Antibiotic use doesn’t appear to disrupt the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer, according to a new analysis of the landmark TOPAZ-1 clinical trial.

The findings, released at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, suggest that “people with advanced biliary tract cancer can safely be treated with antibiotics while still benefiting from treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy,” said lead author Aiwu Ruth He, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

Antibiotic use during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been associated with poorer outcomes. A review of 12 studies published in Frontiers in Oncology found that antibiotic use was associated with worse progression-free and overall survival.

“Patients with biliary tract cancer have the increased risk of biliary tract infection as the result of biliary tract obstruction, and they often receive antibiotics,” Dr. He said.

A 2020 report in eCancer suggested that antibiotics may disrupt gut bacteria and, as a result, interfere with the immune system’s responsiveness. “It has been a consensus that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided during the use of immunotherapy whenever possible,” the report authors wrote. “In addition, antibiotics should be prescribed only when properly indicated.”

However, cutting down on antibiotic use may be especially difficult in cancer patients since they frequently suffer from infections. “An antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection may cause serious issues for a cancer patient, who likely already has a suppressed immune system,” according to a 2017 information sheet posted by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Chemotherapy may cause neutropenia, a reduction of white blood cells that help fight infections and viruses. Radiation therapy may damage the skin and cause irritation and wounds. Immunotherapy or targeted therapy drugs may trigger side effects that may lead to infections. Incisions from surgery or to insert ports or catheters may be vulnerable to infections.”

The new study

For the new subgroup analysis, researchers analyzed data from the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 clinical trial, which was a double-blinded analysis of durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. The previously reported main findings from the study were positive with a median overall survival of 12.8 months in the durvalumab arm versus 11.5 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021). These findings contributed to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision in 2022 to approve the treatment for use in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Of 341 patients who received durvalumab treatment, 167 also took antibiotics. The median overall survival in the antibiotic and nonantibiotic groups were similar at 12.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.8 months) and 13 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.7 months), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.7 months) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.4 months), respectively.

“The results support that advanced patients’ risk of death, and the risk that their cancer would grow, spread, or get worse, was not meaningfully different between patients who used antibiotics and those who did not use antibiotics at the same time as they were receiving durvalumab-based treatment,” Dr. He said. “The result is not surprising to me since it is not clear to me how and why antibiotics may affect the effectiveness of immunotherapy.”

Moving forward, she said, “additional studies are needed to further investigator the relationship between antibiotics use and effectiveness of immunotherapy. We need to understand why use of antibiotics during treatment with immunotherapy is correlated with poor outcomes in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Antibiotic use doesn’t appear to disrupt the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer, according to a new analysis of the landmark TOPAZ-1 clinical trial.

The findings, released at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, suggest that “people with advanced biliary tract cancer can safely be treated with antibiotics while still benefiting from treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy,” said lead author Aiwu Ruth He, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

Antibiotic use during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been associated with poorer outcomes. A review of 12 studies published in Frontiers in Oncology found that antibiotic use was associated with worse progression-free and overall survival.

“Patients with biliary tract cancer have the increased risk of biliary tract infection as the result of biliary tract obstruction, and they often receive antibiotics,” Dr. He said.

A 2020 report in eCancer suggested that antibiotics may disrupt gut bacteria and, as a result, interfere with the immune system’s responsiveness. “It has been a consensus that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided during the use of immunotherapy whenever possible,” the report authors wrote. “In addition, antibiotics should be prescribed only when properly indicated.”

However, cutting down on antibiotic use may be especially difficult in cancer patients since they frequently suffer from infections. “An antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection may cause serious issues for a cancer patient, who likely already has a suppressed immune system,” according to a 2017 information sheet posted by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Chemotherapy may cause neutropenia, a reduction of white blood cells that help fight infections and viruses. Radiation therapy may damage the skin and cause irritation and wounds. Immunotherapy or targeted therapy drugs may trigger side effects that may lead to infections. Incisions from surgery or to insert ports or catheters may be vulnerable to infections.”

The new study

For the new subgroup analysis, researchers analyzed data from the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 clinical trial, which was a double-blinded analysis of durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. The previously reported main findings from the study were positive with a median overall survival of 12.8 months in the durvalumab arm versus 11.5 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021). These findings contributed to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision in 2022 to approve the treatment for use in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Of 341 patients who received durvalumab treatment, 167 also took antibiotics. The median overall survival in the antibiotic and nonantibiotic groups were similar at 12.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.8 months) and 13 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.7 months), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.7 months) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.4 months), respectively.

“The results support that advanced patients’ risk of death, and the risk that their cancer would grow, spread, or get worse, was not meaningfully different between patients who used antibiotics and those who did not use antibiotics at the same time as they were receiving durvalumab-based treatment,” Dr. He said. “The result is not surprising to me since it is not clear to me how and why antibiotics may affect the effectiveness of immunotherapy.”

Moving forward, she said, “additional studies are needed to further investigator the relationship between antibiotics use and effectiveness of immunotherapy. We need to understand why use of antibiotics during treatment with immunotherapy is correlated with poor outcomes in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Antibiotic use doesn’t appear to disrupt the effectiveness of the immune checkpoint inhibitor durvalumab in advanced biliary tract cancer, according to a new analysis of the landmark TOPAZ-1 clinical trial.

The findings, released at the ASCO Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2023, suggest that “people with advanced biliary tract cancer can safely be treated with antibiotics while still benefiting from treatment with durvalumab plus chemotherapy,” said lead author Aiwu Ruth He, MD, PhD, a gastrointestinal oncologist with MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington.

Antibiotic use during immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy has been associated with poorer outcomes. A review of 12 studies published in Frontiers in Oncology found that antibiotic use was associated with worse progression-free and overall survival.

“Patients with biliary tract cancer have the increased risk of biliary tract infection as the result of biliary tract obstruction, and they often receive antibiotics,” Dr. He said.

A 2020 report in eCancer suggested that antibiotics may disrupt gut bacteria and, as a result, interfere with the immune system’s responsiveness. “It has been a consensus that the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics should be avoided during the use of immunotherapy whenever possible,” the report authors wrote. “In addition, antibiotics should be prescribed only when properly indicated.”

However, cutting down on antibiotic use may be especially difficult in cancer patients since they frequently suffer from infections. “An antibiotic-resistant bacterial infection may cause serious issues for a cancer patient, who likely already has a suppressed immune system,” according to a 2017 information sheet posted by the Cancer Treatment Centers of America. “Chemotherapy may cause neutropenia, a reduction of white blood cells that help fight infections and viruses. Radiation therapy may damage the skin and cause irritation and wounds. Immunotherapy or targeted therapy drugs may trigger side effects that may lead to infections. Incisions from surgery or to insert ports or catheters may be vulnerable to infections.”

The new study

For the new subgroup analysis, researchers analyzed data from the phase 3 TOPAZ-1 clinical trial, which was a double-blinded analysis of durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. The previously reported main findings from the study were positive with a median overall survival of 12.8 months in the durvalumab arm versus 11.5 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio, 0.80; P = .021). These findings contributed to the Food and Drug Administration’s decision in 2022 to approve the treatment for use in locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

Of 341 patients who received durvalumab treatment, 167 also took antibiotics. The median overall survival in the antibiotic and nonantibiotic groups were similar at 12.6 months (95% confidence interval, 9.7-14.8 months) and 13 months (95% CI, 10.8-14.7 months), respectively. Median progression-free survival was 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.5-7.7 months) and 7.2 months (95% CI, 5.9-7.4 months), respectively.

