeled as being associated with cancer. That often will prompt a parent to be willing to use a topical steroid. You can also point to studies that show the safety of topical steroids.”

Intralesional steroids are useful for thick lesions, but Dr. Edwards said that she has never had to use them in a child with lichen sclerosus. “I have found methotrexate to be useful in some people, but there is not one study on genital lichen sclerosus and methotrexate,” she said. “I find that about one in five patients with recalcitrant vulvar lichen sclerosus has had some benefit from methotrexate,” she added, noting that fractional CO₂ laser “is showing promise in these patients.”

Dr. Edwards concluded her remarks by noting that she has never cared for a child with vulvar lichen sclerosus who didn’t respond to topical super potent steroids, “except due to poor compliance.”

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In the clinical experience of Libby Edwards, MD, the diagnosis of lichen sclerosus in a young girl often triggers worry from patients and parents alike.

“The parents are worried about the ramifications of genital diseases and they’re worried about scarring,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Meanwhile, during the initial assessment, physicians tend to think about sexual abuse or sexually transmitted diseases as the primary culprit. “It’s really important that you consider those issues, but they’re not usually what’s going on,” said Dr. Edwards, a dermatologist who practices in Charlotte, N.C. “Also, for some reason we jump to yeast as a cause of diseases in the genital area. If the child is out of diapers and hasn’t reached puberty, it’s almost never yeast. Do a culture. Try and prove yeast. If it doesn’t respond to treatment for yeast, it’s not going to be yeast. Reassure, and don’t forget to reassure.”

The causes of lichen sclerosus in young girls are not completely understood, she continued, but a main factor is autoimmune-related, which can cause a distinctive rash that usually affects the genital skin around the vulva and anus. Lichen sclerosus presents classically as white, fragile plaques. “Textbooks say that there is cigarette paper-like crinkling of skin,” Dr. Edwards said. “I think of it being more like cellophane paper. In children, we often see it as smooth, kind of waxy and shiny, compared to adults. Children usually present with pruritus and irritation.”

Lichen sclerosus often starts in the clitoral area and on the perineum, and often with an edematous clitoral hood. “It often eventuates into clitoral phimosis, meaning that there is midline adhesion so that the clitoris is buried,” she said. “In adults, seeing this clitoral phimosis is a reliable sign of a scarring dermatosis – most often lichen sclerosus. But you can’t say that in children, because little girls will often have scarring over the clitoris. It’s just physiologic and means nothing, and it will go away at puberty. Certainly, sometimes this white discoloration can have crinkling. Purpura and tearing are common; if you look at lichen sclerosus histologically it looks like a thin epithelium that’s stretched over gelatin. Any rubbing and scratching can cause bleeding in the skin.”

Clinical appearance of well demarcated white skin with texture change drives the diagnosis. “It can be hard to tell from vitiligo at times, but there always should be texture change – whether it’s crinkling, whether it’s waxy, whether it’s smooth – and it’s symptomatic,” she said.

A biopsy is not usually required. “I think a good picture [of the affected area] or some sort of objective description in the chart is important, because most children do so well that in a few months there’s no sign of it, and the next provider [they see] may not believe that they ever had it,” she said.

The recommended initial treatment for lichen sclerosus in girls is a tiny amount of a superpotent topical corticosteroid ointment such as clobetasol or halobetasol one to two times daily until the skin is clear, which usually takes 2-4 months. “You do not treat these children until they’re comfortable, because that may be a week,” Dr. Edwards said. “You treat these children until the skin looks normal. Then you need to keep treating them, because if you don’t, the skin will relapse, even though they might not have symptoms.”

Following initial treatment, she recommends use of a superpotent corticosteroid once per day three times a week, or a midpotency steroid like triamcinolone ointment 0.1% every day. In her clinical experience, if lesions clear and remain clear with long-term treatment through puberty, the chances are good that they’ll stay clear if the medication is stopped.

“There are no studies on what to do after a patient clears,” said Dr. Edwards, chief of dermatology at Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, and adjunct clinical professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “We have been informed by trial and error. If a child is totally clear after puberty, I will stop their medication and see them back every 3 months for about a year and a half. If they stay clear after a year and a half, I find that they stay clear. I wonder what happens at menopause. We surely don’t know.”

With consistent topical treatment, many patients will have clearing in one area of affected skin after a month or two, and it will take 3 or 4 months for the remaining area to clear. “I tend to see patients back every 6-8 weeks until they’re clear,” she said. “I do not like the idea of sending people out and saying, ‘use this medication twice a day for a month, then once a day for a month, then three times a week, then as needed.’

For patients concerned about the long-term use of topical steroids, the immunosuppressants tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are options. “They are often irritating on the vulva, but can work better than steroids for extragenital disease,” Dr. Edwards said. “Parents sometimes object to the use of a corticosteroid, but because these produce slower benefit and often burn with application, you can remind the parents that tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are not without side effects and are labeled as being associated with cancer. That often will prompt a parent to be willing to use a topical steroid. You can also point to studies that show the safety of topical steroids.”

Intralesional steroids are useful for thick lesions, but Dr. Edwards said that she has never had to use them in a child with lichen sclerosus. “I have found methotrexate to be useful in some people, but there is not one study on genital lichen sclerosus and methotrexate,” she said. “I find that about one in five patients with recalcitrant vulvar lichen sclerosus has had some benefit from methotrexate,” she added, noting that fractional CO₂ laser “is showing promise in these patients.”

Dr. Edwards concluded her remarks by noting that she has never cared for a child with vulvar lichen sclerosus who didn’t respond to topical super potent steroids, “except due to poor compliance.”

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

In the clinical experience of Libby Edwards, MD, the diagnosis of lichen sclerosus in a young girl often triggers worry from patients and parents alike.

“The parents are worried about the ramifications of genital diseases and they’re worried about scarring,” she said during the virtual annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Meanwhile, during the initial assessment, physicians tend to think about sexual abuse or sexually transmitted diseases as the primary culprit. “It’s really important that you consider those issues, but they’re not usually what’s going on,” said Dr. Edwards, a dermatologist who practices in Charlotte, N.C. “Also, for some reason we jump to yeast as a cause of diseases in the genital area. If the child is out of diapers and hasn’t reached puberty, it’s almost never yeast. Do a culture. Try and prove yeast. If it doesn’t respond to treatment for yeast, it’s not going to be yeast. Reassure, and don’t forget to reassure.”

The causes of lichen sclerosus in young girls are not completely understood, she continued, but a main factor is autoimmune-related, which can cause a distinctive rash that usually affects the genital skin around the vulva and anus. Lichen sclerosus presents classically as white, fragile plaques. “Textbooks say that there is cigarette paper-like crinkling of skin,” Dr. Edwards said. “I think of it being more like cellophane paper. In children, we often see it as smooth, kind of waxy and shiny, compared to adults. Children usually present with pruritus and irritation.”

Lichen sclerosus often starts in the clitoral area and on the perineum, and often with an edematous clitoral hood. “It often eventuates into clitoral phimosis, meaning that there is midline adhesion so that the clitoris is buried,” she said. “In adults, seeing this clitoral phimosis is a reliable sign of a scarring dermatosis – most often lichen sclerosus. But you can’t say that in children, because little girls will often have scarring over the clitoris. It’s just physiologic and means nothing, and it will go away at puberty. Certainly, sometimes this white discoloration can have crinkling. Purpura and tearing are common; if you look at lichen sclerosus histologically it looks like a thin epithelium that’s stretched over gelatin. Any rubbing and scratching can cause bleeding in the skin.”

Clinical appearance of well demarcated white skin with texture change drives the diagnosis. “It can be hard to tell from vitiligo at times, but there always should be texture change – whether it’s crinkling, whether it’s waxy, whether it’s smooth – and it’s symptomatic,” she said.

A biopsy is not usually required. “I think a good picture [of the affected area] or some sort of objective description in the chart is important, because most children do so well that in a few months there’s no sign of it, and the next provider [they see] may not believe that they ever had it,” she said.

The recommended initial treatment for lichen sclerosus in girls is a tiny amount of a superpotent topical corticosteroid ointment such as clobetasol or halobetasol one to two times daily until the skin is clear, which usually takes 2-4 months. “You do not treat these children until they’re comfortable, because that may be a week,” Dr. Edwards said. “You treat these children until the skin looks normal. Then you need to keep treating them, because if you don’t, the skin will relapse, even though they might not have symptoms.”