“The results support that advanced patients’ risk of death, and the risk that their cancer would grow, spread, or get worse, was not meaningfully different between patients who used antibiotics and those who did not use antibiotics at the same time as they were receiving durvalumab-based treatment,” Dr. He said. “The result is not surprising to me since it is not clear to me how and why antibiotics may affect the effectiveness of immunotherapy.”

Moving forward, she said, “additional studies are needed to further investigator the relationship between antibiotics use and effectiveness of immunotherapy. We need to understand why use of antibiotics during treatment with immunotherapy is correlated with poor outcomes in some circumstances but not in other circumstances.”

The study was funded by AstraZeneca. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium is sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, and the Society of Surgical Oncology.

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both race and place of residence affect how soon a woman in North Carolina receives treatment for breast cancer, suggesting the need to target high-risk geographic regions and patient groups to ensure timely care, new research suggests.

Among nearly 33,000 women from North Carolina with stage I-III breast cancer, Black patients were nearly twice as likely has non-Black patients to experience treatment delays of more than 60 days, researchers found.

“Our findings suggest that treatment delays are alarmingly common in patients at high risk for breast cancer death, including young Black women and patients with stage III disease,” the authors note in their article, which was published online in Cancer.

Research shows that breast cancer treatment delays of 30-60 days can lower survival, and Black patients face a “disproportionate risk of treatment delays across the breast cancer care delivery spectrum,” the authors explain.

However, studies exploring whether or how racial disparities in treatment delays relate to geography are more limited.

In the current analysis, researchers amassed a retrospective cohort of all patients with stage I-III breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 in the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry and explored the risk of treatment delay by race and geographic subregion.

The cohort included 32,626 women, 6,190 (19.0%) of whom were Black. Counties were divided into the nine Area Health Education Center regions for North Carolina.

Compared with non‐Black patients, Black patients were more likely to have stage III disease (15.2% vs. 9.3%), hormone receptor–negative tumors (29.3% vs. 15.6%), Medicaid insurance (46.7% vs. 14.9%), and to live within 5 miles of their treatment site (30.6% vs. 25.2%).

Overall, Black patients were almost two times more likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 60 days (15% vs. 8%).

On average, about one in seven Black women experienced a lengthy delay, but the risk varied depending on geographic location. Patients living in certain regions of the state were more likely to experience delays; those in the highest-risk region were about twice as likely to experience a delay as those in the lowest-risk region (relative risk, 2.1 among Black patients; and RR, 1.9 among non-Black patients).

The magnitude of the racial gap in treatment delay varied by region – from 0% to 9.4%. But overall, of patients who experienced treatment delays, a significantly greater proportion were Black patients in every region except region 2, where only 2.7% (93 of 3,362) of patients were Black.

Notably, two regions with the greatest disparities in treatment delay, as well as the highest absolute risk of treatment delay for Black patients, surround large cities.

“These delays weren’t explained by the patients’ distance from cancer treatment facilities, their specific stage of cancer or type of treatment, or what insurance they had,” lead author Katherine Reeder-Hayes, MD, with the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, said in a news release.

Instead, Dr. Reeder-Hayes said, the findings suggest that the structure of local health care systems, rather than patient characteristics, may better explain why some patients experience treatment delays.

In other words, “if cancer care teams in certain areas say, ‘Oh, it’s particularly hard to treat breast cancer in our area because people are poor or have really advanced stages of cancer when they come in,’ our research does not bear out that explanation,” Dr. Reeder-Hayes said in email to this news organization.

This study “highlights the persistent disparities in treatment delays Black women encounter, which often lead to worse outcomes,” said Kathie-Ann Joseph, MD, MPH, who was not involved in the research.

“Interestingly, the authors could not attribute these delays in treatment to patient-level factors,” said Dr. Joseph, a breast cancer surgeon at NYU Langone Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York. But the authors “did find substantial geographic variation, which suggests the need to address structural barriers contributing to treatment delays in Black women.”

Sara P. Cate, MD, who was not involved with the research, also noted that the study highlights a known issue – “that racial minorities have longer delays in cancer treatment.” And notably, she said, the findings reveal that this disparity persists in areas where access to care is better and more robust.

“The nuances of the delays to care are multifactorial,” said Dr. Cate, a breast cancer surgeon and director of the Breast Surgery Quality Program at Mount Sinai in New York. “We need to do better with this population, and it is a multilevel solution of financial assistance, social work, and patient navigation.”

The study was supported in part by grants from the Susan G. Komen Foundation and the NC State Employees’ Credit Union. Dr. Reeder-Hayes, Dr. Cate, and Dr. Joseph have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Diagnosis: Orange Palpebral Spots

The clinical presentation of our patient was consistent with a diagnosis of orange palpebral spots (OPSs), an uncommon discoloration that most often appears in White patients in the fifth or sixth decades of life. Orange palpebral spots were first described in 2008 by Assouly et al¹ in 27 patients (23 females and 4 males). In 2015, Belliveau et al² expanded the designation to yellow-orange palpebral spots because they felt the term more fully expressed the color variations depicted in their patients; however, this term more frequently is used in ophthalmology.

Orange palpebral spots commonly appear as asymptomatic, yellow-orange, symmetric lesions with a predilection for the recessed areas of the superior eyelids but also can present on the canthi and inferior eyelids. The discolorations are more easily visible on fair skin and have been reported to measure from 10 to 15 mm in the long axis.³ Assouly et al1 described the orange spots as having indistinct margins, with borders similar to “sand on a sea shore.” Orange palpebral spots can be a persistent discoloration, and there are no reports of spontaneous regression. No known association with malignancy or systemic illness has been reported.

Case reports of OPSs describe histologic similarities between specimens, including increased adipose tissue and pigment-laden macrophages in the superficial dermis.² The pigmented deposits sometimes may be found in the basal keratinocytes of the epidermis and turn black with Fontana-Masson stain.¹ No inflammatory infiltrates, necrosis, or xanthomization are characteristically found. Stains for iron, mucin, and amyloid also have been negative.²

The cause of pigmentation in OPSs is unknown; however, lipofuscin deposits and high-situated adipocytes in the reticular dermis colored by carotenoids have been proposed as possible mechanisms.¹ No unifying cause for pigmentation in the serum (eg, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid-stimulating hormone, free retinol, vitamin E, carotenoids) was found in 11 of 27 patients with OPSs assessed by Assouly et al.¹ In one case, lipofuscin, a degradation product of lysosomes, was detected by microscopic autofluorescence in the superficial dermis. However, lipofuscin typically is a breakdown product associated with aging, and OPSs have been present in patients as young as 28 years.¹ Local trauma related to eye rubbing is another theory that has been proposed due to the finding of melanin in the superficial dermis. However, the absence of hemosiderin deposits as well as the extensive duration of the discolorations makes local trauma a less likely explanation for the etiology of OPSs.²

The clinical differential diagnosis for OPSs includes xanthelasma, jaundice, and carotenoderma. Xanthelasma presents as elevated yellow plaques usually found over the medial aspect of the eyes. In contrast, OPSs are nonelevated with both orange and yellow hues typically present. Histologic samples of xanthelasma are characterized by lipid-laden macrophages (foam cells) in the dermis in contrast to the adipose tissue seen in OPSs that has not been phagocytized.^1,2 The lack of scleral icterus made jaundice an unlikely diagnosis in our patient. Bilirubin elevations substantial enough to cause skin discoloration also would be expected to discolor the conjunctiva. In carotenoderma, carotenoids are deposited in the sweat and sebum of the stratum corneum with the orange pigmentation most prominent in regions of increased sweating such as the palms, soles, and nasolabial folds.⁴ Our patient’s lack of discoloration in places other than the periorbital region made carotenoderma less likely.

In the study by Assouly et al,¹ 10 of 11 patients who underwent laboratory analysis self-reported eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, though no standardized questionnaire was given. One patient was found to have an elevated vitamin E level, and in 5 cases there was an elevated level of β-cryptoxanthin. The significance of these elevations in such a small minority is unknown, and increased β-cryptoxanthin has been attributed to increased consumption of citrus fruits during the winter season. Our patient reported ingesting a daily oral supplement rich in carotenoids that constituted 60% of the daily value of vitamin E including mixed tocopherols as well as 90% of the daily value of vitamin A with many sources of carotenoids including beta-carotenes, lutein/zeaxanthin, lycopene, and astaxanthin. An invasive biopsy was not taken in this case, as OPSs largely are diagnosed clinically. Greater awareness and recognition of OPSs may help to identify common underlying causes for this unique diagnosis.

The Diagnosis: Orange Palpebral Spots

The clinical presentation of our patient was consistent with a diagnosis of orange palpebral spots (OPSs), an uncommon discoloration that most often appears in White patients in the fifth or sixth decades of life. Orange palpebral spots were first described in 2008 by Assouly et al¹ in 27 patients (23 females and 4 males). In 2015, Belliveau et al² expanded the designation to yellow-orange palpebral spots because they felt the term more fully expressed the color variations depicted in their patients; however, this term more frequently is used in ophthalmology.

Orange palpebral spots commonly appear as asymptomatic, yellow-orange, symmetric lesions with a predilection for the recessed areas of the superior eyelids but also can present on the canthi and inferior eyelids. The discolorations are more easily visible on fair skin and have been reported to measure from 10 to 15 mm in the long axis.³ Assouly et al1 described the orange spots as having indistinct margins, with borders similar to “sand on a sea shore.” Orange palpebral spots can be a persistent discoloration, and there are no reports of spontaneous regression. No known association with malignancy or systemic illness has been reported.

Case reports of OPSs describe histologic similarities between specimens, including increased adipose tissue and pigment-laden macrophages in the superficial dermis.² The pigmented deposits sometimes may be found in the basal keratinocytes of the epidermis and turn black with Fontana-Masson stain.¹ No inflammatory infiltrates, necrosis, or xanthomization are characteristically found. Stains for iron, mucin, and amyloid also have been negative.²

The cause of pigmentation in OPSs is unknown; however, lipofuscin deposits and high-situated adipocytes in the reticular dermis colored by carotenoids have been proposed as possible mechanisms.¹ No unifying cause for pigmentation in the serum (eg, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid-stimulating hormone, free retinol, vitamin E, carotenoids) was found in 11 of 27 patients with OPSs assessed by Assouly et al.¹ In one case, lipofuscin, a degradation product of lysosomes, was detected by microscopic autofluorescence in the superficial dermis. However, lipofuscin typically is a breakdown product associated with aging, and OPSs have been present in patients as young as 28 years.¹ Local trauma related to eye rubbing is another theory that has been proposed due to the finding of melanin in the superficial dermis. However, the absence of hemosiderin deposits as well as the extensive duration of the discolorations makes local trauma a less likely explanation for the etiology of OPSs.²

The clinical differential diagnosis for OPSs includes xanthelasma, jaundice, and carotenoderma. Xanthelasma presents as elevated yellow plaques usually found over the medial aspect of the eyes. In contrast, OPSs are nonelevated with both orange and yellow hues typically present. Histologic samples of xanthelasma are characterized by lipid-laden macrophages (foam cells) in the dermis in contrast to the adipose tissue seen in OPSs that has not been phagocytized.^1,2 The lack of scleral icterus made jaundice an unlikely diagnosis in our patient. Bilirubin elevations substantial enough to cause skin discoloration also would be expected to discolor the conjunctiva. In carotenoderma, carotenoids are deposited in the sweat and sebum of the stratum corneum with the orange pigmentation most prominent in regions of increased sweating such as the palms, soles, and nasolabial folds.⁴ Our patient’s lack of discoloration in places other than the periorbital region made carotenoderma less likely.

In the study by Assouly et al,¹ 10 of 11 patients who underwent laboratory analysis self-reported eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, though no standardized questionnaire was given. One patient was found to have an elevated vitamin E level, and in 5 cases there was an elevated level of β-cryptoxanthin. The significance of these elevations in such a small minority is unknown, and increased β-cryptoxanthin has been attributed to increased consumption of citrus fruits during the winter season. Our patient reported ingesting a daily oral supplement rich in carotenoids that constituted 60% of the daily value of vitamin E including mixed tocopherols as well as 90% of the daily value of vitamin A with many sources of carotenoids including beta-carotenes, lutein/zeaxanthin, lycopene, and astaxanthin. An invasive biopsy was not taken in this case, as OPSs largely are diagnosed clinically. Greater awareness and recognition of OPSs may help to identify common underlying causes for this unique diagnosis.

The Diagnosis: Orange Palpebral Spots

The clinical presentation of our patient was consistent with a diagnosis of orange palpebral spots (OPSs), an uncommon discoloration that most often appears in White patients in the fifth or sixth decades of life. Orange palpebral spots were first described in 2008 by Assouly et al¹ in 27 patients (23 females and 4 males). In 2015, Belliveau et al² expanded the designation to yellow-orange palpebral spots because they felt the term more fully expressed the color variations depicted in their patients; however, this term more frequently is used in ophthalmology.

Orange palpebral spots commonly appear as asymptomatic, yellow-orange, symmetric lesions with a predilection for the recessed areas of the superior eyelids but also can present on the canthi and inferior eyelids. The discolorations are more easily visible on fair skin and have been reported to measure from 10 to 15 mm in the long axis.³ Assouly et al1 described the orange spots as having indistinct margins, with borders similar to “sand on a sea shore.” Orange palpebral spots can be a persistent discoloration, and there are no reports of spontaneous regression. No known association with malignancy or systemic illness has been reported.

Case reports of OPSs describe histologic similarities between specimens, including increased adipose tissue and pigment-laden macrophages in the superficial dermis.² The pigmented deposits sometimes may be found in the basal keratinocytes of the epidermis and turn black with Fontana-Masson stain.¹ No inflammatory infiltrates, necrosis, or xanthomization are characteristically found. Stains for iron, mucin, and amyloid also have been negative.²

The cause of pigmentation in OPSs is unknown; however, lipofuscin deposits and high-situated adipocytes in the reticular dermis colored by carotenoids have been proposed as possible mechanisms.¹ No unifying cause for pigmentation in the serum (eg, cholesterol, triglycerides, thyroid-stimulating hormone, free retinol, vitamin E, carotenoids) was found in 11 of 27 patients with OPSs assessed by Assouly et al.¹ In one case, lipofuscin, a degradation product of lysosomes, was detected by microscopic autofluorescence in the superficial dermis. However, lipofuscin typically is a breakdown product associated with aging, and OPSs have been present in patients as young as 28 years.¹ Local trauma related to eye rubbing is another theory that has been proposed due to the finding of melanin in the superficial dermis. However, the absence of hemosiderin deposits as well as the extensive duration of the discolorations makes local trauma a less likely explanation for the etiology of OPSs.²

The clinical differential diagnosis for OPSs includes xanthelasma, jaundice, and carotenoderma. Xanthelasma presents as elevated yellow plaques usually found over the medial aspect of the eyes. In contrast, OPSs are nonelevated with both orange and yellow hues typically present. Histologic samples of xanthelasma are characterized by lipid-laden macrophages (foam cells) in the dermis in contrast to the adipose tissue seen in OPSs that has not been phagocytized.^1,2 The lack of scleral icterus made jaundice an unlikely diagnosis in our patient. Bilirubin elevations substantial enough to cause skin discoloration also would be expected to discolor the conjunctiva. In carotenoderma, carotenoids are deposited in the sweat and sebum of the stratum corneum with the orange pigmentation most prominent in regions of increased sweating such as the palms, soles, and nasolabial folds.⁴ Our patient’s lack of discoloration in places other than the periorbital region made carotenoderma less likely.