Following initial treatment, she recommends use of a superpotent corticosteroid once per day three times a week, or a midpotency steroid like triamcinolone ointment 0.1% every day. In her clinical experience, if lesions clear and remain clear with long-term treatment through puberty, the chances are good that they’ll stay clear if the medication is stopped.

“There are no studies on what to do after a patient clears,” said Dr. Edwards, chief of dermatology at Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, and adjunct clinical professor of dermatology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. “We have been informed by trial and error. If a child is totally clear after puberty, I will stop their medication and see them back every 3 months for about a year and a half. If they stay clear after a year and a half, I find that they stay clear. I wonder what happens at menopause. We surely don’t know.”

With consistent topical treatment, many patients will have clearing in one area of affected skin after a month or two, and it will take 3 or 4 months for the remaining area to clear. “I tend to see patients back every 6-8 weeks until they’re clear,” she said. “I do not like the idea of sending people out and saying, ‘use this medication twice a day for a month, then once a day for a month, then three times a week, then as needed.’

For patients concerned about the long-term use of topical steroids, the immunosuppressants tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are options. “They are often irritating on the vulva, but can work better than steroids for extragenital disease,” Dr. Edwards said. “Parents sometimes object to the use of a corticosteroid, but because these produce slower benefit and often burn with application, you can remind the parents that tacrolimus and pimecrolimus are not without side effects and are labeled as being associated with cancer. That often will prompt a parent to be willing to use a topical steroid. You can also point to studies that show the safety of topical steroids.”

Intralesional steroids are useful for thick lesions, but Dr. Edwards said that she has never had to use them in a child with lichen sclerosus. “I have found methotrexate to be useful in some people, but there is not one study on genital lichen sclerosus and methotrexate,” she said. “I find that about one in five patients with recalcitrant vulvar lichen sclerosus has had some benefit from methotrexate,” she added, noting that fractional CO₂ laser “is showing promise in these patients.”

Dr. Edwards concluded her remarks by noting that she has never cared for a child with vulvar lichen sclerosus who didn’t respond to topical super potent steroids, “except due to poor compliance.”

She reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Most primary care physicians agree that antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing are problems in the United States, but they are much less inclined to recognize these issues in their own practices, according to the results of a nationwide survey.

“This lack of recognition of physicians’ own contributions to inappropriate prescribing presents a barrier to encouraging widespread stewardship uptake,” Rachel M. Zetts, MPH, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., and associates wrote in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Almost all (94%) of the 1,550 internists, family physicians, and pediatricians who responded to the survey said that antibiotic resistance is a national problem, and nearly that many (91%) agreed that “inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a problem in outpatient health care settings,” the investigators acknowledged.

Narrowing the focus to their own practices, however, changed some opinions. At that level, only 55% of the respondents said that resistance was a problem for their practices, and just 37% said that there any sort of inappropriate prescribing going on, based on data from the survey, which was conducted from August to October 2018 by Pew and the American Medical Association.

Antibiotic stewardship, defined as activities meant to ensure appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, should include “staff and patient education, clinician-level antibiotic prescribing feedback, and communications training on how to discuss antibiotic prescribing with patients,” Ms. Zetts and associates explained.

The need for such stewardship in health care settings was acknowledged by 72% of respondents, but 53% of those surveyed also said that all they need to do to support such efforts “is to talk with their patients about the value of an antibiotic for their symptoms,” they noted.

The bacteria, it seems, are not the only ones with some resistance. Half of the primary care physicians believe that it would be difficult to fairly and accurately track the appropriate use of antibiotics, and 52% agreed with the statement that “practice-based reporting requirements for antibiotic use would be too onerous,” the researchers pointed out.

“Antibiotic resistance is an impending public health crisis. We are seeing today, as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what our health system looks like with no or limited treatments available to tackle an outbreak. … We must all remain vigilant in combating the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and be prudent when prescribing antibiotics,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a written statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zetts RM et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 July;7(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa244.

Most primary care physicians agree that antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing are problems in the United States, but they are much less inclined to recognize these issues in their own practices, according to the results of a nationwide survey.

“This lack of recognition of physicians’ own contributions to inappropriate prescribing presents a barrier to encouraging widespread stewardship uptake,” Rachel M. Zetts, MPH, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., and associates wrote in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Almost all (94%) of the 1,550 internists, family physicians, and pediatricians who responded to the survey said that antibiotic resistance is a national problem, and nearly that many (91%) agreed that “inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a problem in outpatient health care settings,” the investigators acknowledged.