In the study by Assouly et al,¹ 10 of 11 patients who underwent laboratory analysis self-reported eating a diet rich in fruit and vegetables, though no standardized questionnaire was given. One patient was found to have an elevated vitamin E level, and in 5 cases there was an elevated level of β-cryptoxanthin. The significance of these elevations in such a small minority is unknown, and increased β-cryptoxanthin has been attributed to increased consumption of citrus fruits during the winter season. Our patient reported ingesting a daily oral supplement rich in carotenoids that constituted 60% of the daily value of vitamin E including mixed tocopherols as well as 90% of the daily value of vitamin A with many sources of carotenoids including beta-carotenes, lutein/zeaxanthin, lycopene, and astaxanthin. An invasive biopsy was not taken in this case, as OPSs largely are diagnosed clinically. Greater awareness and recognition of OPSs may help to identify common underlying causes for this unique diagnosis.

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease (HD), is a historically stigmatized infection caused by acid-fast bacilli Mycobacterium leprae, and M. lepromatosis. Paucibacillary tuberculoid leprosy is characterized by few anesthetic hypo- or hyperpigmented lesions and can be accompanied by palpable peripheral nerve enlargements.

Tuberculoid leprosy presents histologically with epithelioid histiocytes with lymphocytes and Langhans giant cells. Neurotropic granulomas are also characteristic of tuberculoid leprosy. Fite staining allows for the identification of the acid-fast bacilli of M. leprae, which in some cases are quite few in number. The standard mycobacterium stain, Ziehl-Neelsen, is a good option for M. tuberculosis, but because of the relative weak mycolic acid coat of M. leprae, the Fite stain is more appropriate for identifying M. leprae.

Clinically, other than the presence of fewer than five hypoesthetic lesions that are either hypopigmented or erythematous, tuberculoid leprosy often presents with additional peripheral nerve involvement that manifests as numbness and tingling in hands and feet.¹ This patient denied any tingling, weakness, or numbness, outside of the anesthetic lesion on his posterior upper arm.

The patient, born in the United States, had a remote history of military travel to Iraq, Kuwait, and the Philippines, but had not traveled internationally within the last 15 years, apart from a cruise to the Bahamas. He denied any known contact with individuals with similar lesions. He denied a history of contact with armadillos, but acknowledged that they are native to where he resides in central Florida, and that he had seen them in his yard.

Histopathological examination revealed an unremarkable epidermis with a superficial and deep perivascular, periadnexal, and perineural lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Fite stain revealed rare rod-shaped organisms (Figure 2). These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of paucibacillary, tuberculoid leprosy.

The patient’s travel history to highly endemic areas (Middle East), as well as possible environmental contact with armadillos – including contact with soil that the armadillos occupied – could explain plausible modes of transmission. Following consultation with our infectious disease department and the National Hansen’s Disease Program, our patient began a planned course of therapy with 18 months of minocycline, rifampin, and moxifloxacin.

Human-to-human transmission of HD has been well documented; however, zoonotic transmission – specifically via the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) – serves as another suggested means of transmission, especially in the Southeastern United States.^2-6 Travel to highly-endemic areas increases the risk of contracting HD, which may take up to 20 years following contact with the bacteria to manifest clinically.

While central Florida was previously thought to be a nonendemic area of disease, the incidence of the disease in this region has increased in recent years.⁷ Human-to-human transmission, which remains a concern with immigration from highly-endemic regions^, occurs via long-term contact with nasal droplets of an infected person.^8,9

Many patients in regions with very few cases of leprosy deny travel to other endemic regions and contact with infected people. Thus, zoonotic transmission remains a legitimate concern in the Southeastern United States – accounting, at least in part, for many of the non–human-transmitted cases of leprosy.^2,10 We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for leprosy when evaluating patients presenting with hypoesthetic cutaneous lesions and to obtain a travel history and to ask about armadillo exposure.

This case and the photos were submitted by Ms. Smith, from the University of South Florida, Tampa; Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sarriera-Lazaro, from the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery, University of South Florida; and Dr. Turner and Dr. Beachkofsky, from the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa. Dr. Bilu Martin edited this case. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), in: “Goldman’s Cecil Medicine,” 24th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012: pp. 1950-4.

2. Sharma R et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2127-34.

3. Lane JE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):714-6.

4. Clark BM et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Jun;78(6):962-7.

5. Bruce S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):223-8.

6. Loughry WJ et al. J Wildl Dis. 2009 Jan;45(1):144-52.

7. FDo H. Florida charts: Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy). Health FDo. 2019. https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/ChartsReports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=NonVitalIndNoGrpCounts.DataViewer&cid=174.

8. Maymone MBC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):1-14.

9. Scollard DM et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19(2):338-81.

10. Domozych R et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2016 May 12;2(3):189-92.




 

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease (HD), is a historically stigmatized infection caused by acid-fast bacilli Mycobacterium leprae, and M. lepromatosis. Paucibacillary tuberculoid leprosy is characterized by few anesthetic hypo- or hyperpigmented lesions and can be accompanied by palpable peripheral nerve enlargements.

Tuberculoid leprosy presents histologically with epithelioid histiocytes with lymphocytes and Langhans giant cells. Neurotropic granulomas are also characteristic of tuberculoid leprosy. Fite staining allows for the identification of the acid-fast bacilli of M. leprae, which in some cases are quite few in number. The standard mycobacterium stain, Ziehl-Neelsen, is a good option for M. tuberculosis, but because of the relative weak mycolic acid coat of M. leprae, the Fite stain is more appropriate for identifying M. leprae.

Clinically, other than the presence of fewer than five hypoesthetic lesions that are either hypopigmented or erythematous, tuberculoid leprosy often presents with additional peripheral nerve involvement that manifests as numbness and tingling in hands and feet.¹ This patient denied any tingling, weakness, or numbness, outside of the anesthetic lesion on his posterior upper arm.

The patient, born in the United States, had a remote history of military travel to Iraq, Kuwait, and the Philippines, but had not traveled internationally within the last 15 years, apart from a cruise to the Bahamas. He denied any known contact with individuals with similar lesions. He denied a history of contact with armadillos, but acknowledged that they are native to where he resides in central Florida, and that he had seen them in his yard.

Histopathological examination revealed an unremarkable epidermis with a superficial and deep perivascular, periadnexal, and perineural lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Fite stain revealed rare rod-shaped organisms (Figure 2). These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of paucibacillary, tuberculoid leprosy.

The patient’s travel history to highly endemic areas (Middle East), as well as possible environmental contact with armadillos – including contact with soil that the armadillos occupied – could explain plausible modes of transmission. Following consultation with our infectious disease department and the National Hansen’s Disease Program, our patient began a planned course of therapy with 18 months of minocycline, rifampin, and moxifloxacin.

Human-to-human transmission of HD has been well documented; however, zoonotic transmission – specifically via the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) – serves as another suggested means of transmission, especially in the Southeastern United States.^2-6 Travel to highly-endemic areas increases the risk of contracting HD, which may take up to 20 years following contact with the bacteria to manifest clinically.

While central Florida was previously thought to be a nonendemic area of disease, the incidence of the disease in this region has increased in recent years.⁷ Human-to-human transmission, which remains a concern with immigration from highly-endemic regions^, occurs via long-term contact with nasal droplets of an infected person.^8,9

Many patients in regions with very few cases of leprosy deny travel to other endemic regions and contact with infected people. Thus, zoonotic transmission remains a legitimate concern in the Southeastern United States – accounting, at least in part, for many of the non–human-transmitted cases of leprosy.^2,10 We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for leprosy when evaluating patients presenting with hypoesthetic cutaneous lesions and to obtain a travel history and to ask about armadillo exposure.

This case and the photos were submitted by Ms. Smith, from the University of South Florida, Tampa; Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sarriera-Lazaro, from the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery, University of South Florida; and Dr. Turner and Dr. Beachkofsky, from the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa. Dr. Bilu Martin edited this case. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), in: “Goldman’s Cecil Medicine,” 24th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012: pp. 1950-4.

2. Sharma R et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2127-34.

3. Lane JE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):714-6.

4. Clark BM et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Jun;78(6):962-7.

5. Bruce S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):223-8.

6. Loughry WJ et al. J Wildl Dis. 2009 Jan;45(1):144-52.

7. FDo H. Florida charts: Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy). Health FDo. 2019. https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/ChartsReports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=NonVitalIndNoGrpCounts.DataViewer&cid=174.

8. Maymone MBC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):1-14.

9. Scollard DM et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19(2):338-81.

10. Domozych R et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2016 May 12;2(3):189-92.




 

Leprosy, also known as Hansen’s disease (HD), is a historically stigmatized infection caused by acid-fast bacilli Mycobacterium leprae, and M. lepromatosis. Paucibacillary tuberculoid leprosy is characterized by few anesthetic hypo- or hyperpigmented lesions and can be accompanied by palpable peripheral nerve enlargements.

Tuberculoid leprosy presents histologically with epithelioid histiocytes with lymphocytes and Langhans giant cells. Neurotropic granulomas are also characteristic of tuberculoid leprosy. Fite staining allows for the identification of the acid-fast bacilli of M. leprae, which in some cases are quite few in number. The standard mycobacterium stain, Ziehl-Neelsen, is a good option for M. tuberculosis, but because of the relative weak mycolic acid coat of M. leprae, the Fite stain is more appropriate for identifying M. leprae.

Clinically, other than the presence of fewer than five hypoesthetic lesions that are either hypopigmented or erythematous, tuberculoid leprosy often presents with additional peripheral nerve involvement that manifests as numbness and tingling in hands and feet.¹ This patient denied any tingling, weakness, or numbness, outside of the anesthetic lesion on his posterior upper arm.

The patient, born in the United States, had a remote history of military travel to Iraq, Kuwait, and the Philippines, but had not traveled internationally within the last 15 years, apart from a cruise to the Bahamas. He denied any known contact with individuals with similar lesions. He denied a history of contact with armadillos, but acknowledged that they are native to where he resides in central Florida, and that he had seen them in his yard.

Histopathological examination revealed an unremarkable epidermis with a superficial and deep perivascular, periadnexal, and perineural lymphohistiocytic infiltrate. Fite stain revealed rare rod-shaped organisms (Figure 2). These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of paucibacillary, tuberculoid leprosy.

The patient’s travel history to highly endemic areas (Middle East), as well as possible environmental contact with armadillos – including contact with soil that the armadillos occupied – could explain plausible modes of transmission. Following consultation with our infectious disease department and the National Hansen’s Disease Program, our patient began a planned course of therapy with 18 months of minocycline, rifampin, and moxifloxacin.

Human-to-human transmission of HD has been well documented; however, zoonotic transmission – specifically via the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) – serves as another suggested means of transmission, especially in the Southeastern United States.^2-6 Travel to highly-endemic areas increases the risk of contracting HD, which may take up to 20 years following contact with the bacteria to manifest clinically.

While central Florida was previously thought to be a nonendemic area of disease, the incidence of the disease in this region has increased in recent years.⁷ Human-to-human transmission, which remains a concern with immigration from highly-endemic regions^, occurs via long-term contact with nasal droplets of an infected person.^8,9

Many patients in regions with very few cases of leprosy deny travel to other endemic regions and contact with infected people. Thus, zoonotic transmission remains a legitimate concern in the Southeastern United States – accounting, at least in part, for many of the non–human-transmitted cases of leprosy.^2,10 We encourage clinicians to maintain a high level of clinical suspicion for leprosy when evaluating patients presenting with hypoesthetic cutaneous lesions and to obtain a travel history and to ask about armadillo exposure.

This case and the photos were submitted by Ms. Smith, from the University of South Florida, Tampa; Dr. Hatch and Dr. Sarriera-Lazaro, from the department of dermatology and cutaneous surgery, University of South Florida; and Dr. Turner and Dr. Beachkofsky, from the department of pathology and laboratory medicine at the James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital, Tampa. Dr. Bilu Martin edited this case. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Leprosy (Hansen’s Disease), in: “Goldman’s Cecil Medicine,” 24th ed. (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 2012: pp. 1950-4.

2. Sharma R et al. Emerg Infect Dis. 2015 Dec;21(12):2127-34.

3. Lane JE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Oct;55(4):714-6.

4. Clark BM et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2008 Jun;78(6):962-7.

5. Bruce S et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2000 Aug;43(2 Pt 1):223-8.

6. Loughry WJ et al. J Wildl Dis. 2009 Jan;45(1):144-52.

7. FDo H. Florida charts: Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy). Health FDo. 2019. https://www.flhealthcharts.gov/ChartsReports/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=NonVitalIndNoGrpCounts.DataViewer&cid=174.

8. Maymone MBC et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020 Jul;83(1):1-14.

9. Scollard DM et al. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Apr;19(2):338-81.

10. Domozych R et al. JAAD Case Rep. 2016 May 12;2(3):189-92.




 

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

Pharmacies are running out of the antibiotics used to treat serious infections in children. This leaves parents and doctors frustrated and scared.

After weeks of overcrowded waiting rooms, extended office hours, and countless telephone calls during the viral respiratory surge, pediatricians are now facing a new challenge: an ever-growing list of medication shortages, including many of the most commonly used antibiotics.

These shortages primarily affect liquid formulations, so children – and the pediatricians’ offices and pharmacies serving them – are disproportionately impacted. Though there are multiple factors contributing, antibiotic overuse for viral infections during the surge has undoubtedly catalyzed the current crisis. It can be scary for parents to watch a child miserable with fever, which is why parents and pediatricians look for a quick fix in antibiotics, but unnecessary prescriptions that contribute to ongoing shortages should be avoided. We, as practicing pediatricians, think that this is a moment for reflection on when and why we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotic overuse may have led us into this shortage, better antibiotic stewardship may just lead us out of it.

Since amoxicillin was approved for medical use in 1974, it has been one of the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children. It is particularly well-suited for use in children because it treats common pediatric infections such as ear infections, strep throat, and pneumonia. These factors, along with its low cost and bubblegum flavor, make it no surprise that amoxicillin was consistently one of the top 25 medications prescribed in the United States between 2013 and 2019, with over 25 million prescriptions annually.

Amoxicillin remains the best first-line treatment option for the most common bacterial respiratory tract infections in children. With liquid formulations scarce, pediatricians, parents, and pharmacists are getting creative with crushed tablets or sprinkling capsules when possible.