Narrowing the focus to their own practices, however, changed some opinions. At that level, only 55% of the respondents said that resistance was a problem for their practices, and just 37% said that there any sort of inappropriate prescribing going on, based on data from the survey, which was conducted from August to October 2018 by Pew and the American Medical Association.

Antibiotic stewardship, defined as activities meant to ensure appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, should include “staff and patient education, clinician-level antibiotic prescribing feedback, and communications training on how to discuss antibiotic prescribing with patients,” Ms. Zetts and associates explained.

The need for such stewardship in health care settings was acknowledged by 72% of respondents, but 53% of those surveyed also said that all they need to do to support such efforts “is to talk with their patients about the value of an antibiotic for their symptoms,” they noted.

The bacteria, it seems, are not the only ones with some resistance. Half of the primary care physicians believe that it would be difficult to fairly and accurately track the appropriate use of antibiotics, and 52% agreed with the statement that “practice-based reporting requirements for antibiotic use would be too onerous,” the researchers pointed out.

“Antibiotic resistance is an impending public health crisis. We are seeing today, as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what our health system looks like with no or limited treatments available to tackle an outbreak. … We must all remain vigilant in combating the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and be prudent when prescribing antibiotics,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a written statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zetts RM et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 July;7(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa244.

Most primary care physicians agree that antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing are problems in the United States, but they are much less inclined to recognize these issues in their own practices, according to the results of a nationwide survey.

“This lack of recognition of physicians’ own contributions to inappropriate prescribing presents a barrier to encouraging widespread stewardship uptake,” Rachel M. Zetts, MPH, of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C., and associates wrote in Open Forum Infectious Diseases.

Almost all (94%) of the 1,550 internists, family physicians, and pediatricians who responded to the survey said that antibiotic resistance is a national problem, and nearly that many (91%) agreed that “inappropriate antibiotic prescribing is a problem in outpatient health care settings,” the investigators acknowledged.

Narrowing the focus to their own practices, however, changed some opinions. At that level, only 55% of the respondents said that resistance was a problem for their practices, and just 37% said that there any sort of inappropriate prescribing going on, based on data from the survey, which was conducted from August to October 2018 by Pew and the American Medical Association.

Antibiotic stewardship, defined as activities meant to ensure appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, should include “staff and patient education, clinician-level antibiotic prescribing feedback, and communications training on how to discuss antibiotic prescribing with patients,” Ms. Zetts and associates explained.

The need for such stewardship in health care settings was acknowledged by 72% of respondents, but 53% of those surveyed also said that all they need to do to support such efforts “is to talk with their patients about the value of an antibiotic for their symptoms,” they noted.

The bacteria, it seems, are not the only ones with some resistance. Half of the primary care physicians believe that it would be difficult to fairly and accurately track the appropriate use of antibiotics, and 52% agreed with the statement that “practice-based reporting requirements for antibiotic use would be too onerous,” the researchers pointed out.

“Antibiotic resistance is an impending public health crisis. We are seeing today, as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, what our health system looks like with no or limited treatments available to tackle an outbreak. … We must all remain vigilant in combating the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and be prudent when prescribing antibiotics,” AMA President Susan R. Bailey, MD, said in a written statement.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zetts RM et al. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 July;7(7). doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa244.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Dr. Ira Weintraub, a recently retired orthopedic surgeon who now works at a medical billing consultancy, saw a hip replacement bill for over $400,000 earlier this year.

“The patient stayed in the hospital 17 days, which is only 17 times normal. The bill got paid,” mused Weintraub, chief medical officer of Portland, Oregon-based WellRithms, which helps self-funded employers and workers’ compensation insurers make sense of large, complex medical bills and ensure they pay the fair amount.

Charges like that go a long way toward explaining why hospitals are eager to restore joint replacements to pre-COVID levels as quickly as possible – an eagerness tempered only by safety concerns amid a resurgence of the coronavirus in some regions of the country. Revenue losses at hospitals and outpatient surgery centers may have exceeded $5 billion from canceled knee and hip replacements alone during a roughly two-month hiatus on elective procedures earlier this year.

The cost of joint replacement surgery varies widely – though, on average, it is in the tens, not hundreds, of thousands of dollars. Still, given the high and rapidly growing volume, it’s easy to see why joint replacement operations have become a vital chunk of revenue at most U.S. hospitals.