However, without liquid amoxicillin readily available in our pediatric arsenal, we have recently had to turn to antibiotics with higher costs and more side effects. These broad-spectrum antibiotics target a more extensive range of bacteria and are rarely necessary for common pediatric infections. Further, their use risks increasing the already dire problem of antibiotic resistance, which causes more than 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. And perhaps most importantly, broader spectrum antibiotics aren’t better than amoxicillin for the treatment of respiratory tract infections; they are sometimes worse.

The urge to turn to antibiotics as a potential cure for childhood illnesses is an understandable one for parents and clinicians alike. A common refrain in pediatrician offices is, “Isn’t there anything we can give them?” as parents look for respite in a long viral season. As viruses continue to surge, it is helpful to remember that children will get 8 to 10 viral infections per year, with most of those occurring in the fall and winter. When parents report that their child is always sick, they aren’t far off.

Most of these infections will be cured by a child’s own immune system rather than our medications. For example, in children older than 2 years, studies have demonstrated that waiting about 2 days to start antibiotics after an ear infection is diagnosed is just as effective as starting the antibiotics right away. As tempting as it is to ask for antibiotics early, that prescription may only worsen the situation if it is a virus. Instead, pediatricians can offer parents support in treating their children at home with humidifiers, pain/fever relievers when appropriate, honey in children over 12 months, and hydration.

This drug shortage is a pivotal moment for parents and clinicians to reconsider how and when we use antibiotics during viral season. Though antibiotics may be one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century, it is how we use them now that will determine our health in the century to come.

Dr. Lockwood is Associate Professor, department of pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Dr. Same is Assistant Professor, department of clinical pediatrics, at the University of Pennsylvania. Neither reported any conflicts of interest.

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

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

While it’s well known that COVID-19 vaccines are less effective in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who take immunity-lowering drugs, a new study offers fresh insight into what’s happening inside the body. In these patients, the vaccines often don’t boost B cells, which produce antibodies, but they do strengthen T cells, potentially providing crucial protection against severe illness and death.

These findings don’t reveal whether the T-cell boost actually provides extra protection against COVID-19. Still, the study suggests that patients with CLL should be vaccinated no matter which medications they’re taking, coauthor and hematologist/oncologist Clemens-Martin Wendtner, MD, of the Munich (Germany) Clinic, said in an interview.

“Do not defer or pause treatment,” said Dr. Wendtner, whose study was published in Blood Advances.

Patients with CLL appear to have among the weakest responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among people with various types of blood cancer. A meta-analysis published in 2022 found that seropositivity rates following vaccination were just 51% in patients with CLL, compared with 80%-90% in those with acute leukemia and 76%-80% of those with myeloma.

“Usually, the response rate to vaccination among the nonimmunocompromised would be 95%,” Dr. Wendtner said.

Research has also suggested that patients treated with B-cell pathway inhibitors and anti-CD20 antibodies are especially likely to have poorer responses to COVID-19 vaccines, no surprise considering that their job is to dampen the immune system. But there’s an unanswered question, according to Dr. Wendtner: Does “just measuring B-cell response tell us everything about the immune response?”

The new prospective, single-institution study aims to answer that question in patients who each received two types of vaccines. Researchers compared peripheral blood mononuclear cell transcriptional response with antibody and T-cell response rates in 15 patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma following vaccination with both the Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines.

The average antibody response was limited. “Overall, 7/15 of patients failed to mount a humoral response even after three-dose vaccination,” the researchers reported. All of the patients were “heavily pretreated” with CLL medications such as venetoclax, an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody.

By contrast, the T-cell response was much stronger: 80% of patients (12/15) had a robust response, a number that grew to 90% (14/15) after a booster. This response is “almost ideal” considering that the response in a nonimmunocompromised person would be about 99%, Dr. Wendtner said.

The study also revealed that vaccine responses were weaker in patients who took a combination of a Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor and venetoclax within a year.

Four patients developed COVID-19 infections with the Omicron variant about 6 months after vaccination. All had mild symptoms. A lone patient had a history of COVID-19 infection prior to vaccination.

The researchers noted that the study had several limitations, including its small size, its reliance on a single institution, and the differences in treatments and vaccination protocols among the patient population.

Broadly speaking, the study showed that “a vaccine is not in vain” in patients with CLL, “although the doctor might not detect an antibody response,” Dr. Wendtner said. He added that mixing vaccine types should provide more protection. Start with a viral vector vaccine followed by an mRNA vaccine or vice versa, he suggested.

In an interview, infectious disease physician Joshua A. Hill, MD, from Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, who wasn’t involved with the study, said it makes “important and interesting observations to reinforce other studies with similar findings.”

Specifically, Dr. Hill said, “despite the absence of a robust antibody response some of these patients who are on active treatment, patients can still generate robust cellular immune responses in the form of T-cell immunity. Our understanding is that having T cell immunity will provide important additional protection for developing severe disease, although is less easily tested.”

As for the best vaccination strategies, Dr. Hill said “patients should get vaccinated as soon as they are eligible, according to standard guidelines. If patients have not yet started therapy, they should get their indicated vaccines before starting treatment whenever possible.”

The German study was funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and the Bavarian State Ministry of Science and Art. Dr. Wendtner disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca and BioNTech, and another author disclosed consultant fees from AstraZeneca. The other authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Hill disclosed consultant fees from Moderna, Pfizer, and Gilead.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

“Congratulations on the baby. You look great!” I enthusiastically proclaimed to my classmate. It was the start of the fall semester of my sophomore year of college.

At my small women’s college, the previous semester’s gossip had been about our classmate, S*. She had gone from being very thin to noticeably gaining a lot of weight in a few months. The rumors were that S was pregnant and gave birth over summer break. As a busy biology premed major, this was my first time hearing the news. So when I saw her standing in the hallway, back to her previous weight, I was excited for her.

In true extravert fashion, I commented on the baby and her new size. But no sooner had the words left my mouth than I regretted them.

The hall grew awkwardly silent as S’s face flushed and she asked, “Excuse me?!” Instantly I knew that the rumors weren’t true.

Thankfully, at that moment, the classroom opened and we walked in. Whew! After class, S asked if we could talk. She explained that she had a thyroid tumor and struggled to adjust to the treatments, which caused her weight fluctuations. She had never been pregnant.

My awkward statement had been the first time anyone on campus had directly mentioned her weight, though she suspected that people were talking about her. We became fast friends after this rocky beginning. Although we lost touch after college, S taught me an invaluable lesson about making assumptions about people’s weight: Ask before you assume.

Now, years later, as an internist and obesity specialist, this lesson continues to be reinforced daily.

In daily life, comments about weight can be perceived as rude. In the clinical setting, however, assumptions about weight are a form of weight bias. Weight bias can lead to weight stigma and even be dangerous to health care.

Let’s discuss the insidious influence of weight bias in health care through two commonly used phrases and then look at a few solutions to address weight bias in health care individually and systematically.
 

Common weight bias assumptions

“Great job, you lost weight!” In checking your patient’s vital signs, you notice that this patient with obesity has a significant weight change. You congratulate them upon entering the room. Unfortunately, their weight loss was a result of minimal eating after losing a loved one. This isn’t healthy weight loss. One of the adverse effects of weight bias is that it infers that weight loss is always a good thing, especially in people with larger bodies. This is a dangerous presumption. Let’s remember that the body favors fat storage, hence why “unintentional weight loss” is a recognized medical condition prompting evaluation. We have to be careful not to celebrate weight loss “at all costs,” such as fad diets that haven’t been shown to improve health outcomes.

Furthermore, patients who lose weight quickly (more than 4-8 lb/month) require closer follow-up and evaluation for secondary causes of weight loss. Patients may lose weight at a faster rate with the new antiobesity medications, but clinicians still should ensure that age-appropriate health maintenance screening is done and be vigilant for secondary causes of weight changes.

“Have you tried losing weight yet?” Three times. That’s how many times Chanté Burkett went to her doctor about her painful, enlarging firm stomach. She was advised to continue working on weight loss, which she did diligently. But Ms. Burkett’s abdomen kept growing and her concerns were dismissed. A visit to urgent care and a CT scan revealed that Ms. Burkett’s excess abdominal “fat” was a 13-lb mucinous cystadenoma. Sadly, cases like hers aren’t rare, isolated events. Weight bias can cause anchoring on one diagnosis, preventing consideration of other diagnostic possibilities. Even worse, anchoring will lead to the wrong intervention, such as prescribing weight loss for presumed increased adiposity instead of ordering the appropriate testing.

It’s also essential to recognize that, even if someone does have the disease of obesity, weight loss isn’t the solution to every medical concern. Even if weight loss is helpful, other, more pressing treatments may still be necessary. Telling a person with obesity who has an acute complaint to “just lose weight” is comparable to telling a patient with coronary artery disease who presents with an 80% vessel occlusion and chest pain to follow a low-fat diet. In both cases, you need to address the acute concern appropriately, then focus on the chronic treatment.
 

Ways to reduce clinical weight bias

How do you reduce clinical weight bias?

Ask, don’t assume. The information from the scale is simply data. Instead of judging it positively or negatively and creating a story, ask the patient. An unbiased way to approach the conversation is to say, “Great to see you. You seem [positive adjective of choice]. How have you been?” Wait until the vitals section to objectively discuss weight unless the patient offers the discussion earlier or their chief complaint lists a weight-related concern.

Order necessary tests to evaluate weight. Weight is the vital sign that people wear externally, so we feel that we can readily interpret it without any further assessment. However, resist the urge to interpret scale data without context. Keeping an open mind helps prevent anchoring and missing critical clues in the clinical history.

Address weight changes effectively. Sometimes there is an indication to prescribe weight loss as part of the treatment plan. However, remember that weight loss isn’t simply “calories in vs. calories out.” Obesity is a complex medical disease that requires a multimodal treatment approach. As clinicians, we have access to the most powerful tools for weight loss. Unfortunately, weight bias contributes to limited prescribing of metabolic medications (“antiobesity medications” or AOMs). In addition, systemic weight bias prevents insurance coverage of AOMs. The Treat and Reduce Obesity Act has been introduced into Congress to help improve life-transforming access to AOMs.

Acknowledge your bias. Our experiences make us all susceptible to bias. The Harvard Weight Implicit Association Test is free and a helpful way to assess your level of weight bias. I take it annually to ensure that I remain objective in my practice.

Addressing weight bias needs to extend beyond the individual level.

Systemically, health care needs to address the following:

Language. Use people-centered language. For example, “People aren’t obese. They have obesity.”

Accessibility. Health care settings must be comfortable and accessible for people of all sizes. Furthermore, improvements to access the services that comprehensive obesity care requires, such as AOMs, bariatric procedures and bariatric surgery, mental health care, nutrition, fitness specialists, health coaches, and more, are needed.

Education. Medical students and trainees have to learn the newest obesity science and know how to treat obesity effectively. Acknowledge and address biased tools. Recent data have shown that some of our screening tools, such as body mass index, have inherent bias. It’s time to focus on using improved diagnostic tools and personalized treatments.

We are at a pivotal time in our scientific understanding of body weight regulation and the disease of obesity. Clinical weight bias is primarily rooted in flawed science influenced by biased cultural norms and other forms of discrimination, such as racial and gender bias. We must move past assumptions to give our patients the optimal individualized care they need. So next time you observe a weight change, instead of commenting on their weight, say, “Great to see you! How have you been?”

S*: Initial has been changed to protect privacy.

Dr. Gonsahn-Bollie is an integrative obesity specialist focused on individualized solutions for emotional and biological overeating. Connect with her at www.embraceyouweightloss.com or on Instagram @embraceyoumd. Her bestselling book, “Embrace You: Your Guide to Transforming Weight Loss Misconceptions Into Lifelong Wellness”, was Healthline.com’s Best Overall Weight Loss Book of 2022 and one of Livestrong.com’s 8 Best Weight-Loss Books to Read in 2022. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix. The role of vaginal flora in persistent HPV has been brought into focus by research studies carried out over the past few years.

At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
 

Striking a balance

Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.

Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.

Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
 

Vaginosis and HPV

When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.

These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.

What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix. The role of vaginal flora in persistent HPV has been brought into focus by research studies carried out over the past few years.

At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
 

Striking a balance

Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.

Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.

Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
 

Vaginosis and HPV

When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.

These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.

What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Montrouge, France – Four in five women will be infected by one or more human papillomavirus (HPV) strains during their lifetimes. For most of these women, the HPV will be cleared from the body, but 5% of them will develop precancerous lesions in the cervix. The role of vaginal flora in persistent HPV has been brought into focus by research studies carried out over the past few years.

At a press conference ahead of the 46th meeting of the French Colposcopy and Cervical and Vaginal Diseases Society, Julia Maruani, MD, a medical gynecologist in Marseille, France, took the opportunity to discuss the importance of vaginal flora and the need to treat cases of bacterial vaginosis.
 

Striking a balance

Essential for reducing the risk of sexually transmitted infections, a healthy vaginal flora is made up of millions of microorganisms, mainly lactobacilli, as well as other bacteria (Gardnerella vaginalis, Atopobium vaginae, Prevotella, streptococcus, gonococcus), HPV, and fungi.

Lactobacilli produce lactic acid, which reduces the vagina’s pH, as well as hydrogen peroxide, which is toxic to the other bacteria.

Different factors, such as alcohol, a diet rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids and sugar, and especially smoking, can lead to an imbalance of the bacteria in the vaginal flora and thus result in vaginosis. What occurs is an abnormal multiplication of different types of anaerobic bacteria that are normally present in much lower numbers. There is a relative reduction in lactobacilli, which results in an increased vaginal pH, a greater risk of contracting an STI, and reduced clearance of the HPV infection. “Women who smoke probably experience persistent HPV infections due to an imbalance in vaginal flora,” said Dr. Maruani.
 

Vaginosis and HPV

When there are fewer lactobacilli than there should be, these bacteria can no longer protect the vaginal mucosa, which is disrupted by other bacteria. “HPV then has access to the basal cells,” said Dr. Maruani, acknowledging that the relationship between bacterial vaginosis and persistent HPV infections has been the subject of numerous research studies over the past decade or so. “For years, I would see this same link in my patients. Those with persistent vaginosis were also the ones with persistent HPV. And I’m not the only one to notice this. Studies have also been carried out investigating this exact correlation,” she added.

These studies have shown that HPV infections persist in cases of vaginosis, resulting in the appearance of epithelial lesions. Additionally, the lesions are more severe when dysbiosis is more severe.

What about probiotics? Can they treat dysbiosis and an HPV infection at the same time? “Probiotics work very well for vaginosis, provided they are used for a long time. We know that they lessen HPV infections and low-grade lesions,” said Dr. Maruani, although no randomized studies support this conclusion. “It’s not a one size fits all. We aren’t about to treat patients with precancerous lesions with probiotics.” There are currently no data concerning the efficacy of probiotics on high-grade lesions. These days, Dr. Maruani has been thinking about a new issue: the benefit of diagnosing cases of asymptomatic vaginosis – because treating them would reduce the risk of persistent HPV infection.

This article was translated from the Medscape French edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.

ILAs are common. Depending on population characteristics, ILAs occur at a prevalence of up to 10%. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.

Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine  provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.

This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.

The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.

One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.

In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.

ILAs are common. Depending on population characteristics, ILAs occur at a prevalence of up to 10%. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.

Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine  provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.

This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.

The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.

One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.

In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians working within the U.S. health care system order CTs; it’s just what we do, and we do it a lot. This isn’t necessarily bad, but an inevitable byproduct is the pandemic of incidental findings. One underrecognized but frequent “incidentaloma” on CT is an interstitial lung abnormality (ILA). The Fleischner Society defines an ILA as honeycombing, traction bronchiectasis, parenchymal distortions, and reticular abnormalities that take up more than 5% of a particular lung zone in a patient without a clinical diagnosis of interstitial lung disease (ILD). In essence, ILAs are both a radiographic and a clinical diagnosis.

ILAs are common. Depending on population characteristics, ILAs occur at a prevalence of up to 10%. With the advent of lung cancer screening and advances in CT technology, we’re now inundated with detailed images of lung parenchyma in older smokers who are at high risk for respiratory disease. The resulting opportunity for early identification of disease is as exciting as the risk for overdiagnosis, excessive testing, and unnecessary treatment is frightening. Early diagnosis remains critical for preventing irreversible respiratory disease. But as with any disease process, when we attempt to detect pathology before it has become apparent, the line between benign change and true abnormality is blurred.

Such is the challenge with ILAs. Past studies have shown an association between ILAs and morbidity and mortality, but considerable uncertainty persists over what the ILAs represent and how they should be managed. A recent study published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine  provides some clarity. The authors used data from the COPDGene cohort to correlate ILAs with lung testing, and functional and respiratory outcomes. As with other studies, they found that approximately 10% of the COPDGene patients that they examined had ILAs on CT and half of those met their criteria for “suspected ILD.” Suspected ILD was defined radiographically (definite fibrosis) and on lung function testing (abnormal forced vital capacity [FVC] or diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide [DLCO]). The patients with suspected ILD had worse clinical outcomes; being a Black individual, pack-years of smoking, and GOLD stage on spirometry were independently associated with suspected ILD.

This type of study is urgently needed. Given their high prevalence, we’re in dire need of a valid model for risk stratifying ILAs. The authors of this study have moved us closer, but we’ve still got a long way to go. The study has significant limitations. First, although patients with previous documentation of ILD were excluded from COPDGene, no formal, multidisciplinary assessment was performed; therefore, some of the patients labeled as having ILA probably had diagnosable ILD. Their possible inclusion would falsely increase the prevalence of clinically important ILAs and exaggerate the relationship between ILAs and clinical outcomes.

The rhetorical gymnastics performed throughout the paper are necessary yet problematic. “Suspected ILD” is not a recognized diagnosis and the definition is therefore arbitrary. To the extent that “suspected ILD” requires an abnormality on spirometry or DLCO, one could argue it’s the lung function changes and not the radiographic findings that are driving the differences. In fact, “suspected ILD” was defined by lung function more often than radiographic criteria (16% had definite fibrosis on CT, 57% had an abnormal FVC, and 67% had an abnormal DLCO). Patients with ILAs without suspected ILD had outcomes that weren’t statistically different from those with no ILAs at all, implying that the lung testing and not the ILA is the better discriminator. Regardless, this leads us back to where we started before this paper was published: ILAs require lung function testing and referral to a pulmonologist for proper risk stratification. An accompanying editorial highlights these and other limitations.

One particular problem that isn’t addressed by the authors or the editorial is their findings on race. The authors concluded that Black persons with ILAs are more likely to have “suspected ILD.” However, their definition suffers from an insidious form of incorporation bias generated by the way they handled their DLCO reference values. The Global Lung Function Initiative equations they used were derived exclusively from White persons. In accordance with the recent American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (ATS/ERS) statement on lung testing, the authors did not apply a fixed correction factor to adjust for race. Without such an adjustment, Black persons would be biased toward having lower percent predicted values for DLCO. In short, self-identified Black individuals would be more likely to have a predicted DLCO of less than 70% and to therefore meet criteria for “suspected ILD.” The resulting effects on biologic plausibility, causal inference, and the strength of the relationship between “suspected ILD” and clinical outcomes will vary by whether the association between race and lung function is considered a product of inherent biologic variability or a result of external (socioeconomic and environmental) effects.

In summary, ILAs remain a challenge for radiologists, primary care providers, pulmonologists, and anyone else who orders a CT of the lungs. Despite its limitations, I believe the recently published paper pushes us forward conceptually. Perhaps its most important contribution is showing that 50% of ILAs are clinically insignificant by definition. This offers further reassurance that a subset of ILAs can be dismissed. Now, all we need is an easy, cost-effective, and efficient way to identify this subset.
 

Dr. Holley is professor of medicine at Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, Md., and a pulmonary/sleep and critical care medicine physician at MedStar Washington Hospital Center in Washington. He covers a wide range of topics in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. He disclosed ties to Metapharm Inc., CHEST College, and WebMD. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Last week, a number of patients emailed me regarding their concerns about this phenomenon known as Ozempic face. I went on to read about what this meant. I live in Los Angeles, where most people appear to be on semaglutide (Ozempic). It’s the phenomenon where people lose weight relatively rapidly, making their faces thin out. Then what happens, apparently, is they look older because their face is more wrinkled and baggier. They might have to have further plastic surgery. I say that with slight sarcasm because of where I live.

I want to talk about what I think about this, living here where there’s a great pressure to prescribe semaglutide off label, and what I think about it for my patients with diabetes.

Historically, we haven’t had much in terms of effective medication for treating obesity, and frankly, now we do. We now have agents that are effective, that have relatively few side effects, and that have become part of what’s out there. People now want to use these agents, semaglutide, and there’s been a great need for these agents.

The problem, however, is twofold. One, as we all know, is that it has basically caused a shortage of medication for treating our patients who actually have type 2 diabetes and really need these medications to manage their disease. Then we have people who want these medications who can’t pay for them. Insurance doesn’t cover obesity medications, which is problematic and actually quite frustrating for people who, I think, really would benefit from using these medications.

What I tell people, frankly, is that until I have enough supply for my patients with type 2 diabetes, who need these agents to control their blood sugars, I want to keep this class of drugs available to them. I also hope we’re able to expand it more and more with improving insurance coverage – and that’s a big if, if you ask me – both for people who have prediabetes and for patients who are overweight and obese, because I think it’s really hard for people to lose weight.

It’s frustrating, and for many people, being overweight and obese causes all sorts of other health issues, not only diabetes. I believe that these drugs are both safe and effective and should be more available. I do think we need to be careful in terms of who we prescribe them to, at least at the moment. Hopefully, we’ll be able to expand their use.

Anything that can encourage our population to lose weight and maintain that weight loss is very important. We need to couple weight loss medications with lifestyle interventions. I think people can out-eat any medication; therefore, it’s very important to encourage our patients to eat better, to exercise more, and to do all the other things they need to do to reduce their risks for other comorbidities.

I am incredibly happy to have these newer agents on the market. I tell my patients – at least those who have diabetes – that they have to accept looking a little bit too thin for the benefits that we can see in using these medications.

Thank you.

Dr. Peters is professor of medicine at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and director of the USC clinical diabetes programs. She has published more than 200 articles, reviews, and abstracts, and three books, on diabetes, and has been an investigator for more than 40 research studies. She has spoken internationally at over 400 programs and serves on many committees of several professional organizations. She has ties with Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca Becton Dickinson, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Dexcom, Eli Lilly, Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Livongo, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Omada Health, OptumHealth, Sanofi, and Zafgen. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.