The rate of knee and hip replacements more than doubled from 2000 to 2015, according to inpatient discharge data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. And that growth is likely to continue: Knee replacements are expected to triple between now and 2040, with hip replacements not far behind, according to projections published last year in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Joint procedures are usually not emergencies, and they were among the first to be scrubbed or delayed when hospitals froze elective surgeries in March – and again in July in some areas plagued by renewed COVID outbreaks. Loss of the revenue has hit hospitals hard, and regaining it will be crucial to their financial convalescence.

“Without orthopedic volumes returning to something near their pre-pandemic levels, it will make it difficult for health systems to get back to anywhere near break-even from a bottom-line perspective,” said Stephen Thome, a principal in health care consulting at Grant Thornton, an advisory, audit and tax firm.

It’s impossible to know exactly how much knee and hip replacements are worth to hospitals, because no definitive data on total volume or price exists.

But using published estimates of volume, extrapolating average commercial payments from published Medicare rates based on a study, and making an educated guess of patient coinsurance, Thome helped KHN arrive at an annual market value for American hospitals and surgery centers of between $15.5 billion and $21.5 billion for knee replacements alone.

That suggests a revenue loss of $1.3 billion to $1.8 billion per month for the period the surgeries were shut down. These figures include ambulatory surgery centers not owned by hospitals, which also suspended most operations in late March, all of April and into May.

If you add hip replacements, which account for about half the volume of knees and are paid at similar rates, the total annual value rises to a range of $23 billion to $32 billion, with monthly revenue losses from $1.9 billion to $2.7 billion.

The American Hospital Association projects total revenue lost at U.S. hospitals will reach $323 billion by year’s end, not counting additional losses from surgeries canceled during the current coronavirus spike. That amount is partially offset by $69 billion in federal relief dollars hospitals have received so far, according to the association. The California Hospital Association puts the net revenue loss for hospitals in that state at about $10.5 billion, said spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea.

Hospitals resumed joint replacement surgeries in early to mid-May, with the timing and ramp-up speed varying by region and hospital. Some hospitals restored volume quickly; others took a more cautious route and continue to lose revenue. Still others have had to shut down again.

At the NYU Langone Orthopedic Hospital in New York City, “people are starting to come in and you see the operating rooms full again,” said Dr. Claudette Lajam, chief orthopedic safety officer.

At St. Jude Medical Center in Fullerton, California, where the coronavirus is raging, inpatient joint replacements resumed in the second or third week of May – cautiously at first, but volume is “very close to pre-pandemic levels at this point,” said Dr. Kevin Khajavi, chairman of the hospital’s orthopedic surgery department. However, “we are constantly monitoring the situation to determine if we have to scale back once again,” he said.

In large swaths of Texas, elective surgeries were once again suspended in July because of the COVID-19 resurgence. The same is true at many hospitals in Florida, Alabama, South Carolina and Nevada.

The Mayo Clinic in Phoenix suspended nonemergency joint replacement surgeries in early July. It resumed outpatient replacement procedures the week of July 27, but still has not resumed nonemergency inpatient procedures, said Dr. Mark Spangehl, an orthopedic surgeon there. In terms of medical urgency, joint replacements are “at the bottom of the totem pole,” Spangehl said.

In terms of cash flow, however, joint replacements are decidedly not at the bottom of the totem pole. They have become a cash cow as the number of patients undergoing them has skyrocketed in recent decades.

The volume is being driven by an aging population, an epidemic of obesity and a significant rise in the number of younger people replacing joints worn out by years of sports and exercise.

It’s also being driven by the cash. Once only done in hospitals, the operations are now increasingly performed at ambulatory surgery centers – especially on younger, healthier patients who don’t require hospitalization.

The surgery centers are often physician-owned, but private equity groups such as Bain Capital and KKR & Co. have taken an interest in them, drawn by their high growth potential, robust financial returns and ability to offer competitive prices.

“[G]enerally the savings should be very good – but I do see a lot of outlier surgery centers where they are charging exorbitant amounts of money – $100,000 wouldn’t be too much,” said WellRithm’s Weintraub, who co-owned such a surgery center in Portland.

Fear of catching the coronavirus in a hospital is reinforcing the outpatient trend. Matthew Davis, a 58-year-old resident of Washington, was scheduled for a hip replacement on March 30 but got cold feet because of COVID-19, and canceled just before all elective surgeries were halted. When it came time to reschedule in June, he overcame his reservations in large part because the surgeon planned to perform the procedure at a free-standing surgery center.

“That was key to me – avoiding an overnight hospital stay to minimize my exposure,” Davis said. “These joint replacements are almost industrial-scale. They are cranking out joint replacements 9 to 5. I went in at 6:30 a.m. and I was walking out the door at 11:30.”

Acutely aware of the financial benefits, hospitals and surgery clinics have been marketing joint replacements for years, competing for coveted rankings and running ads that show healthy aging people, all smiles, engaged in vigorous activity.

However, a 2014 study concluded that one-third of knee replacements were not warranted, mainly because the symptoms of the patients were not severe enough to justify the procedures.

“The whole marketing of health care is so manipulative to the consuming public,” said Lisa McGiffert, a longtime consumer advocate and co-founder of the Patient Safety Action Network. “People might be encouraged to get a knee replacement, when in reality something less invasive could have improved their condition.”

McGiffert recounted a conversation with an orthopedic surgeon in Washington state who told her about a patient who requested a knee replacement, even though he had not tried any lower-impact treatments to fix the problem. “I asked the surgeon, ‘You didn’t do it, did you?’ And he said, ‘Of course I did. He would just have gone to somebody else.’ ”

This Kaiser Health News story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

All PASI 100 responses to psoriasis therapy are not the same, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

He presented a first-of-its-kind study that potentially opens the door to a new, more rigorous standard for treatment success in psoriasis: Not simply cleared lesional skin as captured by a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 response, but also clearance of residual psoriasis signs and symptoms – as well as what he termed “molecular clearance.”

“We’ve found that clearing skin with drugs utilizing different mechanisms of action may lead to differential consequences for our patients,” observed Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and clinical trialist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

A PASI 100 response, traditionally considered an elusive goal for the great majority of patients with severe psoriasis, can now often be achieved using today’s top-tier, high-performance biologics. But Dr. Blauvelt and his coinvestigators are interested in pushing even beyond PASI 100 to a new frontier of therapeutic benefit.

He presented a secondary analysis of the previously reported VOYAGE 1 and 2 head-to-head randomized trials of guselkumab (Tremfya) versus adalimumab (Humira) for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This new analysis, which focused exclusively on PASI 100 responders by week 24, demonstrated that patients with a PASI 100 response to guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor, had significantly fewer persistent symptoms and signs of psoriasis than those whose skin clearance was attained using adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.

Moreover, the investigators showed that the gene expression profile of PASI 100 responders who were free of signs and symptoms was more normalized than that of patients with residual symptoms despite their cleared skin.

The analysis included 16 participants in the VOYAGE trials who achieved PASI 100 at week 24 on guselkumab and 5 who did so on adalimumab. At baseline and again at week 24, these individuals completed the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Also, biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were obtained at baseline and of cleared lesional skin at week 24 for transcriptomic microarray analysis of the expression of many thousands of genes.
 

Persistent psoriasis symptoms despite cleared skin

The PSSD involves patient ratings of various psoriasis symptoms and signs. Total scores can range from 0 (symptom- and sign-free) up to 100. At week 24, a significantly higher proportion of guselkumab-treated PASI 100 responders had a total PSSD score of zero: 55%, versus 43% in the adalimumab group. This was consistently true across the board for each of the individual signs and symptoms assessed. For example, 61% of the guselkumab group gave themselves a zero for itch, as did 50% of the adalimumab group. Sixty-four percent on guselkumab and 52% on adalimumab reported being free of redness. And 78% of the guselkumab group reported being pain-free, compared with 69% with adalimumab, Dr. Blauvelt reported.

Gene expression analysis

At baseline, more than 2,300 dysregulated genes were identified in lesional skin while functioning normally in nonlesional skin. The great majority of these initially dysregulated genes became normalized in cleared lesional skin in PASI 100 responders at week 24. However, 25 of the genes remained dysregulated in cleared lesional skin, meaning they displayed less than 75% of normal function. Ten of these 25 genes with dysregulated expression at follow-up showed abnormal function in patients with residual symptoms despite cleared skin, but they functioned normally in those without persistent symptoms. This raises the possibility that the residual symptoms of psoriasis were attributable to the abnormal gene functioning, according to Dr. Blauvelt.

Of note, 9 of the 10 dysregulated genes in cleared lesional skin of patients with residual symptoms were present in the adalimumab group; these included two genes localized to the epidermal differentiation complex as well as the psoriasis-specific proline-rich 9 gene known as PRR9, which is induced by IL-17A. In contrast, only four genes, none of which were localized to the epidermal differentiation complex, were insufficiently normalized in the cleared lesional skin of guselkumab-treated PASI-100 responders.

“Nothing like this analysis has ever been done before,” the dermatologist observed. “It’s a pilot study. Perhaps with more data like this, we’ll be using this type of information in clinical practice to go beyond clearing patients’ skin.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a scientific advisor to and paid clinical investigator for Janssen, which sponsored the study, as well as for roughly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

All PASI 100 responses to psoriasis therapy are not the same, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

He presented a first-of-its-kind study that potentially opens the door to a new, more rigorous standard for treatment success in psoriasis: Not simply cleared lesional skin as captured by a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 response, but also clearance of residual psoriasis signs and symptoms – as well as what he termed “molecular clearance.”

“We’ve found that clearing skin with drugs utilizing different mechanisms of action may lead to differential consequences for our patients,” observed Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and clinical trialist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

A PASI 100 response, traditionally considered an elusive goal for the great majority of patients with severe psoriasis, can now often be achieved using today’s top-tier, high-performance biologics. But Dr. Blauvelt and his coinvestigators are interested in pushing even beyond PASI 100 to a new frontier of therapeutic benefit.

He presented a secondary analysis of the previously reported VOYAGE 1 and 2 head-to-head randomized trials of guselkumab (Tremfya) versus adalimumab (Humira) for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This new analysis, which focused exclusively on PASI 100 responders by week 24, demonstrated that patients with a PASI 100 response to guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor, had significantly fewer persistent symptoms and signs of psoriasis than those whose skin clearance was attained using adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.

Moreover, the investigators showed that the gene expression profile of PASI 100 responders who were free of signs and symptoms was more normalized than that of patients with residual symptoms despite their cleared skin.

The analysis included 16 participants in the VOYAGE trials who achieved PASI 100 at week 24 on guselkumab and 5 who did so on adalimumab. At baseline and again at week 24, these individuals completed the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Also, biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were obtained at baseline and of cleared lesional skin at week 24 for transcriptomic microarray analysis of the expression of many thousands of genes.
 

Persistent psoriasis symptoms despite cleared skin

The PSSD involves patient ratings of various psoriasis symptoms and signs. Total scores can range from 0 (symptom- and sign-free) up to 100. At week 24, a significantly higher proportion of guselkumab-treated PASI 100 responders had a total PSSD score of zero: 55%, versus 43% in the adalimumab group. This was consistently true across the board for each of the individual signs and symptoms assessed. For example, 61% of the guselkumab group gave themselves a zero for itch, as did 50% of the adalimumab group. Sixty-four percent on guselkumab and 52% on adalimumab reported being free of redness. And 78% of the guselkumab group reported being pain-free, compared with 69% with adalimumab, Dr. Blauvelt reported.

Gene expression analysis

At baseline, more than 2,300 dysregulated genes were identified in lesional skin while functioning normally in nonlesional skin. The great majority of these initially dysregulated genes became normalized in cleared lesional skin in PASI 100 responders at week 24. However, 25 of the genes remained dysregulated in cleared lesional skin, meaning they displayed less than 75% of normal function. Ten of these 25 genes with dysregulated expression at follow-up showed abnormal function in patients with residual symptoms despite cleared skin, but they functioned normally in those without persistent symptoms. This raises the possibility that the residual symptoms of psoriasis were attributable to the abnormal gene functioning, according to Dr. Blauvelt.

Of note, 9 of the 10 dysregulated genes in cleared lesional skin of patients with residual symptoms were present in the adalimumab group; these included two genes localized to the epidermal differentiation complex as well as the psoriasis-specific proline-rich 9 gene known as PRR9, which is induced by IL-17A. In contrast, only four genes, none of which were localized to the epidermal differentiation complex, were insufficiently normalized in the cleared lesional skin of guselkumab-treated PASI-100 responders.

“Nothing like this analysis has ever been done before,” the dermatologist observed. “It’s a pilot study. Perhaps with more data like this, we’ll be using this type of information in clinical practice to go beyond clearing patients’ skin.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a scientific advisor to and paid clinical investigator for Janssen, which sponsored the study, as well as for roughly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

All PASI 100 responses to psoriasis therapy are not the same, Andrew Blauvelt, MD, declared at the virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

He presented a first-of-its-kind study that potentially opens the door to a new, more rigorous standard for treatment success in psoriasis: Not simply cleared lesional skin as captured by a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 100 response, but also clearance of residual psoriasis signs and symptoms – as well as what he termed “molecular clearance.”

“We’ve found that clearing skin with drugs utilizing different mechanisms of action may lead to differential consequences for our patients,” observed Dr. Blauvelt, a dermatologist and clinical trialist who is president of the Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

A PASI 100 response, traditionally considered an elusive goal for the great majority of patients with severe psoriasis, can now often be achieved using today’s top-tier, high-performance biologics. But Dr. Blauvelt and his coinvestigators are interested in pushing even beyond PASI 100 to a new frontier of therapeutic benefit.

He presented a secondary analysis of the previously reported VOYAGE 1 and 2 head-to-head randomized trials of guselkumab (Tremfya) versus adalimumab (Humira) for treatment of moderate to severe psoriasis. This new analysis, which focused exclusively on PASI 100 responders by week 24, demonstrated that patients with a PASI 100 response to guselkumab, an interleukin (IL)-23 inhibitor, had significantly fewer persistent symptoms and signs of psoriasis than those whose skin clearance was attained using adalimumab, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor.

Moreover, the investigators showed that the gene expression profile of PASI 100 responders who were free of signs and symptoms was more normalized than that of patients with residual symptoms despite their cleared skin.

The analysis included 16 participants in the VOYAGE trials who achieved PASI 100 at week 24 on guselkumab and 5 who did so on adalimumab. At baseline and again at week 24, these individuals completed the Psoriasis Symptoms and Signs Diary (PSSD). Also, biopsies of lesional and nonlesional skin were obtained at baseline and of cleared lesional skin at week 24 for transcriptomic microarray analysis of the expression of many thousands of genes.
 

Persistent psoriasis symptoms despite cleared skin

The PSSD involves patient ratings of various psoriasis symptoms and signs. Total scores can range from 0 (symptom- and sign-free) up to 100. At week 24, a significantly higher proportion of guselkumab-treated PASI 100 responders had a total PSSD score of zero: 55%, versus 43% in the adalimumab group. This was consistently true across the board for each of the individual signs and symptoms assessed. For example, 61% of the guselkumab group gave themselves a zero for itch, as did 50% of the adalimumab group. Sixty-four percent on guselkumab and 52% on adalimumab reported being free of redness. And 78% of the guselkumab group reported being pain-free, compared with 69% with adalimumab, Dr. Blauvelt reported.

Gene expression analysis

At baseline, more than 2,300 dysregulated genes were identified in lesional skin while functioning normally in nonlesional skin. The great majority of these initially dysregulated genes became normalized in cleared lesional skin in PASI 100 responders at week 24. However, 25 of the genes remained dysregulated in cleared lesional skin, meaning they displayed less than 75% of normal function. Ten of these 25 genes with dysregulated expression at follow-up showed abnormal function in patients with residual symptoms despite cleared skin, but they functioned normally in those without persistent symptoms. This raises the possibility that the residual symptoms of psoriasis were attributable to the abnormal gene functioning, according to Dr. Blauvelt.

Of note, 9 of the 10 dysregulated genes in cleared lesional skin of patients with residual symptoms were present in the adalimumab group; these included two genes localized to the epidermal differentiation complex as well as the psoriasis-specific proline-rich 9 gene known as PRR9, which is induced by IL-17A. In contrast, only four genes, none of which were localized to the epidermal differentiation complex, were insufficiently normalized in the cleared lesional skin of guselkumab-treated PASI-100 responders.

“Nothing like this analysis has ever been done before,” the dermatologist observed. “It’s a pilot study. Perhaps with more data like this, we’ll be using this type of information in clinical practice to go beyond clearing patients’ skin.”

Dr. Blauvelt reported serving as a scientific advisor to and paid clinical investigator for Janssen, which sponsored the study, as well as for roughly two dozen other pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]